November 20, 2024

Summary:  In a recent article on the CVITP participation rates of those living in poverty, we noted that “New Brunswick has the best participation rate, with 43.4% of the province’s poor receiving CVITP services.  At 17.4%, Ontario has the worst participation rate among the provinces, well below the rate for all the provinces combined (24.3%).”

The purpose of this article is to explore some of the reasons for these wide divergences.  To assist in identifying some of the reasons, we compare the two best performers, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island (PEI), with the two weakest performers, Ontario and British Columbia (BC).

Analyzing the CRA’s CVITP data for 2021 at the provincial level, we discover important differences between high performing and low performing provinces in three areas.  CVITP volunteers were comparatively less productive in the low performing provinces.  Also, there were comparatively fewer volunteers and host organizations available to serve those living in poverty in low performing provinces.

Looking at the changes between 2021 and 2023, we find that the numbers of volunteers and host organizations did not increase in the low performing provinces, but their volunteers’ productivity rates (i.e. the average number of clients served per volunteer) did increase significantly. Nevertheless, had Ontario and BC’s 2023 productivity levels been in place in 2021, they would not have significantly improved their poor standing compared to the high performing provinces.

To significantly improve on their CVITP participation rates, poor performing provinces needed to increase the numbers of CVITP host organizations and volunteers.  Although the pilot grant program introduced in 2021 was specifically designed to do this, the financial incentives it offered did not significantly increase the numbers of CVITP host organizations and volunteers in 2022 or 2023.

At present, the pilot program has been extended by one year until May 31, 2024.  It is unclear what will happen next.  The CRA must decide whether to extend the pilot by yet another year, make these financial incentives a permanent feature of the CVITP or eliminate them entirely.  Although the financial incentives were unsuccessful in achieving their expected results, we believe that their elimination would send the wrong signal to existing host organizations.

We have long argued for CRA financial support to host organizations.  We firmly believe such financial support is necessary for improving the CVITP’s performance.  But, in its current form, it is clearly not sufficient to entice new host organizations into offering CVITP services nor to motivate existing host organizations to recruit substantially more volunteers.

So, what could the CRA do to improve the CVITP’s participation rates in low performing provinces?  This question will be addressed in a forthcoming article.

In a recent article on the CVITP participation rates for those living in poverty, we noted that “New Brunswick has the best participation rate, with 43.4% of the province’s poor receiving CVITP services.  At 17.4%, Ontario has the worst participation rate among the provinces, well below the rate for all the provinces combined (24.3%).”

We then asked the question: “Why are there such wide divergences between the provinces in the proportion of people served of those living in poverty?”

The purpose of this article is to explore some of the reasons for these wide divergences.  To assist in identifying some of the reasons, we compare the two best performers, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island (PEI), with the two weakest performers, Ontario and British Columbia (BC).

It’s not what you might think

Let us quickly dispel one misunderstanding.  We are not looking at the number of those living in poverty, as Ontario and BC are much more populous than New Brunswick and PEI so will have more people living in poverty.

We are examining the proportion of those living in poverty who get served by the CVITP.   In 2021, close to one half of those who had been living in poverty in New Brunswick and PEI in 2020 got access to free CVITP services whereas approximately one fifth of those living in poverty in Ontario and BC did.   What accounts for this large difference?

There do not seem to be large differences between the four provinces in the number of those living in poverty as a percentage of the overall population.

Therefore, the argument cannot be made that Ontario and BC had, on the face of it, a greater challenge establishing the CVITP infrastructure needed to serve those living in poverty in their provinces in 2021.

One might observe that New Brunswick and PEI are very small territories when compared with Ontario and BC.  Maybe this has something to do with the difference.  But it is noteworthy that Quebec, with a large area and population, managed to provide CVITP services to one third of those living in poverty in the province, notably better than Ontario, BC, Alberta, Newfoundland and Labrador, and Manitoba.  The size of a province’s territory does not appear to matter, or at least not as much as one might expect.

