Saturday 8 June 2013

Language Training Vouchers Pilot Initiative

Integration Branch
Citizenship and Immigration Canada
March 31, 2011

The following Report is intended to provide a summary analysis of the Language Training Vouchers Pilot Initiative, which was launched in October 2009 and came to a close at the end of January 2011. This pilot was designed to test whether a new promotion strategy using Language Training Vouchers could inform Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) as to ways of improving the uptake by newcomers of CIC-funded language services, or Language Instruction for Newcomer to Canada (LINC).

Language training is by far the most important settlement service being delivered by CIC across the country. Research shows that, along with finding an appropriate job, language proficiency in English or French is perhaps the greatest barrier to settlement and integration faced by newcomers to Canada. Consequently, since 2006, the Government of Canada has more than tripled the funding dedicated to LINC services. However, this significant increase in resources did not translate into a proportional increase in the numbers of newcomers accessing LINC services every year. This is why CIC decided to test a new program delivery model by piloting this vouchers initiative to see if newcomers could be motivated to further access LINC services. Drawing inspiration from the 2007 Australian experience with vouchers, CIC rolled-out this new approach to language training with sample newcomers in the provinces of Alberta, Nova Scotia and Ontario.

Typically, vouchers programs implemented in other countries have been a public policy tool that “grants limited purchasing power to an individual to choose among a restricted set of goods and services.” [Note 1] The theoretical case for this policy tool is that because it provides a grant directly to the newcomer and thereby allows them to maximize their choice with regard to the service in question, it also promotes efficiency by making suppliers compete with one another for newcomers. CIC however did not implement such a systemic change in the way it delivers settlement services, and instead adopted vouchers as a promotional tool, and tested whether directly communicating with newcomers through vouchers, which did not have a cash value, would motivate them to further access LINC services.

This report will present the data that was collected in the pilot and assess voucher participants’ outcomes in relation to those who did not receive a voucher. The main focus of the summary will be on presenting results acquired through statistical analysis and comparing the characteristics and behaviors of voucher holders and non-voucher holders. Where appropriate, the limitations of current data in terms of analysis will also be raised. Together, three different data sources were used in order to assess voucher recipients’ outcomes and preferences in comparison to the control group of individuals who shared the same profile as the voucher sample group but did not receive vouchers. These three different sources were: data acquired through CIC’s existing Immigration-Contribution Accountability Measurement System (iCAMS), data collected through the Data Collection Tool (DCT) created expressly by CIC to track redeemed vouchers, and finally, the results gathered though Public Opinion Research (POR).

CIC iCAMS data confirmed that within 12 months of receiving the voucher, 30.8% of voucher recipients received CIC funded language services (i.e. language assessment and/or training) compared to 24.9% of those who did not receive a voucher. This represents an increase of approximately 25% in the proportion of voucher recipients who received a CIC funded language service over the same period of time. The Data Collection Tool data also revealed that the majority (54%) of voucher recipients who redeemed their voucher at a Language Assessment Centre were placed at the higher LINC 4-7 levels, in contrast to non-voucher individuals who were largely assessed at the lower LINC 0-3 levels. This suggests that the individuals who redeemed their vouchers already possessed some language proficiency to understand and act upon instructions written on the voucher for obtaining language assessment.  One third (34%) of the voucher recipients who redeemed their voucher credited the voucher itself for motivating them in seeking language training. CIC also found that the voucher had an impact on how soon newcomers will access language services after becoming permanent residents in Canada. Results show that voucher recipients had their current language levels assessed sooner than newcomers who did not receive a voucher, and voucher recipients began their language training  sooner than those who did not receive a voucher.While statistical analysis revealed that the vouchers did increase an individual’s probability of accessing CIC funded language services over time, personal factors such as an individual’s level of official language proficiency, immigration category, or age at arrival, understandably also play a role in explaining a newcomer’s likelihood of seeking language services.The vouchers pilot also provided CIC with a unique opportunity to make use of empirical evidence to track the uptake of CIC’s language training by newcomers for a period of one year. After monitoring 24,244 individuals who did not receive a voucher, the pilot data confirms CIC’s estimated rate of 25% for the average uptake of LINC services by permanent residents. Moreover, monitoring from the pilot demonstrated that more than 98% of LINC participants accessed services in their provinces of destination during their first year of permanent residence. This finding demonstrates that the current distribution of settlement funding is geographically appropriate.Lastly, regarding the vouchers’ impact on empowering newcomers and providing them with a choice in their settlement experience, public opinion research revealed that voucher recipients principally consider the voucher a promotional tool. This is likely due to the fact that the voucher had no cash value. Nevertheless, new permanent residents reacted positively to receiving a personal invitation from the Government of Canada to take up language services.

