Human Resources and Skills Development Canada
Symbol of the Government of Canada

Human Resources and Skills Development Canada

www.hrsdc.gc.ca

Evaluation of the Guaranteed Income Supplement Take-up Measures and Outreach - February 2010

Executive Summary

Introduction

This report presents the findings of the evaluation of the Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) Take-up Measures and Outreach, which assesses the measures undertaken by Human Resources and Skills Development Canada (HRSDC) and Service Canada (SC) since 2002 to increase take-up of the GIS. The objective of the study is to examine the profile of eligible non-recipients, the barriers to GIS take-up, the appropriateness of the design of HRSDC/SC activities, given these barriers, and the results of activities to increase GIS take-up. The information contained in this report is drawn from five key lines of evidence undertaken between January and August 2008, Footnote 1 including a document review, literature review, international study, key informant interviews, and group discussions.

Background of GIS Take-up

The GIS is an additional monthly benefit payable to persons receiving the Old Age Security (OAS) pension, who have little or no other income. In early 2001, an external study found that only 15% of seniors who used food banks were getting the GIS, while nearly all were eligible for it. In December 2001, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities published a report titled The Guaranteed Income Supplement: The Duty to Reach All. In that report, the Committee recommended that Human Resources Development Canada (HRDC), the predecessor to HRSDC, and the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (CCRA) – predecessor of the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) – continue to work together to identify and directly contact elderly persons who might be eligible for the GIS.

Since 2002, HRSDC and SC (and their predecessors) have taken measures to increase the GIS take-up rate among potentially eligible seniors, including:

  • The inclusion of GIS information with OAS T4 slips;
  • National ad campaign to increase awareness of GIS benefits;
  • Information letters sent by CRA to individuals not receiving OAS/GIS;
  • Selective mailings of pre-printed application forms to potentially eligible non-recipients, identified using CRA tax information;
  • Simplification of GIS application forms;
  • Establishment of a "Lifetime List" for GIS benefits which further enables automatic renewal of GIS benefits for tax filers;
  • Continuing discussions with other government departments, municipal governments and community service providers, to identify opportunities for partnership to increase take-up; and
  • Enhancement of Service Canada channels (web, phone, in-person)

HRSDC initially committed itself to two evaluations regarding GIS. The first was to focus entirely on the foregoing eight initiatives to improve overall take-up. The second evaluation was to focus on "outreach", that is, on measures targeted toward the vulnerable groups/communities of non-recipients. As the take-up evaluation proceeded, it became clear that "outreach" measures and the more general "take-up" measures were in fact complementary to each other. The objectives of the take-up evaluation were expanded to include outreach. It is this expanded evaluation that is documented in the current report. When appropriate, results or observations that are related to vulnerable groups/communities of non-recipients are highlighted and are presented as outreach-related. 

Evaluation Methodology and Limitations

The evaluation incorporates multiple lines of evidence and complementary research methods as a means to enhance the reliability of the information collected. The following research methods, undertaken between January and August 2008, were used to gather qualitative and quantitative data for the evaluation:

  • document review;
  • literature review;
  • international study;
  • key informant interviews; and
  • group discussions.

There are limitations to the evaluation methodologies:

  • Representativeness of data collected – While an effort was made to ensure geographic representation, the information gathered from interviews and group discussions was not gathered on a statistically representative basis. As well, the information gathered during group discussions was based on a relatively small number of participants. Therefore it is not possible to make generalizations about GIS take-up based only on these findings.
  • Absence of survey data – A sixth line of evidence, surveys of recent GIS recipients and of potentially eligible non-recipients, had originally been intended to be included in the evaluation. The quantitative data from the survey would have been used to assess the effectiveness of alternative measures to increase take-up of GIS. However, given data sharing impediments that were beyond the control of the evaluation team, this methodology could not be undertaken at this time.

Evaluation Findings

Q1. Who are the potentially eligible non-recipients of GIS?

GIS recipients (about 1.6 million people) include both tax filers and non-tax filers. Potentially eligible non-recipients (estimated to be between 201,100 and 218,300 seniors in 2006) can be divided into four subgroups Footnote 2:

Group 1: Low income tax filers receiving OAS
Group 2: Low income tax filers not receiving OAS
Group 3: Non-tax filers receiving OAS
Group 4: Non-tax filers not receiving OAS

The document review conducted as part of the evaluation uncovered a significant amount of data available to describe the potentially eligible non-recipients of GIS in Group 1. Unfortunately, substantially less information was available with respect to potentially eligible non-recipients in groups 2, 3, and 4.

