Evaluation of the Guaranteed Income Supplement

Program description

The Guaranteed Income Supplement is a component of the Old Age Security program, which is the Government of Canada's largest statutory pension program. The benefits under the Old Age Security program include the Old Age Security pension, the Guaranteed Income Supplement, the Allowance, and the Allowance for the Survivor.^{Footnote 7}

The Old Age Security pension is provided to seniors aged 65 years and over who meet the legal status and residence requirements. Seniors with 40 years of residence in Canada after age 18 receive a full pension; a minimum of 10 years of residence is required for a partial pension.^{Footnote 8} The income-tested Guaranteed Income Supplement is provided to low-income Old Age Security pensioners residing in Canada.^{Footnote 9} The Guaranteed Income Supplement, which became operative in January 1967 after an amendment to the Old Age Security Act,^{Footnote 10} provides a monthly non-taxable benefit to Old Age Security pension recipients who have a low level of income.

In 2017 to 2018, an average of 1.9 million seniors (about 32% of Old Age Security pensioners) received Guaranteed Income Supplement payments in addition to their monthly Old Age Security pension; the total number of Old Age Security pensioners was approximately 6 million seniors.^{Footnote 11} Total Guaranteed Income Supplement payments were $11.7 billion for 2017 to 2018, while total Old Age Security pension payments were $38 billion for the same period.

The monthly Guaranteed Income Supplement payment is based on the pensioner’s marital status and the individual income for singles, and joint income in the case of couples, reported by the pensioner in the previous calendar year. From July to September 2018, the maximum monthly benefit was $891.18 for single seniors and $536.48 for each member of a pensioner couple. The income-level cut-off amounts were $18,096 for single persons and $23,904 for couples, representing the amount of income at which the Guaranteed Income Supplement ceased to be payable.^{Footnote 12}

3.1 Changes in Guaranteed Income Supplement take-up, 2006 to 2015^{Footnote i}

The estimate of the number of Guaranteed Income Supplement recipients in 2015 is 2,103,020.^{Footnote 13} The estimate of the number of seniors eligible for the Supplement but not receiving it in 2015 is 240,000. Thus, the estimated total number of eligible seniors in 2015 is 2,343,020.^{Footnote 14}

Figure 1 presents the overall take-up rates between 2006 and 2015. According to the Old Age Security/Canada Revenue Agency linked data, the lowest rates were in 2011 to 2014, when the rates ranged between 87.4% and 87.8%.^{Footnote 15} The data shows an increase in take-up to 90% in 2015.

Figure 1 – Text version

Year	Overall Take-up Rate of the Guaranteed Income Supplement
2006	89.8%
2007	89.4%
2008	89.1%
2009	89.4%
2010	90%
2011	87.8%
2012	87.8%
2013	87.4%
2014	87.4%
2015	89.8%

• Sources: 10% sample of linked Canada Revenue Agency T1-Old Age Security databases, 2006 to 2015

When examining the take-up rates disaggregated by demographic characteristics, the overall take-up rate has been fairly stable between 2006 and 2015 (89.8% for both years), despite a small drop to just under 88% in 2011.^{Footnote 16}

The following analysis explains changes in the Supplement take up rate between 2006 and 2015 amongst vulnerable populations^{Footnote 17} and other characteristics.

Immigrants: As with the overall take-up trends, rates for immigrants have been stable between 2006 and 2015. Immigrants who came to Canada between 10 and 25 years ago had a take-up rate for the Supplement of 95% in 2006 and 96% in 2015.^{Footnote 18} Immigrants have a higher take-up rate (94%) than those born in Canada (87%).^{Footnote 19}

Rural versus urban: Overall, urban individuals in Canada had slightly lower take-up than rural individuals (90% vs. 91% in 2015). The difference in take-up between both groups remained steady throughout the 2006 to 2015 period.^{Footnote 20}

Indigenous: Take-up rates among Indigenous communities are currently only available for 2010.^{Footnote 21} The take-up was 91% for Indigenous compared to 89% for non-Indigenous.^{Footnote 22}

Gender: Take-up is higher among women than men. The difference in take-up between men and women has been steady at around 5 percentage points. For women, take-up varied through the period of observation (particularly between 2010 and 2015) but remained at 92% for both 2006 and 2015.^{Footnote 23} Take-up for men was 88% in 2006 and 87% in 2015. See graph in Annex D.

Age: There was a lower take-up rate among people aged 65 to 69 years in 2006 (85% and 90%, respectively) compared to older cohorts (90%, 91%, and 92% for those aged 75 to 79, 80 to 84 and 85+, respectively). From 2006 to 2014, there was a slight decrease in take-up among all age groups, with an increase in 2015. It was most apparent among individuals between 65 and 69, where take-up declined by about 2 percentage points during the period.^{Footnote 24} See graph in Annex D.

