learn$ave Project: Final ReportTable 6.7Impacts on Incidence of Hardship <strong>and</strong> Life Satisfaction Level (Percentage Points or Average), at 18, 40 <strong>and</strong> 54 Months, AllParticipants – AdjustedControl Group Incidenceor MeanImpact of MatchedSaving CreditsImpact of Serviceswhen Offeredwith Credits ∑Combined Impactof Credits +ServicesAt 18 MonthsHardship (in the last 12 Months)% who had difficulty meeting expenses 33.5 -1.3 -1.6 -2.9% who had to borrow to meet needs 25.3 -1.5 0.3 -1.2% who used a foodbank 5.8 0.8 0.9 1.7% who declared bankruptcy 0.9 -0.7* 0.3 -0.4% who had overdue bills at month 40 3.8 -0.5 0.2 -0.3% who had at least one of above items 41.3 -1.3 -0.2 -1.4Average number of hardship items 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0At 40 MonthsHardship (in the last 12 Months)% who had difficulty meeting expenses 23.9 2.1 -2.4 -0.3% who had to borrow to meet needs 17.1 4.4** -3.3* 1.1% who used a foodbank 5.6 -2.1* 1.6 -0.6% who declared bankruptcy 0.7 0.7 -1.1** -0.4% who had overdue bills at month 40 4.2 -1.3 1.7* 0.4% who had at least one of above items 31.9 2.5 -2.8 -0.3Average number of hardship items 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0At 54 MonthsHardship (in the last 12 Months)% who had difficulty meeting expenses 18.4 -1.6 2.1 0.5% who had to borrow to meet needs 14.2 0.5 -1.0 -0.5% who used a foodbank 3.2 -0.2 0.4 0.2% who declared bankruptcy 0.8 0.7 -0.3 0.4% who had overdue bills at month 40 1.9 -0.1 -0.4 -0.5% who had at least one of above items 23.8 -0.4 1.8 1.4Average number of hardship items 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0Life Satisfaction (1-10 scale; 10 highest)% rating life satisfaction 10 3.4 3.6 1.8 5.4**% rating life satisfaction 9 or 10 13.5 7.1* 1.1 8.2**% rating life satisfaction 8, 9 or 10 44.5 4.2 -0.3 3.9Source: Calculations from 18-month, 40-month <strong>and</strong> 54-month survey data.Note: Overall sample sizes for the control, learn$ave-only <strong>and</strong> learn$ave-plus groups are 568, 842 <strong>and</strong> 859, respectively for the 54-month survey;607, 833 <strong>and</strong> 814, for the 40-month survey; <strong>and</strong> 748, 920 <strong>and</strong> 915 for the 18-month survey.Sample sizes vary for individual measures because of missing values.Two-tailed t-tests were applied to impacts estimated by regression-adjusted differences in outcomes between research (program <strong>and</strong> control)groups.Statistical significance levels are indicated as * = 10 per cent; ** = 5 per cent; *** = 1 per cent.Rounding may cause slight discrepancies in sums <strong>and</strong> differences.∑The figures in this column show the extra impact of the financial management training <strong>and</strong> enhanced case management services whengiven to those eligible to receive matched credits. It does not represent the impact of those services alone for those not eligible to receive thematched saving credit; it represents the impact of the services when provided with the credits.Life Satisfaction question not asked in the 18- <strong>and</strong> 40-month surveys.76 | Chapter 6 <strong>Social</strong> <strong>Research</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Demonstration</strong> <strong>Corp</strong>oration
learn$ave Project: Final Reportmeasure of hardship at month 54 (last row of first panelof Table 6.7).As a final note, learn$ave had a positive impact onlife satisfaction. Participants were asked at 54 monthsto summarize how satisfied they were with life usinga 10-point scale. 5 Matched credits alone increased thepercentage replying in top two categories by 7.1 percentagepoints (Table 6.7). Matched credits combined serviceshad a slightly higher impact. This would reinforce theconclusion that participants did not undergo hardship.In summaryThe experimental results present in this chapterdemonstrated that many participants in the control groupwere able to acquire substantial assets without specialincentives, financial management training or assistancefrom caseworkers <strong>and</strong> that learn$ave did not produce anysignificant increase in net worth for program participants.While learn$ave program groups increased their financialassets at the beginning of the project, these increasesdisappeared at the end of the learn$ave saving period.The lesson for policy-makers is that a matched savingsincentive may increase financial assets but only whilethe credits are available <strong>and</strong> may not, depending onthe targeted asset investment (education, housing, orretirement income), generate measurable increases in networth over the medium-term.moderately increased budgeting at 54 months but thematched credits alone did not have an effect on budgeting.Budgeting <strong>and</strong> financial goal-setting have the potential,but not the guarantee, to free up financial resources thatmight be used for increased saving <strong>and</strong> asset accumulationduring the program <strong>and</strong>, potentially, long afterwards.Similar effects were observed in the degree to whichthe program encouraged participants to increase theirfinancial inclusion above <strong>and</strong> beyond holding a depositaccount.The results from Chapter 5 suggest that low-incomeparticipants will make use of an IDA when offered butthat participants will show different patterns in thespeed <strong>and</strong> degree to which they accumulate <strong>and</strong> use thematched credits. The results from the current chaptersuggest that participants did not borrow to save <strong>and</strong>did not endure hardship to accumulate their learn$avesavings.The learn$ave IDA program was designed mainly asa mechanism to encourage saving for the purpose ofinvesting in adult learning — not as a mechanism toencourage saving for the sake of saving itself. The nextchapter presents the results on adult learning outcomes(through formal education <strong>and</strong> small business) that arethe real <strong>and</strong> best test of the program.However, learn$ave did have some effects on self<strong>report</strong>edsavings behaviours after participants exitedthe program. At 54 months, both matched credits, alone<strong>and</strong> combined with services, modestly increased thepercentage of participants who <strong>report</strong>ed saving at all inthe past year. When the services were available alongsidethe matched credits, participants were more likely to<strong>report</strong> saving regularly in the past year. This effect wasmore short-lived for the lowest income participants butdid endure for other participants. These results augurwell for future saving. Indeed, learn$ave participantswere more likely to say they intended to save regularly foreducation <strong>and</strong> training in the future. Whether or not thoseintentions will be realized is a matter of conjecture.Some impacts on budgeting <strong>and</strong> financial goal settingwere observed. In every period of the study, matchedcredits, alone <strong>and</strong> in combination with services, modestlyincreased the percentage of participants who setfinancial goals. Matched credits combined with services5 Note that this question was added late in the 54-month survey, with about one-third ofparticipants left to respond. However, respondents to this question were no different fromthose who were not given this question, nor were the research groups different from eachother among respondents to this question.<strong>Social</strong> <strong>Research</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Demonstration</strong> <strong>Corp</strong>oration Chapter 6 | 77
Change language