Since GIS take-up measures began in 2002, the number of potentially eligible non-recipients in Group 1 has fallen by approximately 25%, from 194,600 seniors in 2001 to 145,500 in 2006. HRSDC data indicates that the decrease in the number of potentially eligible non-recipients (Group 1) has been most noticeable among single seniors, older age groups, and women. The distribution across regions remained relatively unchanged between 1993 and 2006.

The number of low income tax filers not receiving OAS (Group 2) is not known. However, HRSDC estimates the number of GIS eligible non-recipients in Group 2 to be about 6,500 to 10,900 for 2006.

The most recent estimate of the number of non-tax filers receiving OAS (Group 3) was 122,800 seniors in 2006. From this estimate, the number of GIS eligible non-recipients in Group 3 was estimated to be 30,200 seniors.

The number of non-tax filers not receiving OAS (Group 4) is unknown. HRSDC has estimated that for 2006 the total number of non-tax filers not receiving OAS/GIS was approximately 94,400 seniors. HRSDC/SC estimates the number of potentially eligible for GIS non-tax filers not receiving OAS (Group 4) to be approximately 18,900 to 31,700. At the time that the document review was conducted, there were no estimates or demographic data in this category for the number of individuals belonging to vulnerable populations.

Q2. What are the client-related barriers to GIS take-up among potentially eligible seniors, and how do these barriers differ between subgroups (e.g. tax filers, non-tax filers, including vulnerable communities)?

Some of the main barriers identified for seniors is a general lack of awareness and understanding of the benefit, including the eligibility requirements, and the application process involved in receiving it.

Of those who are aware of, and understand, the program, some seniors may have difficulty producing the required documentation to support an application for benefits. Others may choose not to apply for the GIS (e.g. for religious or moral reasons).

There is a great deal of overlap between the barriers experienced by vulnerable populations (homeless or near-homeless, immigrant, or Aboriginal seniors) and those experienced by seniors in general. In many cases, the barriers identified for all seniors are enhanced for vulnerable populations.

Q3. Are there any organizational, process, policy, legislative, resource or other constraints that inhibit HRSDC/SC’s ability to address take-up?

Constraints internal to the Department include: process constraints; legislative constraints; resource constraints; organizational constraints; and other constraints such as a lack of GIS advertising/marketing, as well as the fact that beneficiary addresses are not always up-to-date.

External constraints mainly relate to a lack of resources or information by service providers. For example, service providers and other external partners are not funded to conduct outreach activities surrounding GIS; therefore, they do not always have the capacity or may be reluctant to put effort into these types of activities.

Q4. Are GIS take-up activities designed to reach potentially eligible non-recipient client groups and overcome client-related barriers?

The various activities, undertaken by HRSDC/SC to increase GIS take-up, generally target different subgroups of potentially eligible non-recipients. When taken together, the breadth of these activities ensures that they are designed to reach all potentially eligible non-recipient client groups and overcome the barriers faced by these clients.

National Ad Campaign - In March 2002, a national ad campaign was launched in order to generate more awareness of GIS benefits and targeted those seniors who had not yet applied for it. The campaign included print ads in community papers, radio and TV messages on the GIS The evaluation found that the measure was appropriate for reaching seniors in general.

Simplification of GIS Application Forms – In 2002-2003, HRSDC/SC undertook a review of the various GIS application forms and instruction sheets with a view to make them easier to understand for potential clients. In 2003, HRSDC/SC replaced the existing six GIS application forms with two simplified GIS application forms and instruction sheets. The evaluation found that making the application forms as simple as possible is an appropriate measure to help increase take-up of the GIS. The evaluation also found that the forms may still not be simple enough (and may never be) to meet the needs of vulnerable populations.

Enhancement of Service Canada channels (web, phone, and in-person) - With the creation of SC, the Government of Canada sought to improve the delivery of government services, through a flexible network of service channels, tailored to the service needs and preferences of the individual. Opinions were mixed with respect to the appropriateness of this measure. Some key informants felt that the measure is appropriate since it allows access to the information according to seniors’ channel preference, and increases awareness and knowledge of the benefits. Other stakeholders noted that distributing the information through SC channels may not be appropriate for vulnerable populations, since the Internet and telephones are not always accessible to them and they are unlikely to visit a SC office.