Marital status: Take-up varies by marital status, with higher take-up among single and widowed individuals. They have an average 5 percentage points higher than take-up among married individuals. Take-up has been fairly steady among single and widowed seniors during this period. For example, it was 92% for both single and widowed seniors in 2015.^{Footnote 25} See graph in Annex D.

For married individuals, take-up decreased slightly from 88% in 2006 to 87% in 2015.^{Footnote 26}

Region: As shown in Figure 2, the variation in take-up is quite significant. Take-up is lower in the Ontario, Western and Northern regions of Canada than in the Atlantic and Quebec regions. In 2015, take-up was 94% in the Atlantic and Quebec regions, while it was 88% and 87% in Ontario and Western regions, respectively. Finally, the lowest take-up rate was 85% in the Northern region.^{Footnote 27}, ^{Footnote 28}

Figure 2 – Text version

Year	Atlantic	Quebec	Ontario	Western	Northern
2006	95.8%	93.1%	86.8%	89.1%	89.9%
2007	94.8%	93.1%	86.4%	88.2%	91.1%
2008	94.5%	92.1%	85.6%	88.8%	92.8%
2009	95.0%	93.5%	85.5%	88.3%	91.6%
2010	95.0%	94.1%	86.4%	88.9%	86.4%
2011	94.4%	93.1%	83.4%	85.6%	88.5%
2012	94.5%	93.3%	84.0%	84.7%	84.5%
2013	94.2%	93.3%	83.9%	83.5%	81.2%
2014	94.1%	93.3%	83.6%	83.7%	80.2%
2015	94.6%	93.6%	87.1%	88.2%	85.4%

• Source: 10% sample of taxfilers in linked T1-Old Age Security databases (5.1M observations)

Family income and employment: Guaranteed Income Supplement take-up decreases with higher family income. For individuals whose family income is below $10,000, take-up was 96% in both 2006 and 2015. Finally, take-up was lowest at 71% and 72% in 2006 and 2015 for individuals with incomes above $20,000. Take-up rates were almost flat for those who earned less than $10,000 per year.^{Footnote 29} See chart in Annex D.

Canada and Quebec Pension Plan benefits: Take-up was similar for seniors who received Canada or Quebec Pension Plan benefits and for those who did not receive any of those benefits, but diverged slightly between 2014 and 2015. Specifically, those who received the Canada or Quebec Pension Plan benefits in 2015 had a take-up rate for the Guaranteed Income Supplement of 90.5% compared to a take-up of 86.7% for those not receiving either of these pensions.^{Footnote 30} See graph in Annex H.

Eligibility rate for the Guaranteed Income Supplement: Finally, the proportion of seniors whose income fell below the income cut-off for the Guaranteed Income Supplement declined virtually each year, from 42% in 2006 to 37% in 2015. This result most likely indicates that the incomes of seniors have increased more rapidly than the Guaranteed Income Supplement income cut-offs.^{Footnote 31}

3.2 Changes in the population of eligible non-recipients since 2006^{Footnote ii}

In 2015, most Guaranteed Income Supplement potentially eligible non-recipients were tax filers receiving the Old Age Security pension (77%, or about 186,000 seniors). Another 18% of Guaranteed Income Supplement potentially eligible non-recipients were tax filers who were not receiving the Old Age Security pension (or about 43,000 seniors). Finally, 5% were non-tax filers that were clients of the Old Age Security program (or about 11,000 seniors).

Figure 3 – Text version

Distribution of the number of Guaranteed Income Supplement Potentially Eligible Non-recipients in 2006

Type of recipients	Percentage
Non-tax filers	6.5%
Tax filers not receiving Old Age Security pension	8.9%
Tax filers receiving Old Age Security pension	84.6%

Distribution of the number of Guaranteed Income Supplement Potentially Eligible Non-recipients in 2015

Type of recipients	Percentage
Non-tax filers	4.7%
Tax filers not receiving Old Age Security pension	18%
Tax filers receiving Old Age Security pension	77.4%

• Source: 10% sample of linked T1-Old Age Security databases (5.2M observations).

