Prepared for the Canada Revenue Agency
Delivery Date: 2018-05-05
Contract Number: 46637-190476/001/CY
Contract Award Date: 2018-02-06
Contract Value: $56,400
POR Number: POR 093-17
Produced by: Pollara Strategic Insights
Ce rapport est aussi disponible en français.
For more information on this report, please email media.relations@cra-arc.gc.ca
This public opinion research presents the results of a series of qualitative focus group discussions conducted by Pollara Strategic Research on behalf of Canada Revenue Agency. This study consisted of eight focus group discussion with people who had their family benefits cancelled and then reinstated due to not filling out the validation questionnaire. The study was to determine why recipients did not respond to the CRA’s request for documentation to validate the information on which benefits are based.
Political Neutrality Statement
I hereby certify as Senior Officer of Pollara Strategic Insights that the deliverables fully comply with the Government of Canada political neutrality requirements outlined in the Policy on Communication and Federal Identity and the Directive on the Management of Communications
Specifically, the deliverables do not include information on electoral voting intentions, political party preferences, standings within the electorate or ratings of the performance of a political party or its leaders.
Signed:
Lesli Martin
Vice-President
Pollara Strategic Insights
Table of contents
The Canada Revenue Agency issues benefit and credit payments of almost $32 billion to over 12 million Canadians each year. It is also responsible for ensuring the fairness and integrity of its benefit and credit programs, and paying the correct amount to every eligible recipient. To this end, the Agency may ask recipients to validate the information on which benefits are based, such as marital status, residency and primary care of children.
When an account is reviewed, the CRA first tries to confirm the individual’s eligibility based on the information already on file. If more information is needed, or if the CRA is unable to resolve the discrepancy internally, it sends a request for information and supporting documentation to confirm and substantiate the recipient’s claim to benefits.
Recipients are given 45 calendar days to respond to the CRA’s initial request for information. If the CRA does not receive a reply or if the documents submitted are not sufficient, the CRA will adjust the individual’s benefits based on the information that is available. In some cases this may result in benefits being reduced or stopped, and the individual may have to repay benefits that were previously paid.
The purpose of the research is to understand why recipients do not reply to the validation letter and to determine if more needs to be done make to the process easier. The objectives of this research are as follows:
The results of this study will be used to determine what changes may be required to help benefit recipients respond to the questionnaire and provide the documentation required for the review, and to reduce a nil response, which results in benefit payments being suspended.
It must be noted that the majority of the participants in this research were not shown a typical version of the Benefits Validation Letter. The letter that was shown to the majority of the participants is one that is used when a benefit recipient is expecting a large retroactive payment. During the review, the retroactive payment is held until the request is validated. This caused some confusion for the focus groups as it was not the letter that the focus group received. It is important to note that the monthly payments are not stopped during a review. The focus group in Montreal did see a version of the Benefits Validation letter that was sent to them, both letters are included in the Appendix.
Due to the qualitative nature of this study, results cannot be extrapolated to a broader audience and should be considered indicative, rather than definitive.
The CRA provided Pollara with a list of CCB recipients who had been selected for a benefits validation review but did not respond to the questionnaire by the due date. The review letters were sent between November 2016 and July 2017. Recipients did not respond to the questionnaire and as such, had their benefits suspended. These recipients had all since had their benefits reinstated. Pollara used this list to recruit for eight focus groups discussions. The composition of the focus groups was as follows:
In total, 39 recipients took part in this research. The focus group discussions lasted between 90 minutes to two hours each. Participants were paid a $100 incentive for their time. Research was conducted between March 19 and 28, 2018.
The main reason given by recipients for not providing the documentation was that they did not receive the letter. Additional reasons provided for not responding included: participants did not open the letter when they received it (thinking it was something else) or felt overwhelmed upon reading the letter and procrastinated on the process.
Most felt the letter clearly expressed the reason for the review, and understood the urgency to reply. Only a few participants felt the need for a clearer message about the possibility of having their benefits suspended. After their benefits were suspended, participants then completed the questionnaire to have their benefits reinstated. Most of the participants indicated that the process was very time consuming, with many steps being dependent on others for completion, and felt they didn’t have enough time to complete it. It was agreed that at least a month (from the time the letter is received) must be given. Those with more than three children believed they would need longer.