In 2008, the Settlement Program’s Terms and Conditions were renewed so that it was afforded the flexibility, responsiveness, and accountability it required to provide for a more client-centred approach in service delivery. This newfound flexibility gave the Department the opportunity to test innovative approaches to programming, and as a result, the Language Training Vouchers Pilot was designed to address the existing challenges to LINC, namely uptake, portability and choice in services.

At the time when the department was studying the potential for this pilot, government officials were working to modernize the service delivery of the settlement programs in order to allow for the adoption of innovative tools to better respond to individual newcomer needs. Notably, there were ongoing concerns over the program uptake of LINC services by newcomers. LINC provides free English and French training to eligible newcomers, and is CIC’s largest training program. The objective of LINC is to support newcomers in developing communication skills that will enable them to better function in all aspects of Canadian society – social, cultural, civic and economic. LINC classes are delivered on behalf of CIC primarily through school boards, colleges and community-based organizations. LINC couples language acquisition with improved knowledge of Canadian civics and culture, and is offered from Canadian Language Benchmark (CLB) Literacy level to CLB level 7. The majority of LINC students are concentrated in CLB levels 2-5 (corresponding to LINC levels 2-4, which covers basic to intermediate level English)[Note 2]. Eligible newcomers are placed at a level commensurate with their English language skills as assessed by certified assessors using tools based on the CLB.

Prior to the development of the pilot, the department was concerned that in spite of flexible class schedules and support services, such as childminding and transportation allowances for eligible recipients, uptake levels for LINC programming had not increased. In particular, it found that in 2006, while over 30% of newcomers self-identified as having no Official Language (OL) ability on arrival to Canada, the estimated uptake for the LINC program ranged between 20-25% (the figure was highest (58%) for resettled refugees). Given that language proficiency is one of the biggest determinants of successful social and economic integration, and that the department spends a large proportion of settlement funding towards language training ($152.7 million in 2007-08), it was determined at the time that running a pilot in this area would provide good value for money for the department. Uptake in the pilot was measured by whether or not vouchers would have an impact in increasing the enrolment of CIC language services.

While newcomers are eligible for settlement services across Canada, regardless of where they land or relocate, over the years, Provinces and Territories (PTs) have raised concerns with CIC over the settlement costs associated with the secondary migration of newcomers. Some PTs have argued that since the current settlement funding allocation is driven by landing statistics while the actual expenditure of funds is based on program use – this creates disparities to some provinces owing to the secondary migration of newcomers.  The pilot set out to measure service portability by monitoring the proportion of individuals who received LINC services in a province other than the one where they became permanent residents.

While studying program uptake and portability was important for the efficient and effective provision of settlement services, the element of choice was an important measure of newcomers’ ability to drive the attainment of their own settlement outcomes. While analysis for program uptake and portability came from databases, CIC relied on Public Opinion Research (POR) to gather information on choice. The POR served to collect feedback among stakeholders including newcomers on the impact of vouchers on newcomers’ motivation to access language training and feeling empowered about their settlement experience.

This pilot was designed to test whether communicating directly with newcomers through vouchers, which did not have a cash value, would motivate newcomers to further access CIC-funded LINC services (i.e. language assessment and/or language training). Another purpose served by the pilot was to provide a measure of the portability of vouchers by newcomers within their first year in Canada, and to evaluate their perception of choice in picking a language facility that suited their needs.

Dr. Jean Renaud, Professor of Sociology from the Université de Montréal was contracted to develop the methodology for the pilot project and advise CIC on its findings. The pilot project ran within the existing parameters of the LINC program, using existing Language Assessment Centres (LACs) and Service Provider Organizations (SPOs) in the three participating provinces.

For the purposes of the pilot, CIC selected a sample population of 26,189 newcomers who arrived in the three participating provinces over a period of four months in 2009. Two controls were placed on the cohort: best efforts were made to exclude resettled refugees from the pool of participants since they have greater overall settlement needs. As well, those whose mother tongue was either English or French were also removed, given their unlikelihood of needing language training. Within this cohort, two thousand (2000) vouchers were sent to randomly selected newcomers in Ontario (1200), Alberta (650) and Nova Scotia (150), personally inviting them to take language training. In order to draw statistical comparisons between both groups and make valid attribution as to the impact of the voucher, equivalent controls applied to both the sample of voucher holders and the remaining baseline group of 24,189 individuals who did not receive language training vouchers. Vouchers carried a one-year ‘expiry date’ of the last day of the month in which they were sent (e.g. voucher sent in October 2009 expired October 31, 2010).