Figure 1 indicates that over the 2006 to 2015 evaluation period, the proportion of potentially eligible non-recipients who received the Old Age Security pension had decreased from 85% to 77%. While it is not clear what caused this decrease, it does suggest that receipt of the Old Age Security pension is a key factor among the eligible non-recipient population.^{Footnote 32}

Key observations derived from Table 1 include the following:

• there are only slight differences by gender in 2015 (52.9% male; 47.1% female). This is a change from 2006 where 52% of females were among the potentially eligible non-recipients compared to 49% of men
• more potentially eligible non-recipients were living as a couple than as singles in 2006 (51% versus 49%), a difference that has become more pronounced by 2015 (54% versus 46%)
• a higher proportion of seniors between age 65 and 69 were potentially eligible non-recipients in 2006 (35.2%) than those in the older age groups, a difference that has become more pronounced in 2015, where 44% of this age group were among the potentially eligible non-recipients. At the same time, 38% those aged 70 to 79 were also among the potentially eligible non-recipients, declining to 32% in 2015
• Ontario, and to a lesser extent the western provinces, have the highest proportion of potentially eligible non-recipients, both in 2006 and 2015 (43% and 31%)
• the vast majority (80% to 81%) of potentially eligible non-recipients live in urban settings, a finding that has not changed from 2006 to 2015
• the majority (49% to 50%) of potentially eligible non-recipients have family incomes of $20,000 and up, a finding that has not changed from 2006 to 2015^{Footnote 37}, ^{Footnote 38}
• finally, the majority of potentially eligible non-recipients are, nonetheless, receiving an Old Age Security pension, although this proportion has diminished from 2006 (91%) to 2015 (81%)

3.3 Changes in Barriers to Take-up of the Guaranteed Income Supplement^{Footnote iii}

Data from the previous section indicate that frequently marginalized groups of seniors such as Indigenous people and those who live in rural areas have rates of take-up for the Guaranteed Income Supplement on par with seniors who are not members of these groups. Despite this, take-up rates still fall below 100%, suggesting that there may still be barriers to be addressed. Therefore, a more in depth examination of barriers particular to these groups were undertaken.^{Footnote 39}

The following barriers to take-up of the Guaranteed Income Supplement were seen by key informants as most noteworthy:^{Footnote 40}

• lack of awareness of the Guaranteed Income Supplement, such as a poor understanding of the amount of the potential benefit
• not filing income tax is seen as hampering a person’s take-up or ongoing receipt of the Guaranteed Income Supplement^{Footnote 41}
• language and literacy barriers that make the application process overwhelming for seniors
• lack of understanding of how the Guaranteed Income Supplement works
• lack of sufficient in-person services to assist people in understanding the program
• barriers unique to Indigenous seniors such as an historical mistrust of government and government programs

Due to the qualitative nature of the evidence, it was difficult to ascertain the level of change; in particular, if there are more barriers since the last evaluation or whether or not their effect has worsened over time. In most cases, respondents provided a very broad assessment of change based on their experiences.

Employment and Social Development Canada policy and program staff at national headquarters, as well as some frontline Service Canada Staff, were more likely to indicate that the barriers to application were diminishing while regional outreach staff and non-governmental stakeholders were more likely to note that barriers are increasing or remaining the same (such as confusion about the Guaranteed Income Supplement and its relation to the Old Age Security pension).^{Footnote 42}

However, many of these same key informants noted that the government’s response to addressing these potential barriers had improved as a result of the following initiatives:

• widespread access to online information (although not all seniors might understand the content due to language and literacy constraints)
• the new Old Age Security toolkit
• mobile outreach for isolated seniors in remote and rural communities
• partnerships with the Canada Revenue Agency for automatic Guaranteed Income Supplement renewal^{Footnote 43}

Where reductions in take-up barriers were noted, they were due primarily to current and upcoming improvements to services such as automatic enrolment.

Some process barriers appear to be ongoing, according to key informants who were interviewed. These include:

• seniors who do not file their income taxes and have no automated transmission of income tax data, making it necessary for clients to provide additional information on their Statement of Income in order for Service Canada to adjust the amount of their Guaranteed Income Supplement as their income changes; and
• seniors who, in rare cases, consider the Guaranteed Income Supplement to be a form of welfare which they do not wish to collect^{Footnote 44}

While these are not direct barriers to take-up, they may have an indirect impact on the take-up rate of the Guaranteed Income Supplement.

Among the factors that were noted as getting worse since the previous evaluation were the following:

• a general lack of awareness of the Guaranteed Income Supplement among some organizations that provide support for seniors^{Footnote 45}
• a reduction in the number of community site visits by Service Canada staff^{Footnote 46}

In addition, contextual factors are seen to have become more challenging since the last evaluation. While these factors are not the responsibility of the program, they do point to the need to plan for future challenges with regard to demand for the Guaranteed Income Supplement. These factors include the following:

• the increase in the number of individuals reaching the age of 65, thus requiring additional resources to determine eligibility, conduct outreach, and assist in overcoming the multiple barriers to take-up of that benefit^{Footnote 47}
• a perceived increase in the number of homeless or near-homeless seniors as well as the number of seniors who are living alone or who are otherwise socially isolated^{Footnote 48}