Three good reasons can be found in the 2021 tax season data on the CVITP

Let’s look more carefully at CRA’s CVITP data for 2021 as they hide the answers to our initial question.  In what follows, we use many of the same calculations we apply to national data to generate information on CVITP results, infrastructure and productivity.  If you are less interested in the numbers than the results, skip to the next section entitled “Summary of findings and actions required”.

---

1. CVITP volunteer productivity

For the calculations in the above table, we have used  the CRA’s volunteer count from its CVITP statistics (not our adjusted volunteer estimate which tries to take account of the number of staff who register as volunteers but do file returns[i]).

The differences are clear: in 2021, volunteers assisted on average more individuals and filed on average more returns in New Brunswick and PEI than in Ontario and BC.  This is the first noteworthy point: CVITP volunteers were less productive in provinces with lower participation rates.

---

2. CVITP volunteer numbers

Again, the differences are clear: the average number of people living in poverty in 2020 per volunteer working in the 2021 tax season was much higher in Ontario and BC than in New Brunswick and PEI.  This is the second noteworthy point: there were comparatively fewer CVITP volunteers in provinces with lower participation rates.

---

3. CVITP host organization numbers

There were no noticeable differences in the average numbers of individuals assisted and of returns filed in the 2021 tax season between the provinces with high and low CVITP participation rates.

However, the average number of adults living in poverty in 2020 per host organization was much higher in Ontario and BC than in New Brunswick and PEI.  This is the third difference: there were comparatively fewer CVITP host organizations in provinces with lower participation rates.

---

Summary of findings and actions required

---

What’s happened since the 2021 tax season?

Statistics Canada has not published provincial poverty data for 2021 and 2022.  But we can still look at the CRA’s CVITP data for the 2022 and 2023 tax seasons to see how the four provinces have evolved with respect to the three actions required above.  If Ontario and BC are to develop CVITP participation rates that come closer to those of New Brunswick and PEI, they would have to have done significantly better than these two latter provinces in undertaking these actions.

---

A. Increase CVITP volunteer productivity

The average numbers of people assisted and returns filed per volunteer increased significantly in Ontario and BC since 2021.  This is a good sign.

---

B. Increase the number of CVITP volunteers

However, the number of volunteers did not increase in any significant way in Ontario and BC since 2021.  This is a bad sign.

---

C. Increase the number of CVITP host organizations

Nor did the number of host organizations increase.  In both Ontario and BC, the numbers declined marginally since 2021.  This is yet another bad sign.

---

Are the changes since 2021 sufficient?

Even though they did not increase their numbers of volunteers and host organizations, Ontario and BC significantly increased their volunteer productivity since 2021.  Could the improved volunteer productivity, by itself, do the job of increasing their CVITP participation rates to those of New Brunswick and PEI?

One way to answer this question is to look at what the CVITP participation rates for Ontario and BC would have been if they had their 2023 volunteer productivity levels back in 2021.  For this thought experiment, we calculate the number of people Ontario and BC could have assisted with their volunteers in 2021 using the average number of people assisted per volunteer in 2023.  (To ascertain the CVITP participation rate, we do not need to look at the other measure of volunteer productivity i.e. the average number of returns filed per volunteer in 2023.)

Comparing this hypothetical performance with the real participation rates of other provinces in 2021, Ontario would still come in last with the poorest performance of the 10 provinces and BC would only change its rank from 9^th to 8^th.

The results of this thought experiment suggest that neither Ontario nor BC could significantly improve their CVITP participation rates through increased volunteer productivity alone.  Factoring in the increase in the number of adults living in poverty since 2021 would imply that volunteer productivity, by itself, would have an even harder time of improving substantially these provinces’ CVITP participation rates  by 2023.

Is it any different for other low performing provinces?  Analysis of their data indicates that over the 2021-2023 period, these provinces also relied heavily on increasing volunteer productivity without increasing their volunteer or host organization numbers.  This suggests these provinces would also be unlikely to improve their participation rates significantly through further increases in volunteer productivity alone.

If provinces with low CVITP participation rates are to improve their performance, they need to increase their numbers of volunteers and host organizations, not just their volunteer productivity.