Participants in the pilot were tracked by their Field Operating Support System (FOSS) and Permanent Resident card (PR) number and by the unique number appearing on their language training voucher (e.g. ON-0001; AB-001; NE-001). Vouchers were distributed though four mail-outs, 500 each month, from October 2009 to January 2010. Voucher recipients were tracked until the end of the pilot on January 31, 2011, at which point results were compared with the benchmark 24,189 sample newcomers who were welcomed to Canada at the same time and shared the same profile but did not receive language training vouchers (For detailed pilot design and delivery see Appendix B: Logic Model for Language Training Vouchers Pilot).

A point of clarification pertaining to the sample group of voucher holders is that since 55 vouchers were returned after their mail out (e.g. due to a wrong address) the final analysis in this Report is based on 1,945 participants and not the originally designed experimental sample of 2,000 voucher holders.

Given that there was a requirement for the LACs and language training SPOs to relay voucher recipients’ information directly to the department, CIC developed the online Data Collection Tool (DCT) for the purposes of collecting data on recipients who redeemed their voucher by presenting it at LAC. Because the pilot’s methodology relied on random selection of newcomers, all service providers in Alberta, Nova Scotia and Ontario received training to input and update information electronically when a recipient presented a voucher at the time of their language assessment.

The DCT asked language assessors to collect the following information from their clients:

referral to language training or the reason for non-referral;the LINC level the client was assessed;target hours of LINC training needed (150, 350, 500);how the client became aware of the available language training (e.g. voucher, advertising, etc); whether the expiry date on the voucher influenced them to take up language training; how soon the client intended to start language training.

Once this information was inputted into the system, it was generated into a report that was accessible to CIC from Ottawa. CIC relied on this DCT report to analyze data on recipients who had “redeemed” their vouchers in a LAC as per the instructions printed on the voucher.

CIC was also able to monitor the activities of pilot participants who had received vouchers but who had obtained language assessment and/or training without redeeming their vouchers. The main purpose of this approach was CIC’s awareness that, in light of the controls that were put on the population being tracked; many of the new permanent residents in the sample would not have sufficient language proficiency or document literacy to understand the voucher’s instructions. Another possibility for not redeeming the voucher at a LAC could have been that some newcomers may have preferred not to be monitored by CIC. Monitoring voucher recipients in the Immigration-Contribution Accountability Measurement System (iCAMS) mainly offered an additional basis of comparison with the non-voucher control group.

In order to do this, CIC linked the FOSS number of voucher participants against iCAMS data. As part of the administration of LINC, LACs and language training SPOs are funded through contribution agreements to deliver assessments and training. CIC local offices manage the agreements and ensure that data on outputs (e.g. length of training, language levels, use of support services, etc.) is gathered through iCAMS and that this data is fed back to CIC.

CIC conducted Public Opinion Research (POR) to explore newcomers’ perceptions towards alternative service delivery models and their potential benefits for newcomers. The purpose of this research was to supplement the analysis needed to complete the objectives of the pilot. Specifically, CIC commissioned this work to gather data on the level of choice newcomers have among available language training open to them under the current delivery model.

The POR relied on a qualitative approach of gathering information from focus groups held in Calgary, Ottawa and Halifax with five key stakeholder groups: newcomers (permanent residents who have lived in Canada for less than 5 years); SPOs; private learning centers; employers; and Canadian Citizens. CIC gained feedback on the level of choice newcomers believe they have among settlement services offered. In addition, the POR also evaluated how newcomers felt about the vouchers pilot as well as their views on other options for service delivery models (e.g. private sector).

See Appendix C: Methodology and Data Collection for the Pilot

Language voucher participants were chosen from a list of permanent residents and these individuals received a language training voucher which was accompanied by a letter, both in French and English, that personally invited them to access language training (see Appendix D: Voucher Participation Invitation Letter). The voucher displayed the voucher number and an expiry date, as well as a statement explaining that the voucher was non-transferable and could not be exchanged for money. Recipients were asked to take the voucher to one of the language assessment centres in their province appearing on a list included. With the voucher, participants could contact an assessment centre to book an appointment, or they could choose to find out more information about language training and/or the language training vouchers before booking an assessment (for sample copy of a voucher see Appendix E: Language Training Voucher).

Information about the pilot project was made available through the CIC Call Centre, CIC website, and through existing in-person sources, such as LACs and other settlement SPOs, and CIC or provincial public-serving front counters. In addition CIC translated Voucher background information for staff in LACs in the following 11 languages: Arabic, Tagalog, Punjabi, Spanish, Urdu, Russian, Korean, Gujurati, Tamil, Farsi, and Chinese.