3.4 Barriers to take-up specific to vulnerable populations and barriers common to all groups^{Footnote iv}

3.5 The effectiveness of actions taken to reach different groups^{Footnote v}

Automatic renewal was seen as an important step toward increasing take-up of the Guaranteed Income Supplement since the last evaluation was begun in 2006. Prior to 2007, the Old Age Security Act required individuals to reapply for the GIS if there was a break in eligibility (for example, because the annual income was too high). Amendments to the Act in 2007 remedied this situation such that an individual would not need to reapply even if they became ineligible one year. However, the 2007 amendments were not fully implemented until 2015.^{Footnote 84}, ^{Footnote 85}, ^{Footnote 86}

The program has conducted regular Guaranteed Income Supplement Take-up mailings targeting potentially eligible seniors. These were effective at reaching potentially eligible seniors who file their taxes.^{Footnote 87}

Other evidence specifies the utility of current efforts. For example, a survey of low-income seniors by Service Canada asked what could be done to better reach seniors and provide important information about the Guaranteed Income Supplement. Findings include the following:

• 40% had no suggestion
• 28% indicated they would like to receive more mail outs sent with information about benefits
• 5% indicated they would like a stronger partnership between Employment and Social Development Canada and the Canada Revenue Agency to help share information related to eligibility
• 2% indicated that correspondence should be simplified^{Footnote 88}

On the other hand, stakeholders that were interviewed for the evaluation noted that, on their own, mail-outs were not the best way to reach seniors; low literacy, language issues, lack of fixed addresses and difficulty with understanding government documents were noted as barriers.^{Footnote 89}

However, mail-outs were still seen as useful initiatives overall, insofar as they can provide general awareness of the existence of the Guaranteed Income Supplement. Mail-outs were seen as most useful when coupled with targeted, in-person outreach activities, particularly in the case of Indigenous and homeless or near-homeless seniors.

Community organizations noted the utility of outreach to those who help deliver services to seniors. Group information sessions to seniors were seen as useful, particularly when it is experienced as an opportunity for seniors to interact with one another.^{Footnote 90} In addition, representatives of community organizations noted that including Guaranteed Income Supplement information with Old Age Security and T4 mail-outs was helpful.

Finally, mail-outs were seen as more beneficial than either telephone calls or emails, due to limited use of such technologies by seniors and suspicion of potential fraud.

Key informants noted that the groups most often facing challenges with regard to the Guaranteed Income Supplement were non-tax filers. However, seniors with language, literacy, mobility, mental health, and income barriers, including the homeless, were seen as the most challenging subgroup of non-tax filers. While these seniors might benefit from free tax clinics, pilot projects or outreach and information sessions, it is unclear whether they actually use the information to file Guaranteed Income Supplement applications since no follow up is done.

Information sessions were considered least effective in reaching vulnerable seniors with low literacy skills since they often do not have the capacity or knowledge to understand the information provided and are less likely to act on it. Almost all respondents felt that what was preferable was information with personal assistance to complete an application.

While technological improvements were seen as enhancing the distribution of information and awareness of the program, it was seen as benefiting more educated, computer literate seniors.

However, these initiatives were seen as being most beneficial for people already in the broader system (for example, income tax filers and Old Age Security recipients). It was not seen as potentially beneficial for vulnerable groups who may not already be in the system, such as the homeless or near-homeless.

3.6 The impact of the different measures to increase take-up^{Footnote vi}

Since the last evaluation, the program has taken the following key measures with a view to improving the program:

• automated the renewal process for the Guaranteed Income Supplement
• creation of an “Increase the Take-up of the Guaranteed Income Supplement Action Plan”

Interviews with key informants with direct contact with seniors indicated a number of activities that were seen as effective at increasing take-up. These included:

• information sessions on seniors’ benefits for low income clients and First Nation clients on reserve
• Free Tax clinics especially in First Nation communities where low income seniors lack finances to file taxes
• partnerships with the Canada Revenue Agency to permit auto-renewal for the Guaranteed Income Supplement
• a pilot project in which a toolkit was provided to organizations or partners who help vulnerable seniors file pension forms
• Canada Revenue Agency outreach encouraging community groups to sign up as volunteer tax preparation centers. This will result in more tax filers and potentially more eligible recipients
• allowing homeless people the opportunity to apply using third party due to mental health or physical disability
• hands-on application sessions
• outreach to seniors facing language or geographic barriers (including those in care facilities)

By and large, the initiatives seen by key informants as having the most positive effects are activities that are being implemented or are already in place, including:

• the Guaranteed Income Supplement automatic enrolment
• partnering with the Canada Revenue Agency to permit automatic renewal
• the integrated Old Age Security/Guaranteed Income Supplement application
• Guaranteed Income Supplement simplification initiatives and data sharing with the Canada Revenue Agency^{Footnote 91}