Selective mailings of pre-printed application forms – In February 2002, HRSDC/SC first mailed special simplified application forms to potential clients, identified through income tax information as being potentially eligible for GIS benefits. The evaluation found that the measure is appropriate for reaching the target population (Group 1). Overall, 327,831 clients were brought "into pay" between 2002 and 2007 due to this measure. On average, about 63% of clients to whom pre-printed applications were sent completed and returned them and are now receiving GIS benefits. However, the measure does not appear to be very appropriate for reaching vulnerable populations, or other seniors with limited language or literacy skills.

Establishment of a "Lifetime List" and other initiatives designed to further enable automatic renewal of GIS benefits – Since 2002, GIS benefits have been renewed automatically for 86% of beneficiaries who file tax returns and continue to meet the income criteria. The evaluation found that the measure is appropriate for reaching the target audience (Group 1), since it simplifies the process and reduces the administrative burden for seniors who file their tax returns on time.

Information letters sent by CRA to individuals not receiving OAS/GIS – In 2002, the CRA sent information letters on HRSDC/SC's behalf to approximately 65,000 individuals aged 65 years and older, who were receiving neither the OAS nor the GIS but who filed an income tax return encouraging them to call the 1-800-O-Canada toll-free number if they thought they might be eligible. The evaluation found that the measure is appropriate for reaching the target population (Group 2). However, the language and content of the letters should be further simplified in order to be effective in reaching vulnerable populations.

Inclusion of GIS information with OAS T4 slips – Even prior to 2002, a T4 information insert has been distributed in the annual February mailing of T4 income slips to CPP and OAS program beneficiaries. These inserts have become one of HRSDC/SC’s main vehicles for providing approximately 5.4 million clients with information updates on CPP, OAS, the Allowance, the Allowance for Survivors, and the GIS. The measure appears to be appropriate for reaching the target population (Group 3), as it provides information to those who may not be aware of the benefit. However, it may not be appropriate for reaching vulnerable populations of seniors.

Continuing discussions with other government departments, municipal governments and community service providers, to identify opportunities for partnership to increase take-up – HRSDC/SC has focused its outreach efforts on the hardest of the hard-to-reach seniors who often experience barriers to receiving information and assistance. These seniors include the homeless and near homeless, Aboriginal peoples and immigrants. Footnote 3 The evaluation found that outreach activities (and particularly partnerships) are very appropriate for reaching the Group 4 population of seniors since they allow HRSDC/SC to provide direct, in-person assistance, which is often required by vulnerable populations. Working with service providers and other partners is all the more beneficial since these groups already have direct access to vulnerable populations, and in many cases have already developed relationships with them.

Q5. Are there opportunities to further increase take-up?

Although HRSDC/SC is partnering with service providers, as well as with other federal departments and provincial and municipal governments, more emphasis could be placed on achieving a wider coverage, and providing stronger and more ongoing support to service providers. It also became clear throughout the evaluation that different regions varied widely in terms of the level of outreach conducted and the approaches used to conduct outreach. There were significant variations in the number of partnerships developed, and the type of partner organizations targeted. The evaluation found that the HRSDC/SC national outreach plan could be more clearly articulated and better understood by the regions.

In addition, the evaluation highlighted a need for more ongoing media advertising and/or public service announcements, not only to raise awareness generally, but also to help clients distinguish the GIS from OAS and other benefit programs.

Finally, the evaluation found that HRSDC/SC staff could follow-up directly with people who do not respond to the mailings, either by telephone or in-person.

Q6. Are HRSDC and Service Canada’s existing activities effective in reaching each targeted population?

The HRSDC/SC take-up activities have a good potential to reach recipients and, in general, interviewees thought that the activities should be effective in reaching people. The Lifetime List/ automatic renewal appears to be effective in reaching the target population (previous GIS recipients who file income tax returns), who may have otherwise not renewed their GIS application. While outreach partnerships have been relatively effective in reaching vulnerable seniors, HRSDC/SC could still put more emphasis on developing partnerships with local organizations in the community, in order to achieve a wider coverage and reach. Assessing the reach of some take-up measures, i.e., national ad campaign to increase awareness of GIS benefits, simplification of GIS application forms and enhancement of Service Canada channels (web, phone, in-person) was problematic. Very little information was available except for the opinions of key informants and group discussion participants, which were, in most cases, unsubstantiated.

