Full report. - Social Research and Demonstration Corp

learn$ave Project: Final Reporta greater role in predicting savings outcomes than dofinancial characteristics at baseline.Dissaving patternsDuring the saving period, participants had full access totheir own deposits in their learn$ave account and couldwithdraw their own funds at any time and for any reason,while forfeiting a proportional amount of matched creditsif it was done for non-accredited purposes. In fact, morethan a quarter of participants “dissaved,” that is, theywithdrew their own funds for a purpose other thaneligible goals in the project.The incidence of dissaving was calculated by comparingthe highest value of savings eligible for matched creditsat any time during the saving period with the value ofsavings eligible for matched credits at the end of theprogram. If participants savings declined from theirhighest or “peak” level this would reflect an un-matchedwithdrawal or dissaving. The occurrence of dissavingis not unusual in a savings instrument and even widelyavailable registered instruments such as RegisteredRetirement Savings Plans may dissuade dissaving butshow patterns suggesting it is not infrequent. Dissaving isalso not necessarily negative. Because money is fungible,learn$ave participants had to make decisions each monthabout how much to deposit into their learn$ave accountand dissaving may have been a very rational attempt toreallocate money across the learn$ave and other financialcommitments.Just as baseline financial characteristics did not neatlypredict less than maximum or “early” saving, neither didthey predict dissaving. As illustrated in Figure 5.5, thosewith lower incomes at baseline, those who reporteddifficulties in paying bills at baseline and those who werenot working when they entered the project were not morelikely to dissave.As noted, dissaving may have been used as a strategyfor participants to reallocate money because of a changein circumstances from one month to the next. But dissavingmay also have reflected changes in what participantsfelt they needed to save to afford (with matched credits)their planned investment in adult learning. For example,if a participant changed his or her goal from course A tocourse B costing less, then withdrawing the excess fundsfrom the learn$ave account would make sense to avoidholding up funds in the learn$ave account that would notbe used for a matched withdrawal and could be used inother ways. To differentiate between these two motivesfor dissaving, the incidence of dissaving was comparedacross participants based on their total savings. Theseresults are presented at Figure 5.6.Dissaving was most common among participants whosaved less than the maximum, and specifically thosewith savings of $120 to $999. Interestingly, participantswho were unsuccessful savers, i.e., those with less than$120 in net learn$ave savings were not as likely to drawdown their learn$ave account and dissave. This findingsuggests that not only were these participants very lowsavers, they were largely inactive or even disengagedaccountholders.Dissaving was even less common among participantswho reached the maximum savings during the savingperiod and very uncommon among the subset who werethe “early savers” who reached the maximum quickly. Thissuggests that participants made unmatched withdrawalsfrom their account for reasons other than changing theirminds about how much money they wanted to invest inadult education. Most likely then is that dissaving wasdone to manage changes in circumstance and rebalancefinancial commitments. However, this hypothesis shouldpredict that those with the lowest incomes and the lowestsavings were more likely to dissave, which is not consistentwith the findings either (figures 5.5 and 5.6).Interaction of saving and dissaving patternsWe suggest that the combined savings and dissavingresults reveal at least five different patterns in the useof the learn$ave account, offering more nuance than ouroriginal three typologies using savings data alone.As summarized in Table 5.4, once both saving anddissaving are considered, there was some diversity inthe observable patterns among participants in learn$ave.“Unsuccessful” savers, who saved little if anything, didnot qualify for even the first dollar of matched credits andsaw little, if any, real financial benefit from the project.But it is also unclear if their financial circumstancesprevented them from saving more since they neitherwithdrew funds for non-project purposes nor did theyhave greater financial constraints at the time they enteredthe project. It is likely that they lost interest in the projectshortly after enrolling and then paid little attention totheir learn$ave account for either deposits or withdrawals.Their behaviour would suggest they essentiallydropped out of the project. Nevertheless, for the purposeof the analysis, they remain in the research sample as ourresearch design uses an “intent to treat” model.“Struggling” and “moderate” savers are distinguishablefrom each other only in terms of the amounts finallysaved and the likelihood that withdrawals for purposesoutside the project were made during the saving period.Both groups showed similar baseline characteristics aspredominantly Canadian-born and having low levels of52 | Chapter 5 Social Research and Demonstration Corporation