See Appendix F for frequently asked questions on the pilot made available online on CIC’s public website.

On October 16th, 2009, the Minister launched the Language Training Vouchers Pilot Initiative in Ontario, Alberta and Nova Scotia from the Immigrant Language and Vocational Assessment Centre in Calgary. Initially, CIC had planned to use the term “certificate” for the pilot project, however, it was later decided that the term “certificate” implied completing a course of study while “voucher” had a sense of the recipient being encouraged to participate.

Based on DCT reports, 94 individuals out of 1,945 (4.8%) complied with instructions on the voucher and physically redeemed it at a Language Assessment Centre (LAC).

These individuals were compared with the behavior of those who did not receive a voucher, as well as the other voucher recipients that accessed LINC without redeeming the voucher. (As described above, CIC was able through iCAMS to monitor the activities of pilot participants who had received vouchers but who had obtained language assessment and/or training without redeeming their vouchers). Aside from differences in language levels, this analysis demonstrated interesting contrasts in terms of the demographic profiles of individuals in the DCT:

Gender: An even split (51% Female – 49% male) while for those who did not receive a voucher it was 62% Female – 38% male.Education: Almost three quarters (73%) of individuals redeeming their voucher had a post-secondary education, while about two thirds (67%) of those who did not receive a voucher had achieved the same level.

Concerning language proficiency, a majority (54%) of those who redeemed their voucher were placed between the higher LINC levels 4 through 7. In contrast, the majority (61%) of newcomers in the control group were assessed at lower LINC levels 0 - 3.

These trends presume that the small number of individuals who redeemed their vouchers possessed initial intermediate language proficiency to understand instructions written on the voucher for obtaining a language assessment.

Further, almost a third (31%) of voucher recipients who redeemed their voucher were not referred to any LINC training because they were referred to other CIC settlement services, or there were no available language training options for them locally as they were assessed at too high a level.

GroupsDCT
Redeemed Vouchers
(94 out of 1,945) iCAMS
(610 out of 1,945 Voucher recipients)iCAMS
Control Group: Individuals who did not receive a voucher (6,127 out of 24,244) Education Secondary or Less (27%)
Post-Secondary (73%) Secondary or Less (33%)
Post-Secondary (67%)Secondary or Less (33%)
Post-Secondary (67%) LINC Level – Assessment LINC 0-3 (46%)
LINC 4-8 (54%) LINC 0-3 (58%)
LINC 4-8 (42%)LINC 0-3 (61%)
LINC 4-8 (39%) LINC Level - Training LINC 0-3 (46%)
LINC 4-7 (54%) LINC 0-3 (67%)
LINC 4-7 (33%)LINC 0-3 (70%)
LINC 4-7 (30%)

The information collected by LACs from individuals redeeming their voucher also revealed the following information as to participant behaviour and choices:

Awareness: About 24% found out about free language training because of the voucher itself. However, similar proportions of participants credited family and friends, or other existing CIC information (ad campaign, website, call centre, publication from the airport…);Motivation: A third (34%) said the one-year expiry date on the voucher influenced them to seek a language assessment;Intent: The vast majority (95%) plan on taking their language training early (after the wait list or within 6 months).

In this section, we explored the impact of the vouchers on uptake and portability using the wealth of information provided by iCAMS data. The analysis generated cumulative results across all three provinces in the pilot, as well as individual results for Ontario, Alberta and Nova Scotia.

When looking in iCAMS at the overall uptake of LINC services (language assessment and/or language training) by the sample population since arrival in Canada, it was observed that 30.8% of voucher recipients received a LINC service, compared to 24.9% of those who did not receive a voucher. The cumulative difference between the two groups was almost 6 percentage points (see graph 1) within 12 months after receiving the voucher.

This difference translates into a significant increase of almost a quarter more (25%) voucher recipients in terms of the population of newcomers who received a LINC service.

Each of the four graphs that follow tells a consistent story. The shaded portion of each graph represents the period of time during which the vouchers were mailed to recipients. The time period to the left of the shaded area plots the take-up of the voucher recipients and those who did not receive a voucher. We were pleased to note that both the voucher (blue) and non-voucher (red) progression lines perfectly superposed themselves prior to the voucher mail-out. This helps in confirming the isolated impact of the voucher. The separation of the two groups to the right of the shaded area (after the vouchers were mailed out) indicates the effect that the voucher had on the recipient group.

The uptake ratio for those who did not receive a voucher allowed CIC to gain empirical evidence on the access by newcomers of LINC services after one year, and confirm CIC’s estimated and often quoted average uptake rate of approximately 25%.