Initiatives undertaken after the evaluation began may have contributed to an increase in Guaranteed Income Supplement take-up. In July 2015, as a result of the Old Age Security online system improvements, over 2 million Old Age Security pensioners had their Guaranteed Income Supplement entitlement automatically calculated and their benefits automatically paid. The clients received a Guaranteed Income Supplement reward letter informing them of their new entitlement.^{Footnote 92}

As of August 2017, 48,993 Guaranteed Income Supplement applications have been approved and the applicants had been declared “Guaranteed Income Supplement for Life,” as a result of a November 2016 Guaranteed Income Supplement take-up mailing.

It is likely that automatic enrolment and the integrated Old Age Security-Guaranteed Income Supplement application will result in significant increases in future take-up. Recent (2015) estimates of take-up for the Guaranteed Income Supplement do not include changes to the program that have recently been implemented (such as, automatic enrolment)^{Footnote 93} or had not yet been fully implemented at the time of the evaluation (for example, integrated Old Age Security-Guaranteed Income Supplement application).^{Footnote 94} However, evidence from Old Age Security administrative data and key informant interviews suggest that efforts to increase the take-up rate are successful. Despite the overall constancy of take-up rates between 2006 and 2015, there has been an increase observed between 2014 and 2015 among most demographic groups but particularly among those who live in Ontario as well as the western and northern regions and for those with annual incomes of $15,000 and over.

One key informant reported outreach for specific subgroups of seniors (who were in the tax system) has already begun. Recent figures, provided by the key informant for December 2016, show outreach to 9,449 single individuals; 5731 individuals whose spouse or common-law partner receive the Old Age Security pension; and 2,872 individuals whose spouse or common-law partner does not receive the Old Age Security pension but are eligible for the Allowance.^{Footnote 95}

3.7 Take-up rate among all eligible seniors between 2006 to 2015

Challenges exist in estimating the take-up rate because, on its own, the program administrative data is not capable of providing a clear picture of the seniors who are eligible for the Guaranteed Income Supplement but, nevertheless, do not receive it. For this reason, the evaluation uses complementary sources of data, such as income tax data from the Canada Revenue Agency, to better understand this population (further elucidated in Section 3.2).

The take-up rate^{Footnote 96} has remained fairly constant over the period 2006 to 2015, averaging 89%, with a mean deviation of less than 1 percentage point.^{Footnote 97} The only exception was between the 2 last years, during which there was a more noticeable uptick in the take-up rate (from 87% in 2014 to 90% in 2015).^{Footnote 98} Figure 4 shows the official rates, calculated using the Longitudinal Administrative Databank and take-up rates calculated from the Old Age Security administrative data/Canada Revenue Agency linked data used for this evaluation. The official rates only include tax-filers. We present rates 2 ways: for tax-filers only and for tax-filers and non-tax filers combined.

Figure 4 – Text version

Year	Official ESDC Rate (LAD, tax-payers only)	CRA-OAS Admin All Tax-filers	CRA-OAS Admin including non-taxfilers
2006	89.1%	90.2%	89.8%
2007	91.2%	89.8%	89.4%
2008	91.2%	89.4%	89.1%
2009	90.7%	89.6%	89.4%
2010	89.6%	90.2%	90.0%
2011	89.4%	88.0%	87.8%
2012	88.5%	88.0%	87.8%
2013	89.1%	87.6%	87.4%
2014	87.5%	87.5%	87.4%
2015	91.1%	90.0%	89.8%

• All estimates include both Old Age Security pension recipients and non-recipients

To better understand what would be an ideal take-up rate, it is useful to have a benchmark for comparison. Annex B shows take-up rates of comparable programs among countries that have economic and social characteristics comparable to those of Canada; United States, United Kingdom, and New Zealand.

Several comparisons are noteworthy. First, the take-up of the Guaranteed Income Supplement in Canada is higher for almost all comparable benefits from the countries selected, with the exception of New Zealand. Second, New Zealand’s pension is not income tested, unlike the Guaranteed Income Supplement. These findings suggest that the take-up rate in Canada is quite high compared to other countries.

