Full report. - Social Research and Demonstration Corp

learn$ave Project: Final Reportsustainable, effective and mutually rewarding models forservice delivery.SEDI’s role: The national coordinatorIt is important to consider the perspective and role ofthe operational lead in learn$ave, namely Social andEnterprise Development Innovations. SEDI had firstproposed a pilot of IDAs to the federal funder (although,as noted earlier, the final design differed from the originalproposal), consulted with stakeholders to build supportfor the project, recruited delivery partners in the 10selected communities, and coordinated operationsamong the delivery, financial and research partners. Thefunding agreement with HRSDC for the implementationof the project was also under SEDI’s responsibility.As such, SEDI also took on the role of negotiating andmonitoring sub-contracts with the delivery agencies (andeven took over responsibilities in actual delivery whensome partners were unable to), and directing funds todelivery partners for project costs and to third partiesfor the matched credits as part of the savings cash outprocess. Other studies of the voluntary sector concludedthat organizations face significant and rising costs andchallenges in meeting funder accountability and reportingchallenges. 6 In this light, SEDI’s administrative andreporting function was more complex (as both a fundingrecipient and provider) and should be acknowledged.This may have alleviated some of the administrativeburden on the delivery partners, freeing them to investmore staff time and resources in service deliverywithin the project. However, given the time-consumingadministrative processes used (for example, to verify asingle cash-out), it is not clear whether there was any realtransfer of organizational responsibilities or instead justa higher level of administrative demand across all projectorganizations.SEDI also played a role in offering technical assistance,staff training, ongoing advice to project staff and otherinvestments in the organizational capacity of the deliverypartners. For example, SEDI offered suggestions to thedelivery agencies about key messages for project outreachand marketing activities, approved advertisementsand promoted the sharing of information among the sites.SEDI encouraged and facilitated opportunities for thesites to share effective service delivery practices throughemail, on-line bulletin boards, teleconferences, participationin conferences, bi-annual meetings of project stafffrom across delivery sites, and regular meetings ofrepresentatives from the primary sites.6 See for example Hall, Andrukow, Barr, Brock, de Wit, Embuldeniya, Jolin, Lasby, Lévesque,Malinsky, Stowe, and Vaillancourt. (2003) and Lara-Cinisomo and Steinberg (2006). Thelatter estimated the annual costs of funder-directed compliance activities to be on average 11per cent of total organizational budgets.SEDI staff reported that they were guided in part bythe organization’s previous role in the delivery of selfemploymentservices to Employment Insurance clients inthe Toronto area using what they described as a “coordinatormodel.” SEDI also drew heavily on the experienceand expertise of the U.S. Corporation for EnterpriseDevelopment, a non-profit organization that had played arole similar to SEDI’s in the ADD project.For program models like learn$ave with little or nolocal track record and where front-line agencies mayneed significant and on-going investments in capacity,the coordinator model may offer certain benefits inthe implementation. As the asset-building field gainsmaturity and organizations develop internal expertise,the value-added of the coordinator function may changeover time. However, given the still nascent quality of IDApractice in Canada and the federal government’s desireto depend on third-party delivery, there is likely to becontinuing need for organizational capacity building,technical advice, staff training and other information suchas that which was provided by SEDI if new IDA projectsare launched. Given SEDI’s role in initiating the learn$aveproject, the organization may also continue to be a sourceof new ideas for exploration in asset-building practice andthe related field of financial literacy. Whether and howthe so-called coordinator role can be reconciled with aclear pressure on the field to offer more efficient programmodels, however, is unclear.Lessons learned• In looking for ways to gain efficiency by streamlining IDAdelivery models, consideration should be given to moreeffectively targeting the high-touch and high-cost serviceswhere they matter most. Based on the evidence fromlearn$ave, help in navigating administrative processesand completing forms appears to have made the mostdifference to participants and there was little evidence ofdemand for other forms of enhanced case managementsuch as referrals to other services or personalizedcounselling.• Organizational missions matter and must be compatiblewith the goals of IDA or similar programs. Successfulimplementation requires that organizations areable to identify at least some overlap between theirorganizational priorities and the stated objectivesof the program. At the time learn$ave was delivered,delivery organizations were most able to identify withthe financial training component rather than the savingsor adult education elements. It may matter less whichprogram component organizations embrace and morethat they do so at all. Given the labour-intensive and longtermnature of the project, the fit with the organizationalSocial Research and Demonstration Corporation Chapter 4 | 45