December 7, 2020
Recap
Further to what we said in the last article, there are two more reasons why these four indicators are especially useful.
First, results from combinations of these indicators can provide meaningful guidance on shaping targets and reforms that will improve performance.
For example, using the results from third and fourth performance indicators (percentage of CVITP clients who are below the poverty line together with the percentage of poor people who are not CVITP clients) can help to answer questions about targeting and capacity building efforts. To illustrate this example, if there is a high percentage of CVITP clients in a particular region who are below the poverty line, but there is also a high percentage of the poor in the same region who are not CVITP clients, this tells us that while targeting of the service to the poor is good in that region, there is insufficient capacity in the region to service their needs.
Second, results can be provided at the regional level, helping to guide strategic decisions about CVITP reform efforts at the regional level.
For example, using the results from the second performance indicator (percentage of CVITP clients falling below the poverty line who were classified the previous year as non-filers), one can determine which CVITP host organizations are most adept at helping poor non-filers to file who had not filed the previous year.
One final note. What we are proposing expands the number of current quantitative performance indicators from two to four. While some other government departments have results frameworks with dozens of performance indicators, we believe reporting on these four indicators can readily be done and at low cost, not least because most of the data needed for the reporting are available through the processing of the returns. The fact that returns are increasingly being filed in digital format simply makes that process easier.
Conclusion
Many low-income individuals pay little or no tax. But when their income tax and benefit return is filed, they benefit significantly from the many benefits and credits available, especially those which are income-tested.
Recently, the CRA has been focused on seeing CVITP host organizations and volunteers increase the number of individuals assisted.
The key outcome for the CRA’s Benefits Program is “Canadians receive their rightful benefits in a timely manner”. If the CRA is to deliver on this outcome, it needs to shift its focus away from simply hoping that CVITP host organizations and volunteers will serve more and more clients. (This will be particularly important if the growth in the number of host organizations and volunteers slows; the CRA will need to think about using these existing resources more strategically.)
The CRA should start analyzing the data it already collects to help it think strategically about how to use its existing resources, and to better steer the CVITP toward meeting the purpose for which it was intended. Our proposal above provides one way of doing this.