Despite this comparatively high take-up rate, there are still an estimated 10% of eligible seniors who did not receive the Guaranteed Income Supplement in 2015. To address this, the Longitudinal Administrative Databank analysis was used to include the impact of people’s income.^{Footnote 99}

Analysis using data from 2015 (the last period of observation for this evaluation) showed that seniors who are eligible for the Guaranteed Income Supplement, but who do not receive it, are mostly in one of the 4 categories:

• seniors whose spouse did not receive the Old Age Security because the spouse is still under 65 (27.7%)^{Footnote 100}
• recent Old Age Security pensioners (it is possible that they may not yet be aware of the Guaranteed Income Supplement) (28.2%)
• seniors with rental or self-employment income whose income tends to be more variable and, therefore, exclusion from the Guaranteed Income Supplement may be temporary (20.9%), and
• pensioners (6.8%) whose income is just under the income cut-off level, in which case ineligibility may be temporary and the supplement not significant (less than $250 per year)^{Footnote 101}

Finally, the majority of tax filing seniors who are eligible for the Guaranteed Income Supplement but do not receive it still receive the Old Age Security pension; take-up of the Old Age Security pension among this group was estimated to be above 81% in 2015 (although there is a decline from 87% in 2014).^{Footnote 102}

Annex A: Methods and data limitations

Document review: A review of program and service delivery documentation such as, internal research conducted for the Department on the topic of Guaranteed Income Supplement take-up, Service Delivery Bulletins related to Guaranteed Income Supplement take-up initiatives, Departmental Performance Reports, and documents related to initiatives to improve take-up of the Supplement.

Key informant interviews: Interviews with Employment and Social Development Canada and Service Canada National Headquarters staff, regional outreach staff, Service Canada Processing Centre senior staff, current and potential outreach partners, and advocacy groups who serve seniors. The purpose of these interviews was to add further context to recent Guaranteed Income Supplement take-up initiatives and to provide information related to the difficulties some people face in accessing the benefit.

Data analyses: The evaluation used a linked database of Old Age Security/Guaranteed Income Supplement program administrative data and Canada Revenue Agency T1 income tax data to examine trends in Guaranteed Income Supplement take-up among tax filers and non-tax filers. This analysis represents the most direct information on those eligible for the Guaranteed Income Supplement and provided data for the entire period that the evaluation covers (2006 to 2015).

The evaluation also used 2 separate Statistics Canada data sources – the 2011 National Household Survey and the Longitudinal Administrative Databank. These sources provided further take-up information on tax filers not receiving the Guaranteed Income Supplement as well as information on Indigenous seniors. The Longitudinal Administrative Databank also provided information for immigrants.^{Footnote 103}

Stakeholder discussion groups: Focus groups were held with representatives of organizations that work with Indigenous people, immigrant populations and homeless or near-homeless seniors to better understand why some Guaranteed Income Supplement-eligible seniors are not receiving the benefit.

Service Canada Survey: This survey was part of the “Increasing Guaranteed Income Supplement Take-Up Action Plan”. The survey interviewed a random sample of clients who received Guaranteed Income Supplement application packages. Participants were asked why they had not previously applied for the Guaranteed Income Supplement, their awareness of the program, the ease of completing the application, and who they turned for assistance.

Annex B: International take-up rates of Guaranteed Income Supplement-like Programs

Annex C: Guaranteed Income Supplement take-up rates for low income tax filers receiving the OAS

Annex D: Take-up rates, 2006 to 2015

Figure 5 – Text version

Year	Below $10,000	$10,000-$14,999	$15,000-$19,999	$20,000+
2006	96.5%	92.7%	85.5%	70.6%
2007	96.4%	93.0%	84.5%	70.4%
2008	96.3%	92.9%	84.6%	68.1%
2009	96.0%	92.5%	85.0%	70.5%
2010	95.9%	93.0%	86.6%	71.1%
2011	95.6%	90.8%	81.2%	66.0%
2012	95.4%	91.4%	83.2%	65.7%
2013	95.2%	90.8%	82.2%	65.0%
2014	95.2%	90.8%	81.8%	64.6%
2015	95.5%	93.6%	87.9%	71.7%

• Source: 10% sample of taxfilers in linked T1-OAS databases (5.1M observations)

Figure 6 – Text version

Year	Men	Women
2006	87.7%	91.8%
2007	87.5%	91.2%
2008	86.5%	91.2%
2009	86.9%	91.4%
2010	87.3%	92.1%
2011	84.9%	90.1%
2012	84.7%	90.2%
2013	84.3%	89.8%
2014	84.3%	89.8%
2015	87.1%	92.1%

• Source: 10% sample of taxfilters in linked T1-OAS databases (5.1M observations

Figure 7 – Text version

Year	65 to 69	70 to 74	75 to 79	80 to 84	85 or more
2006	85.9%	90.3%	91.9%	91.9%	92.6%
2007	85.4%	89.9%	91.4%	91.6%	92.2%
2008	84.3%	89.6%	91.2%	91.5%	92.2%
2009	84.6%	89.5%	91.7%	92.1%	92.7%
2010	85.1%	90.2%	92.6%	92.6%	93.0%
2011	83.1%	88.4%	90.3%	90.2%	90.4%
2012	82.9%	88.2%	90.4%	90.6%	90.6%
2013	82.1%	88.1%	89.9%	90.1%	90.5%
2014	81.5%	88.0%	90.4%	90.6%	90.5%
2015	83.5%	91.2%	93.0%	93.0%	92.8%