When the Department broke down the performance of the participating provinces it observed that there were some significant variances between the “natural” uptake of each province, i.e. service usage by those who did not receive a voucher based on existing CIC promotion of services. Notably, the natural uptake for Alberta was 25.9% (graph 2), Ontario 24.4% (graph 3), and Nova Scotia 39.9% (graph 4). The pilot found that in Nova Scotia, the province with the highest natural uptake of language services, the voucher had the least impact. The modest impact of the vouchers in Nova Scotia – where approximately 40% of newcomers become LINC participants - can probably be attributed to the special circumstances in this province (i.e. smaller yearly intake of immigrants and more centrally coordinated settlement service providers).

Graph 1: Cumulative Percentage of Overall Population that Received a Language Instruction for Newcomer to Canada Service

Note: The shaded portion of the graph represents the period of time during which the vouchers were mailed to recipients. The time period to the left of the shaded area plots the take-up of the voucher recipients and those who did not receive a voucher.

Graph 2: Cumulative Percentage of Alberta Population that Received a Language Instruction for Newcomer to Canada Service

Note: The shaded portion of the graph represents the period of time during which the vouchers were mailed to recipients. The time period to the left of the shaded area plots the take-up of the voucher recipients and those who did not receive a voucher.

Graph 3: Cumulative Percentage of Ontario Population that Received a Language Instruction for Newcomer to Canada Service

Note: The shaded portion of the graph represents the period of time during which the vouchers were mailed to recipients. The time period to the left of the shaded area plots the take-up of the voucher recipients and those who did not receive a voucher.

Note: The shaded portion of the graph represents the period of time during which the vouchers were mailed to recipients. The time period to the left of the shaded area plots the take-up of the voucher recipients and those who did not receive a voucher.

Over the life of the pilot, portability was measured by monitoring the proportion of participants who received language services in a province other than the one where they became permanent residents.

Based on iCAMS data, the percentage per province of participants that accessed language services outside their province of destination were:

Nova Scotia: 1.80% Ontario: 1.16% Alberta: 2.45%

The overall percentage of participants who received CIC-funded language services in their province of destination was 98.6%. This shows that the current model being used to allocate settlement funds is appropriate.

While the DCT contained some fields to gather information on personal views from the participants who redeemed their vouchers at LACs, the focus groups conducted by The Strategic Counsel on behalf of CIC sought further information from newcomers which could not be gathered by the statistical tools available. Newcomer respondents and other stakeholders located in the three provinces where the pilot took place provided these additional opinions regarding the vouchers pilot and the level of choice and control newcomers feel they have with their language instruction needs.

Reaction was generally supportive of vouchers as a personal invitation or promotional device to encourage participation in and uptake of language training services, although enthusiasm was somewhat more muted in Halifax, even among newcomers.

“I wouldn’t go just because I got a voucher. It’s not like I’m trying to order a pizza.”

In addition, there was some scepticism about the efficacy of this approach as the decision to take language training is often a function of the immigrant’s key priorities upon arrival (i.e. job/housing first) as well as available time, and how easy or convenient it is to access the facility/location at which the training is offered. Of note, some SPOs emphatically pointed out that low uptake of language training is not a function of a lack of interest by newcomers, but rather of the realities of their day-to-day existence.

Rather, it was felt that choice and empowerment were, in general, reasonable principles with which to adhere. An important caveat to this discussion was raised in some groups where participants felt that cultural factors (i.e. traditional gender-based roles as well as cultural views around dependency and interactions with officials/authorities) may inhibit some newcomers from seizing opportunities to take more control over their own settlement path.

“They may not be used to the idea of empowerment.”

“They [newcomers] should have complete choice and complete responsibility … with guidance!”

In this section, CIC analysed the iCAMS data from both sample groups and used statistical calculations such as survival regression analysis to assess the precise impact of language vouchers on newcomers accessing language assessment, language training, and other settlement services. The analysis explored results across all three provinces, as well as for the individual provinces considered for the pilot.

The statistical method that was used to analyze the uptake for language training and other settlement services is called event history analysis. This type of analysis looks at the probability that an event will happen over time. The dependant variable of this type of analysis comes from the combination of two different pieces of information: did the person experience the event under study and when did the event (or transition) occur. For the present analysis, the focus of the analysis was on the participant’s probability of accessing language assessment, accessing language training and accessing other settlement services after admission as a permanent resident.

In order to determine the probability of a voucher recipient accessing a language service over time, the main variable considered was the language voucher. Other factors that had a constant value through the timeframe were also considered: the province, gender, age, education upon arrival, knowledge of official languages at arrival, immigration category, principal applicant status and world area of the last permanent residence.

