June 19, 2023

---

PART TWO – RESULTS TO DATE

The first part of this article looks at the second year of funding.  This second part looks at the results obtained in the second year and compares these with results from the first year.

The following table aligns the CRA objectives for the pilot grant project with the stated performance measures.  It also includes, where possible, results based on the performance measures.   It should be noted that these are our estimations of the results, based on data published by the CRA.

---

*Data is taken from The Evolution of the CVITP – 2022 Update where the original sources are identified.

Comments

1Administrative costs:  The change in the funding formula, starting in 2022, provides for a base amount of $500 to every organization that is successful in obtaining a grant.  That said, it is quite strange for an element of the project design to be a stated objective of the pilot project.  Surely there must be more fundamental reasons for offering to cover some of the administrative costs.  The other stated objectives seem to get more closely at these reasons.

2Growth in number of participating host organizations:  We calculate that the growth between 2021 and 2022 is 692%, vastly exceeding the 5% target.  Thus, it could be said the grant program has been successful in meeting this objective in the second year. 

However, as we observed when the grant program was launched over two years ago, the CRA will have difficulty disaggregating the rebound in the numbers due to the pilot project from the return to normal after the deleterious effects of COVID in 2020 and, to a lesser extent, in 2021 as well as the natural growth in the numbers that the program had previously known.  Again, if the CRA genuinely believed that the pilot grant project was responsible for the massive increase in the number of host organizations between 2021 and 2022, why did it choose late in 2022 to announce an increase to the grants it would pay out for results produced in 2022?

3Retention of host (participating) organizations:  As the CRA gathers this information, it should be publishing it.

4Expansion in the reach of clinics:  As no performance measure has been provided, it is unknown how the CRA will assess whether the grant program is successful in meeting this objective.

5Expansion to vulnerable population segments:  Again, as no performance measure has been provided, it is unknown how the CRA will assess whether the grant program is successful in meeting this objective.

6Increase in the number of volunteers:  This is not a stated objective of the project.  The CRA gives no explanation as to why it thinks that by providing modest sums of money to host organizations, this should lead to an increase in the number of their volunteers.

The CRA does not distinguish in its data between host organizations which are grant recipients and those which are not.  So, it is impossible for us to make any comparison between the numbers of volunteers associated with these two groups.  The most we can do is to compare the overall numbers.  Given that we use a different definition from that of the CRA for a volunteer, unlike the CRA we conclude that the number of volunteers declined over this period.

7Increase in the number of returns:  This is not a stated objective of the project.  While the CRA gives no explanation for the inclusion of this performance measure, it is reasonable to assume that by providing a payment for each of the returns filed (for the taxation year 2020 onward), the CRA hoped this would be an incentive for host organizations to file more returns.

However, the CRA does not distinguish in its data between host organizations which are grant recipients and those which are not.  So, it is impossible for us to make any comparison between the numbers of returns associated with these two groups.  The most we could do is to compare the overall numbers.  Unfortunately, the CRA did not provide any data on returns filed for 2021 before it published its 2022 figures.

More fundamentally, it is strange to see that this is not a stated objective.  The real measure of success is not whether the numbers of host organizations and volunteers are maintained or increased.  Instead, it should be whether more individuals get served and, by extension, more returns get filed.   Indeed, the last time the CRA published any targets for the CVITP, it focused on the number of individuals assisted.

Conclusion

When it was first launched, we wrote that the pilot grant project needed to be targeted differently if the CVITP was to better contribute to the poverty reduction objectives set out in the federal government’s 2018 Poverty Reduction Strategy.

We suggested that the project needs to be designed in a way that encourages host organizations to prioritize offering free CVITP services to those most in need, that is the poor.  (This is especially important where limited CVITP capacity means that the service is rationed.  Numbers at present show that the CVITP is still far from serving most of Canada’s poor.)  One criterion could be used to facilitate this: set a minimum percentage of a host organization’s client returns that must meet or fall below the official poverty line to qualify for any grant funding.

In the intervening years, the federal government has further increased its use of the income tax and benefit return (for example, with the one-time top up to the Canada Housing Benefit, the Canada Dental Benefit and the grocery rebate) to achieve its income security and poverty reduction goals.  This has only reinforced our conviction that, upon completion of the pilot, the CRA needs to rethink the design of this program (and not just make the funding permanent and more generous) if it wants the CVITP to improve its contribution to reducing poverty in Canada.

We will revisit implementation when the third and final year of this pilot has been completed.