• Source: 10% sample of taxfilers in linked T1-OAS databases (5.1M observations)

Figure 8 – Text version

Year	Single	Widowed	Married
2006	92.4%	91.4%	87.8%
2007	92.0%	90.8%	87.4%
2008	91.7%	90.6%	86.8%
2009	91.4%	91.2%	87.2%
2010	92.1%	91.6%	87.9%
2011	90.7%	89.5%	85.2%
2012	90.8%	90.3%	84.6%
2013	90.2%	89.9%	84.2%
2014	90.5%	89.4%	84.3%
2015	92.3%	91.8%	87.3%

• Source: 10% sample of taxfilers in linked T1-OAS databases (5.1 observations)

Figure 9 – Text version

Year	Take-up for seniors receiving C/QPP	Take-up for seniors not receiving C/QPP
2006	90.0%	91.4%
2007	89.5%	91.3%
2008	89.1%	91.1%
2009	89.5%	90.6%
2010	90.3%	90.0%
2011	87.9%	88.7%
2012	88.0%	88.1%
2013	87.6%	87.7%
2014	87.6%	87.3%
2015	90.5%	86.7%

• Source: 10% sample of taxfilers in linked T1-OAS databases (5.1M observations)

Annex E: Evaluation matrix for the Guaranteed Income Supplement take-up evaluation

1. How have the types of potentially eligible non-recipients of the Guaranteed Income Supplement evolved since 2006?
   • Phase 1:
     • SIR-CRA-OAS^{Footnote 109}
     • LAD
   • Phase 2:
     • Census
2. How has Guaranteed Income Supplement take-up changed since 2006 and, in particular, how has it changed for vulnerable populations (for example, immigrants, Indigenous people, those living in remote communities, etc.)?
   • Phase 1:
     • NHS
     • SIR-CRA-OAS
     • LAD
   • Phase 2:
     • Census
3. Have the barriers to take-up among Guaranteed Income Supplement-eligible seniors changed since the previous Guaranteed Income Supplement take-up evaluation?
   • Phase 1:
     • Service Canada survey
     • Key informants
     • Discussion groups
   • Phase 2:
     • Evaluation survey
   • a. Which barriers are common to all and which barriers are specific to certain vulnerable populations (for example immigrants, Indigenous people, those living in remote communities, etc.)?
   • Phase 1:
     • Service Canada survey
     • Key informants
     • Discussion groups
   • Phase 2:
     • Evaluation survey
4. How effective were actions taken to reach different groups?
   • Phase 1:
     • Doc review
     • Key informants
     • Discussion groups
   • Phase 2:
     • Evaluation survey
   • a. What was the impact (for example on take-up, awareness, understanding, etc.) of the different measures?
   • Phase 1:
     • Doc review
     • Key informants
     • Discussion groups
   • Phase 2.
     • Evaluation survey

Annex F: Barriers to take-up of the Guaranteed Income Supplement

Barriers to take-up are both quantitative (such as, how much change) and qualitative (such as, what kind of change). Qualitative barriers noted in the lines of evidence fall into 4 overall categories: structural barriers, skills barriers, process barriers, application barriers. Of these, structural barriers are probably the most noteworthy change since the last evaluation, given that they point to major changes in demographics or economic situation that has affected the number of seniors and their level of need.

Annex G: OAS/GIS Program logic model^{Footnote 128}

Ultimate Outcome

• Social and economic inclusion of seniors in Canadian Society.

Shared Outcomes

• Income security for seniors.
• Responsive and current legislation/policy that reflects current and future needs of seniors.
• Responsible stewardship of the OAS program.

Direct Outcomes

• Seniors receive a lifetime benefit in recognition of their contribution to Canadian society.
• Eligible low-income seniors receive a minimum income.
• Quality program and policy direction to all partners in the administration of OAS program.

Outputs

• Policy direction to Service Canada in the administration of the OAS program.
• Litigation preparation/strategy.
• Policy, Legislation and Regulation.

Activities

• Policy, Legislation and Litigation Development and Analysis.
• Correspondence, Communication and Information.
• Horizontal linkages with others Departments, Governments and stakeholders.