The first step to language training is obtaining a language assessment. Therefore, an initial step to understand the impact of language vouchers on language training uptake is to look at whether they had an impact on the rate at which newcomers accessed language assessment.

Notably, after 5 months in Canada, which corresponds to the month where the voucher would have been received, 22% of those in the voucher group went for a language assessment, as opposed to 18% of the non-voucher group. After one year in Canada, 28% of those with a voucher have received a language assessment against 22% for those who did not receive a voucher. Moreover it was observed that one year after receiving the voucher (17 months in Canada), 30% of immigrants with vouchers will have been assessed, and 23% of those without will have done so (for a difference of 7 percentage points between voucher and non-voucher recipients).

Results by province support these findings with more voucher recipients undergoing a language assessment than those without. Results in Alberta are identical for both groups until the month identified for voucher reception, after which they start changing. One year after voucher reception, there was close to a 6 percentage points gap in language assessment between voucher and non-voucher immigrants.

Similar trends were also found in Ontario, even though the gap between the two groups was less pronounced. While tests indicate a significant difference between voucher and non-voucher recipients for Alberta and Ontario, the results in Nova Scotia indicate only a slight difference between the two groups. However, test results indicate this difference is not statistically significant.

The Department also ran statistical tests to identify the factors that contributed to increased uptake. Other variables, such as knowledge of official languages, immigration category, age at arrival, world area of last permanent residence, gender, province and level of education upon arrival played a significant role in explaining an immigrant’s likelihood of obtaining language assessment. However, the analysis also found that once the pilot controlled for these socio-demographic characteristics of individuals in the sample population, the voucher did have an impact in explaining a newcomer’s probability of obtaining a language assessment. In fact, over time, voucher holders were 72% more likely to access a language assessment than non-voucher holders. 

Following a language assessment, newcomers can enrol in language training. Further analysis was therefore conducted to determine if language vouchers had an impact on the uptake for language training.

After 17 months in Canada, or one year after the reception of the vouchers, 22% of immigrants who had received a voucher had accessed language training as opposed to 18% for individuals who did not receive a voucher. Tests indicate the difference between the two groups is statistically significant.

When looking at the descriptive results by province, CIC found that for both Alberta and Ontario, immigrants who had received a language voucher have significantly higher probability of starting CIC’s language training than those who did not have a voucher. Results from Nova Scotia however do not indicate a clear difference between the two groups.

Survival regression analysis confirms the descriptive analysis showing that voucher recipients are more likely to access CIC’s language training over time.  As in the analysis on language assessment, it was found that once controlled for the socio-demographic characteristics of individuals, the voucher did have an impact in explaning a newcomer’s access to language training. In fact, results indicate that voucher recipients have 79% higher probability of accessing language training over time than those who did not receive a voucher. 

One question that might also stem from the language voucher pilot is whether it had an impact on the uptake of other CIC-funded settlement services (other than language services). It could be that the language voucher increased awareness not only on the language training CIC offers, but also brought recipients to inquire about other settlement services that are available to them (employment, orientation, etc.).

When the Department analyzed the data, it found that one year after the voucher had been sent, the difference between the uptake of other settlement services between voucher and non-voucher groups was 2%. However, further statistical testing indicated that this difference between the two groups is barely significant. In fact, statistical results indicated that the initial difference seen between the two groups in terms of access to other settlement services is related to other individual characteristics, and not to the fact of having received a voucher.

Therefore it can be concluded that vouchers’ impact was limited to the uptake of language assessment and training services, which corresponds to the original mandate and purpose of the voucher initiative.

CIC welcomes the key findings and lessons learned provided by the vouchers pilot. This approach of randomly selecting new permanent residents and tracking their use of CIC-funded services during the first year of their settlement in Canada proved to be a new and effective way to gather empirical evidence to inform future policy decisions and program delivery.

Regarding the impact of vouchers on uptake, the results described in the pages above demonstrate the potential vouchers have as a promotional tool for increasing  uptake of LINC services. The evidence shows the proportion of voucher recipients accessing LINC within 12 months after receiving the voucher was 25% greater than among those who did not receive a voucher.  The pilot also demonstrated that once we controlled for personal socio-demographic characteristics which contribute to explaining a newcomer’s likelihood of accessing language services (such as level of proficiency in official languages, immigration category, and area of last permanent residence), voucher recipients have a 79% higher probability of accessing language training over time than those who did not receive a voucher. Therefore, there may be value in exploring further applications of this approach in settlement services or other areas of CIC program delivery.