While most understand the need for the review, the feelings that went along with the review were ones of anxiety, humiliation and anger. There was the perception that they had done something wrong and were having to prove their innocence. This was particularly true of those who did not receive the original request so the first communication about the review was the letter saying their benefits were suspended and they needed to pay back the CRA. This feeling of humiliation was compounded by the amount of information they needed to obtain from other sources such as the schools or the third-party letters for those whom it was necessary to prove separation. Many were embarrassed that they would have to go to the school, doctor, employer, landlord, etc. and explain their marriage and financial situation.
The participants questioned the necessity of the required information. Some believe the CRA should already have much of it through the information found on their tax returns. Some of the requested information seem to participants to be intrusive and unnecessary. These requests add to the feeling that they are being judged for their parenting or life situations. Specific examples included:
Proving separation seemed to be the most difficult part of the validation questionnaire for many. The third-party letters are seen as helpful, but many feel the list of accepted people is too narrow and the options provided are not necessarily people who would know their marital or living arrangements. Some find that sharing this type of information with those on the list would be embarrassing.
Participants who called the number provided in the letter were frustrated with the long wait times and the lack of knowledge by the CRA representatives they talked to for their specific request. Participants would prefer a case worker that they could contact directly who would have knowledge about their file, or, at the very least, a phone number specifically for representatives working on the benefits validation process who could answer specific questions. Many also would like the ability to do this via online chat instead of waiting on hold.
Since the main reason given by the participants for not responding on time is that they did not receive the initial questionnaire, it is recommended that a secondary notification be put in place. This can be a notification via email, My Account, or a phone call which simply tells the recipient about the review and to watch for the questionnaire in the mail. This would encourage recipients to open their mail, and in cases where they may not have received it, allow them to follow up before their benefits are stopped. While a couple of participants suggested sending questionnaires by registered mail as it would inform recipients of its importance or inform the CRA that it has not been delivered, it was noted that this would be an additional cost to the agency and that they wouldn’t necessarily want money to be used for that purpose.. Having some type of prior notification would stop the negative feelings from those whose first communication about this review was to hear that they owe money to the CRA. The timing of this secondary check should be around the time the person should be receiving the documentation, not when a reply to the questionnaire is due.
Due to the amount of documentation that may be required, along with the fact that it may be dependent on the timeline of others, it is recommended that participants be given at least a month, from the time they receive the letter, to the time they need to be sent back. If possible, this timing should be lengthened for those with more than three children, especially if those children attend different schools or for those having to provide information for a longer review period. While benefits are not stopped during the review process, participants were concerned about not receiving their benefits if they did not submit the information within the required time. This should be taken into consideration when developing the timeline.
The CRA should assess that the level of detail required in the documentation is truly necessary. For instance, if the reason for an attendance record is to prove that the child did attend this school, perhaps instead of asking for the record itself, the school could be asked to certify that the child was in attendance for the majority of the school year. Instead of listing all the dates the child saw the doctor, the doctor could certify that the child was seen at least once a year during the review period. This would not only ease the information process, it would also diminish the feelings of intrusiveness.
The listing of required information should be clear, along with the number of documents are required.
The participants feel that CRA could be more supportive during the review process. While some did find the agents helpful when they talked to them, others felt frustrated in how difficult it was to find a person who could actually help them. A more efficient communication system could help during this process. A case worker that could be contacted directly would be ideal, although the ability to communicate specifically with a representative involved in this review process would suffice. Communication could be offered via phone or electronically, but participants must be able to easily connect with the right person.
The contract amount for this project was $56,400 (including HST).
There were mixed feelings as to the amount of contact these recipients receive from the CRA overall. Some recalled receiving regular correspondence, in the form of updates and status letters. Many did not recall receiving much correspondence. Those who have a My Account set up with the CRA recalled receiving emails, although whether they go into the system to check these messages differed among the participants. Overall, no one complained about receiving too much correspondence from the CRA.