The other three take-up activities, i.e., information inserts sent with OAS T4 slips, the information letters sent by CRA, and the mailings of pre-printed application forms, involve the distribution of information products. Concerns were raised that these products may not be acknowledged, read, or understood by the target clients. Some data are available to assess reach for these products. The reach of the pre-printed application forms must be at least 63%, since that proportion of recipients signed and returned it. Similarly the reach of the information letters (sent only in 2002 to non-recipients of OAS and GIS) must have been at least 30% as individuals phoned in to determine eligibility. Both focus group and survey data related to the reach of the OAS T4 inserts are available for 2007. The data indicate mixed results.

Q7. How have the activities undertaken by HRSDC/Service Canada impacted GIS take-up?

Since the inception of HRSDC/SC’s take-up activities in 2002, the GIS take-up rate among Group 1 has increased by approximately 5.5 percentage points, from an average of 86% before the initiative (1993-2001) to an average of 91.5% between 2002 and 2006. The highest take-up rate for Group 1 occurred in 2005, when it rose to 93.2%. Activities aimed at Group 1 notably the mailings of pre-printed application forms, are having a positive impact on GIS take-up for Group 1. For Groups 2, 3, and 4 no quantitative information is available to determine the extent to which HRSDC/SC activities have impacted GIS take-up.

Key informants were generally of the opinion that all the measures have had a positive impact on GIS take-up by the populations targeted by each of the measures.

Q8. Is the current GIS take-up rate within acceptable limits, given the composition of potentially eligible non-recipients, and the marginal cost and potential impacts of additional measures?

HRSDC estimates that, when taking into consideration all groups of potentially eligible non-recipients, the overall GIS take-up rate for 2006 was about 87.9% to 88.8%.

The current GIS take-up rate compares favorably to those of similar programs internationally, and according to most reports, benefit take-up rates of over 80% are deemed to be unusual. There were mixed views in terms of identifying an "acceptable take-up rate". While many stakeholders felt that HRSDC/SC should continue to strive for a 100% take-up rate, others identified a number of reasons why the two organizations cannot expect to be able to deliver the benefit to 100% of eligible seniors at any given time. For example, some seniors may choose not to apply and there is a dynamic of individuals entering and exiting the system (e.g., deaths, changes in income or marital status etc.).

That said, given the take-up measures that have been implemented to date, the evaluation found that HRSDC/SC should be able to reach almost all seniors in Group 1, with the exception of those who choose not to apply. Some interviewees indicated that HRSDC/SC may need to accept a lower take-up rate for seniors in Group 4, including vulnerable groups, while others commented that HRSDC/SC should be putting more effort into reaching these groups, in order to achieve the same take-up rate as for other seniors.

As survey data was not available to assess the effectiveness of the various measures in increasing take-up rates, the marginal cost-effectiveness of additional activities could not be carried out at this time.

Overall Conclusions

  1. While steps have been taken to simplify the GIS application forms and process, as well as information materials, HRSDC/SC should continue to look for ways by which these can be further simplified in order to better adapt them to the needs of seniors.
  2. Some of the "one-time" measures taken by the two departments to increase GIS take-up were deemed to be appropriate and effective for reaching potentially eligible non-recipients. Consideration should be given to regularly repeating some of these.
  3. Ensure that GIS assistance to seniors does not rely solely on the standard service delivery channels, but is also complemented by more direct and personal outreach services, which are better adapted to the needs of seniors, especially vulnerable groups.
  4. Look at ways to more accurately estimate the number of potentially eligible non-recipients in Groups 2, 3 and 4 in order to be better able to assess the extent to which potentially eligible seniors are not receiving the GIS and to more effectively target take-up activities to these groups.
  5. The national outreach plan needs to be more clearly articulated to ensure consistency across all regions, and to provide clarification on the roles and responsibilities of HRSDC and SC. As part of this plan, HRSDC/SC should look to develop a greater number of partnership arrangements in order to achieve a wider coverage, and provide ongoing tools, training and information to partners. Consideration should also be given to deploying SC staff to regularly visit homeless shelters, settlement agencies, and/or First Nations communities where they can offer their services on-site and provide service providers with additional ongoing support.
  • 1 The evaluation team collected and reviewed information mainly from January to August 2008 but data examined concerns the years 2001 to 2006. Return to reference 1
  • 2 Data from Statistics Canada, CRA, and HRSDC internal sources were used for estimating the number of GIS eligible non-recipients. Return to reference 2
  • 3 HRSDC and Service Canada also consider "persons with disabilities" as being a priority population. However, no take-up activities specifically targeting this group occurred before mid-2007; therefore, no activities are being evaluated at this time. Return to reference 3

Footer

Date Modified:
2012-01-19