Moreover, the lessons learned on portability of services show that over 98% of LINC participants accessed services within their provinces of destination during their first year of permanent residence. This key finding supports CIC’s current settlement funding allocation formula with Provinces and Territories. CIC intends to continue to monitor the sample newcomers over the next few years to see whether secondary migration becomes more pronounced with time.

Finally, on choice and empowerment of newcomers, the public opinion research revealed that efforts to increase uptake of language training remain a daunting challenge. Improving uptake of language training in particular will require more effective promotion, but also support to the newcomer (e.g. assistance with daycare, time off work) to permit them to allocate sufficient time away from their daily responsibilities for this endeavor. Reaction was generally supportive of vouchers as a personal invitation or promotional device to encourage participation in and uptake of language training services. However, participants questioned whether vouchers alone could influence newcomers to enroll in language courses. At the same time, while there is not necessarily a strong call for the involvement of the private sector, most newcomers feel that private learning centres could provide additional options in improving language abilities. Most participants agreed that newcomers should be empowered with information and tools to help them transition to life in Canada and succeed.

What an EAL/ESl Learner Can Do in Relation to Intended Outcomes  Canadian Language Literacy Benchmarks Phase I-IVCanadian Language Benchmarks (CLB) 1
(LINC 1)CLB 2
(LINC 2)CLB 3
(LINC 3/4)CLB 4
(LINC 4/5)CLB 5
(LINC 4/5)CLB 6
(LINC 5)CLB 7
(LINC 5+)CLB 8What can this person do?I may or may not have English oral skills, but cannot read or write in English, and typically cannot read or write in my first language.I can give basic information, name, and phone number: can read some words I see often or a short sentence with the help of a picture;
I can write my name and address.I can ask for help; I can read very simple, step-by-step instructions; I can copy prices at a store.I can answer simple questions with single words or short sentences; I can read and understand a simple news item; I can write short, simple sentences about family or familiar places.I have enough vocabulary for everyday conversations about what I need or have done;
I read slowly, but can read a simple story of 2-3 paragraphs; I can write a paragraph about future plans using whole sentences.I am beginning to use longer sentences; my vocabulary is mostly concrete, but can now read some abstract, conceptual technical words; I can fill out a simple application form. I participate in small group discussions, expressing opinions and asking for clarification; I read mostly about facts and things I can see, but sometimes read about abstract or technical issues; I can write a structured paragraph describing a sequence of events with only a few errors in spelling, punctuation and vocabulary.I can give clear instructions and directions related to moderately complex, familiar, technical and Non-technical tasks, I read for information, to learn English and develop reading skills and am beginning to read for pleasure; can write routine business letters.I am comfortable speaking about almost any topic that comes up in a normal conversation in social or work situations with an expanded inventory of concrete, idiomatic and conceptual language; I can read about abstract, conceptual or technical topics; I can write a summary of a 10-15 minute oral presentation, although I may still have occasional difficulty with complex structures and style.Intended outcomesEmployment / Professional Development Employment / Professional Development

Some immigrants at all levels are in language programs with an employment outcome

Logic Model for Language Training Vouchers Pilot

CIC randomly selected 26,189 new permanent residents that arrived in Ontario, Alberta and Nova Scotia between July 2009 and October 2009:

Methodology and Data Collection for the Pilot

Dear

Welcome to the Language Training Vouchers Pilot Project – language training for you!

You have been selected to participate in a Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) project designed to help newcomers like you succeed in Canada. We started this project to help make sure that permanent residents know that you can get language training in English or French free of charge through CIC. If you need to improve your language skills, we hope you will take language training and participate in the project!

You have received a Language Training Voucher with this letter. Included on the Voucher, you will see a list of language assessment centres. To get started with language training, contact a language assessment centre near you. The centre will schedule an appointment to test your language abilities in English or French. Don’t forget to bring your Voucher and your permanent resident card with you to your appointment.

The language assessment centre will give you more information about your training options and the language training providers who can help you improve your English or French. With this information, you can then choose the program that is best for you. You can also learn about other settlement services from the Centre.

Please use your Voucher to start language training within one year. For more information about how to use your Language Training Voucher, please:

contact a language assessment centre; locations are listed on the Language Training Voucher; orcall Citizenship and Immigration’s call centre at: 1-888-242-2100; or visit Citizenship and Immigration’s website at: www.cic.gc.ca/voucher/.

Your participation in this project is important and we hope that you use your Language Training Voucher. Your participation will help us improve the way we help other newcomers succeed in Canada. Thank you for your time and we wish you success in your future language training.