Annex H: Additional findings from the Longitudinal Administrative Databank

Guaranteed Income Supplement take-up rates were calculated differently than both the rates calculated by Statistics Canada for Employment and Social Development and the rates calculated for this evaluation using the merged Old Age Security/Canada Revenue Agency linked data base. Most notable is the Longitudinal Administrative Databank rates calculated for this evaluation used a more conservative definition of eligibility, where only those receiving the Old Age Security pension are eligible for the Guaranteed Income Supplement. This is a more literal definition of eligibility than other source noted in this evaluation, which included also those who were eligible but not receiving the Old Age Security pension.

In addition, to be considered eligible for the Guaranteed Income Supplement, the following restrictions were made:

• only those over age 65 years were included (eligibility requirement)
• only those who filed income tax in 2014 and 2015
• only those whose spouse filed taxes
• those who had died in 2015, were immigrants with less than 10 years residency in Canada (eligibility requirement), or whose marital status was not known, were also excluded
• finally, those whose who were single in 2014 and married in 2015 were excluded due to the difficulty assessing a new spouse’s income

Due to these restrictions, the analysis of the Longitudinal Administrative Databank for this evaluation produced a smaller sample size than the sample size published by the program.

With this in mind, we present the following additional findings using the Longitudinal Databank.

The take-up rate has remained fairly flat over the period 2006 to 2015, averaging 87.5%, with a mean deviation of less than 1 percentage point. Despite this, there is an uptick from 2014 (85.9%) to 2015 (89.7%).^{Footnote 129} These rates are lower than the official rates calculated by Statistics Canada and the rates calculated using the Old Age Security Administrative data.

Take-up rates were also calculated by demographic characteristics.

Gender: Take-up rates are higher for women than for men by roughly 5% points across the entire period of observation.^{Footnote 130} These findings are similar to those using the Old Age Security Administrative data. Mean deviation across the entire period of observation was 0.9% for women and 0.8% for men.^{Footnote 131}

Age: The Longitudinal Administrative Databank used different age categories but the trends were similar to those from the Old Age Security Administrative Data. Rates were lowest for those 65 and 66 (75% and 71% in 2006 and 2015, respectively) and there was there was stability among the older age groups with a slight uptick from 2014 to 2015 (85% to 90%, 89% to 93%, and 91% to 94% for those aged 67 to 74, 75 to 84, and 85 plus, respectively).^{Footnote 132}

Marital status: The Longitudinal Administrative Databank presents information for married individuals by the Old Age Security status of their spouse. Among those whose spouse received Old Age Security, take-up rates were 86% in 2006 and 92% in 2015 (mean deviation was 1.3% for the period). Among those whose spouse did not receive the Old Age Security, take-up was 70% in 2006 and 65% in 2015 (mean deviation was 1.7% for this period).^{Footnote 133}

Region: Figure 5 shows data disaggregated by province (the Old Age Security data only disaggregates rates by region).^{Footnote 134} Nonetheless, a similar trend is evident where Ontario and the Western provinces all have lower take-up rates and more variation across the period of observation.

Figure 10 – Text version

Province	GIS Take-up rate
	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014	2015
Newfoundland and Labrador	95.7%	96.0%	95.8%	95.7%	96.0%	95.5%	95.1%	95.2%	93.8%	95.9%
PEI	92.1%	91.9%	91.1%	92.7%	92.3%	93.3%	92.7%	91.6%	91.1%	92.7%
Nova Scotia	91.1%	90.7%	90.8%	91.8%	91.7%	91.2%	90.1%	91.4%	91.4%	92.1%
New Brunswick	93.0%	93.7%	93.2%	93.5%	93.9%	92.8%	93.2%	93.9%	92.2%	94.0%
Quebec	90.2%	91.9%	91.6%	92.4%	92.2%	92.3%	91.9%	92.3%	91.2%	92.9%
Ontario	83.0%	84.8%	84.0%	84.6%	82.8%	82.9%	82.5%	84.1%	82.7%	87.2%
Manitoba	88.4%	90.2%	90.1%	89.5%	87.0%	87.0%	85.1%	85.5%	83.9%	90.5%
Saskatchewan	88.5%	90.6%	91.4%	90.9%	88.2%	87.8%	86.9%	86.9%	85.4%	90.7%
Alberta	85.2%	87.1%	87.6%	87.6%	84.6%	83.6%	81.1%	80.7%	79.4%	88.5%
British Columbia	85.3%	86.4%	86.5%	87.5%	85.7%	84.7%	84.1%	84.3%	84.0%	89.2%

• Source: 10% sample of taxfilers in linked T1-OAS databases (5.1M observations)

Family income and employment: Eligible individuals whose income is close to the income threshold (and whose expected monthly Guaranteed Income Supplement benefit would be relatively low) have a lower take-up rate. For example, the Guaranteed Income Supplement take-up rate of those whose eligible income is no more than $500 below the eligibility income threshold is 62.1%, compared to the national average of 89.7%^{Footnote 135}.