The Canada Learning Bond, financial capability and tax-filing: Results from an online survey of low and modest income parents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous research has identified several likely causes of eligible non-participation in the Canada Learning Bond (CLB), including awareness, financial exclusion, and administrative barriers. This study expands on that research, with a particular focus on the role of tax-filing as an administrative obstacle to accessing the CLB. I present results from an online survey of low and modest income parents (n=466) conducted in 2021. We find that, even among parents reporting they have received the CLB (46%), a majority (51%) report low confidence in their familiarity with the program, and more than one in six (17%) are unaware of the need to file tax returns to maintain eligibility for annual CLB payments. Self-reported regular tax-filing is associated with a 59% increase in the probability of accessing the CLB, even when controlling for a range of parental characteristics. This study confirms previous work by Harding and colleagues (2019) that non-filing may explain some share of eligible non-participation in education savings incentives. Tax-filing services may be an important pathway to improve CLB access. Low and modest income parents show substantial diversity in their preferred filing methods and outreach efforts cannot be concentrated in only one avenue if they are to be successful. The study also tests a small ‘nudge’ to address gaps in awareness and finds that information-only approaches to outreach are likely to have limited success, even with motivated populations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".