Please note: You do not need to have a Language Training Voucher to take language training. If you do not use your Voucher, you can still take free language training services through CIC, as long as you are a permanent resident and meet the criteria for training. The Voucher is only for the promotion of language training. The language training Voucher is not transferable – it cannot be given to anyone for his or her use – and it cannot be exchanged for money.

Language Training Voucher – Sample

Question: What is the purpose of this pilot project?

Answer: The purpose is to find out if contacting newcomers to Canada directly with a language-training voucher will motivate them to take Citizenship and Immigration Canada-funded language training programs.

Question: How long will this pilot project run?

Answer: The pilot project began in fall 2009 and will run until early 2011.

Question: Where will the pilot project take place?

Answer: The pilot project will take place in three provinces: Ontario, Alberta, and Nova Scotia.

Question: How many people are taking part in the pilot?

Answer: There will be 2,000 permanent residents chosen at random from Alberta, Nova Scotia and Ontario to take part.

Question: What is a language training voucher?

Answer: A language training voucher is a document issued to randomly selected newcomers by Citizenship and Immigration Canada. If you get one, you can bring it to any language assessment centre listed on the voucher and have your language skills assessed. The centre will then give you information about language classes funded by Citizenship and Immigration Canada.

Question: Why did I get a voucher but another member of my family did not?

Answer: Your name was randomly chosen from a sample of people who recently arrived in Canada.

Question: Can I give my voucher to a friend or family member?

Answer: No, only you may use your voucher. It will have a number on it that is assigned to you. However, all permanent residents can get language training funded by Citizenship and Immigration Canada in order to improve their language skills if they are old enough to legally leave school in their province:

Ontario – age 18 Alberta – age 16 Nova Scotia – age 16

Question: My friend/family member did not get a training voucher. Does that mean that they cannot take language training?

Answer: Your family members and friends can get language training funded by Citizenship and Immigration Canada to improve their language skills if they are old enough to legally leave school in your province:

Ontario – age 18 Alberta – age 16 Nova Scotia – age 16

For more information, you can call any of the language training assessment centres. You’ll find contact information on your language training voucher.

Question: How will newcomers get these vouchers?

Answer: Citizenship and Immigration Canada will mail the language training vouchers to newcomers around the same time they mail their permanent resident cards.

Question: What should I do with the voucher if I get one?

Answer: You can bring it to one of the language assessment centres inside the voucher to have your language skills tested. You must bring your voucher and permanent resident card so the assessor can verify who you are.

Question: What should I do if I’ve lost my voucher?

Answer: You can go to the language assessment centre with your permanent resident card. They will be able to verify if you have received a voucher, and then proceed to test your language skills.

Question: Which organizations will accept vouchers?

Answer: There is a list of the language assessment centres in your province attached to the language training voucher.

Question: Will this cost me anything?

Answer: No, it will not cost you anything. Citizenship and Immigration Canada provides language training to all new permanent residents if you are old enough to legally leave school in your province:

Ontario – age 18 Alberta – age 16 Nova Scotia – age 16

In most provinces, this program is called Language Instruction for Newcomers to Canada (LINC).

Question: How long are the vouchers valid for?

Answer: Language training vouchers are valid for one year. However, as a newcomer, you can get language training funded by Citizenship and Immigration Canada as long as you are a permanent resident and are old enough to legally leave school in your province:

Ontario – age 18 Alberta – age 16 Nova Scotia – age 16

Question: If I move to another province, will my voucher still be valid?

Answer: The voucher is only valid in Alberta, Nova Scotia, and Ontario. However, as a permanent resident, you can get language training funded by Citizenship and Immigration Canada anywhere in Canada.

Question: Is my voucher valid for only me, or for all my family members?

Answer: Only you can use the voucher. It has a number on it that is assigned to you. However, any of your family members who want to improve their language skills can get language training funded by Citizenship and Immigration Canada language training if they are old enough to legally leave school in your province:

Ontario – age 18 Alberta – age 16 Nova Scotia – age 16

Question: Is it mandatory for me to use the voucher?

Answer: No, it is not mandatory to use the language training voucher, but you are encouraged to do so. Through language training vouchers, CIC is trying to encourage newcomers to take language classes as soon as possible. We hope you will participate in the language training vouchers pilot project.

Consultation with expert methodologist for pilot design and evaluationDatabase development (Data Collection Tool) and testing to track and monitor issuance and redemption of vouchers Travel associated with information and training for Language Assessment CentresHuman resources costs (CIC staffing) for monitoring (3 Full Time Equivalents dedicated approximately 33% of their yearly workload to this project)

View the original article here

No comments:

Post a Comment