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.
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).
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.
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:
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.
GroupsDCTCIC 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).
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.
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
CIC randomly selected 26,189 new permanent residents that arrived in Ontario, Alberta and Nova Scotia between July 2009 and October 2009:
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.
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 16Question: 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
Would you like to stay in Holland after your studies? Are you planning to look for a job? Start learning Dutch language at VU University and increase your chances of employment!
Thanks for your vote!