Full report. - Social Research and Demonstration Corp

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 and 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$ave saving period.The lesson for policy-makers is that a matched savingsincentive may increase financial assets but only whilethe credits are available and may not, depending onthe targeted asset investment (education, housing, orretirement income), generate measurable increases in networth over the medium-term.moderately increased budgeting at 54 months but thematched credits alone did not have an effect on budgeting.Budgeting and financial goal-setting have the potential,but not the guarantee, to free up financial resources thatmight be used for increased saving and asset accumulationduring the program and, potentially, long afterwards.Similar effects were observed in the degree to whichthe program encouraged participants to increase theirfinancial inclusion above and beyond holding a depositaccount.The results from Chapter 5 suggest that low-incomeparticipants will make use of an IDA when offered butthat participants will show different patterns in thespeed and degree to which they accumulate and use thematched credits. The results from the current chaptersuggest that participants did not borrow to save anddid not endure hardship to accumulate their learn$avesavings.The learn$ave IDA program was designed mainly asa mechanism to encourage saving for the purpose ofinvesting in adult learning — not as a mechanism toencourage saving for the sake of saving itself. The nextchapter presents the results on adult learning outcomes(through formal education and small business) that arethe real and best test of the program.However, learn$ave did have some effects on selfreportedsavings behaviours after participants exitedthe program. At 54 months, both matched credits, aloneand combined with services, modestly increased thepercentage of participants who reported saving at all inthe past year. When the services were available alongsidethe matched credits, participants were more likely toreport 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 and training in the future. Whether or not thoseintentions will be realized is a matter of conjecture.Some impacts on budgeting and financial goal settingwere observed. In every period of the study, matchedcredits, alone and 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.Social Research and Demonstration Corporation Chapter 6 | 77