Wasn’t the CRA’s pilot grant program supposed to fix this?

In 2021, the CRA introduced the CVITP grant program on a pilot basis for three years.  Two of the four expected results were:

• increases in the number of host organizations that participate in the program
• increases in the annual number of volunteers associated with grant recipient organizations.

By 2023, the third year of the pilot, it had clearly failed to achieve the first of these two results in Ontario and BC.  While the CRA does not make information available on the number of volunteers associated with grant recipient organizations, the grant program did not lead to significant increases in the overall number of volunteers in Ontario and BC by 2023.  (We do not look at the other provinces individually here but the overall numbers nationally suggest most of the other provinces also failed to achieve both of these expected results.) 

Although the pilot grant program did not meet two of the expected results of the pilot grant program, it could be argued that it achieved another one of the four expected results: an increase in the number of returns filed each year by grant recipient organizations.  (Again, while the CRA does not make information easily available on the names of the grant recipient organizations, returns filed have increased with the introduction of the pilot grant program in 2021.[ii])

However, the CVITP’s growth over the 2021 to 2023 period only looks impressive if one ignores the evolution of the CVITP prior to 2021.  In 2020, the numbers of individuals assisted and returns filed plummeted due to the introduction of COVID related public health restrictions during the tax season.  It was only by the 2023 season that the numbers rebounded, modestly exceeding the peaks previously reached during the 2019 tax season at a time when the CRA offered no financial incentives.

Looking at this rebound, one could draw either of the two following conclusions.  At best, the pilot grant program served as an effective incentive, drawing host organizations which had closed their doors during the pandemic back into offering CVITP services.  Less charitably, the CVITP could have been expected to return to normalcy after the lifting of the COVID related restrictions even without the introduction of the pilot grant program. 

Regardless of which conclusion one might prefer, the results above clearly suggest the incentives were not sufficient to entice new community-based organizations to host CVITP clinics.  Nor were the incentives enough to entice existing host organizations to recruit more volunteers.  Instead, these host organizations pushed their current volunteers to serve more clients and file more returns.

The pilot grant program was extended for a fourth year so it may still have had an impact on these aspects of CVITP performance in 2024.  We will only know this early in 2025 when the CRA publishes the CVITP statistics for 2024.  But after two years without impact, it is evident that any positive changes in the fourth year would have had only a modest impact on the overall results.

Looking ahead, what does all this mean for the CVITP?

Our calculations of volunteer productivity suggest that in 2023 volunteers were serving more individuals and filing more returns than at any other time in the 2017-2023 period.  We believe that existing host organizations are approaching the limits of the productivity gains they can squeeze out of their existing volunteer cadre.

Thus, relying on volunteer productivity alone will not solve the problem of poor CVITP participation rates in provinces like Ontario and BC.  

The pilot program was extended by one year until May 31, 2024.  It remains unclear what happens after that.  The CRA must decide whether to extend the pilot by another year, make these financial incentives a permanent feature of the CVITP or eliminate them entirely.  Although unsuccessful in achieving three of the CRA’s four expected results[iii], the elimination of any financial incentives would send the wrong signal to existing host organizations.

We have long argued for CRA financial support to host organizations.  We firmly believe such financial support is necessary for improving the CVITP’s performance.  But, in its current form, it is not sufficient to entice new host organizations into offering CVITP services.  Nor is it sufficient to motivate existing host organizations to recruit substantially more volunteers.

So, what could the CRA do to improve the CVITP’s participation rates in low performing provinces?  We think there are many things the CRA could be doing.  In a forthcoming article, we will share a number of ideas.

---

[i] See our article on volunteer trends where we give a detailed explanation of the reasons for making this adjustment in the volunteer count.

[ii] We find it puzzling that the expected result would be an increase in the number of returns filed rather than an increase in the number of individuals assisted as it is the latter that is key to the success of the program.

[iii] We cannot comment on the CRA’s fourth expected result – decreasing the total number of organizations that do not return to the program after participating for two years or less – as the CRA does not make this data publicly available.