At the time of the focus group, all participants remembered receiving the Benefits Validation Questionnaire, although many said they did not receive the original package, and only received it after they inquired as to why they were no longer receiving their benefits. Not receiving the original questionnaire was the most common reason for not meeting the deadline. While some understand why they did not receive the questionnaire (many participants had recently moved), some did not. As a note, a few mentioned that their address had been changed through a different CRA process (such as income tax) and felt this change should be carried throughout the CRA including the Canada Child Benefit (CCB) forms.
There were a minority who did indicate they had received the original request, but simply did not complete it by the date prescribed on the letter. Some mistook the Benefits Validation letter for another CRA correspondence or simply did not open it when it arrived. Others stated that they did not attend to these matters right away and would usually address them at a later time. When they did open it, and realized its importance, they were simply overwhelmed by the task and did not complete it.
To ensure against this issue, many participants requested that a secondary form of notification be given to inform them that these documents were on their way. Some would have liked to receive a phone call. Others felt an email or My Account notification would be sufficient. The purpose of this notification would not be to provide the documents in a secondary form, but to inform people that a review was being conducted and they should look out for the forms in the mail. This would encourage people to look at the form sooner and understand its importance or stop people from misidentifying the forms, and it would allow people who have moved to ensure it was going to the right address. It would also notify people that did not receive it that they should look into it before their benefits are suspended. This notification would also have the additional bonus of reassuring recipients that the request for information is valid (something that was a concern to a few). It is important that this notification is provided when the letter is sent out and not after the documents are due.
There were suggestions to change the mail itself to give it more visibility. Some felt the letters should be sent via registered mail that required a signature. This would let the recipient know it was important, while also informing the CRA that it had been received. However, other participants countered that this would be an additional cost for taxpayers and is not necessary. A few requested some kind notification on the envelope itself, telling the recipient that the information inside is important and time-sensitive. While this would not help those who did not receive the documents, it would encourage those who did to open the letter.
While the letter shown in the research (Appendix 2) was not the typical letter that many participants would have received, many found the letter in the focus group and the letter they received to both bring on a feeling of anxiety. They were left questioning why they were being reviewed, and felt like they had done something wrong. It is important to note that many viewed the letter and the subsequent process as an audit; however, it is a review process to validate the information CRA has on file. Many received this letter at the same time as they were going through a separation or divorce, and this timing added to their feeling of anxiety as they were already going through a great deal and had a hard time finding the strength to go through the validation process.
Some participants were also very worried when they received this letter. These people often depended on this money to take care of their children. The concept of losing their benefits for a few months, or possibly forever, made participants feel fearful and overwhelmed. While they do understand the purpose of this review, many wondered if the regular payments would still continue until it was completed, and only be held if they did not provide the information by the due date. It is important to note there was some misunderstanding about the process as benefits are not stopped during the review process. However, those selected to participate in the focus groups were individuals who had stopped receiving their benefits because they did not reply to the letter and this was top of mind when discussing the review process.
To most, the letter itself does communicate the urgency of the request, particularly the fact that their payments are being held. Many, especially those in the lower income brackets, took notice of this and started to deal with the questionnaire immediately. There were some, many of whom were not as dependent on this money, thought that it should be clearer that their benefits would be adjusted and could be suspended or cancelled completely. Other suggestions were also made that specific parts of the letter could be bolded or underlined to stress their importance. These parts would include the notification that payments would be adjusted based on the information on file and therefore suspended or cancelled as well as the date the validation questionnaire was due back to the CRA.
Respondents could not recall if their letter was signed or not. While a few thought it would be nice if it were actually signed, most did not have an opinion either way. This is particularly true since the person signing it was not the person they would deal with if they had questions and the signature would likely be electronic.
Since their documentation was not provided by the due date on the original letter, many had received a letter from the CRA indicating that their benefits had been stopped and they owed money back to the CRA. There was a great deal of anger about this letter. Most panicked when they saw the amount owing and did not understand why they would possibly owe so much. After talking to the CRA they understood the issue, but they still thought the CRA was being heavy-handed as they found the tone of the letter to be somewhat threatening.
When asked, many recalled only having a couple of weeks or less to get the paperwork in order and sent back to the CRA. When they saw the dates on the sample letter of February 28 and April 7, they were pleasantly surprised as they did not think they were given that long to provide the documentation. However, when they realized that February 28 was the date the letter was sent and not the date it was received, they did not view it as sufficient time to complete the request. Additionally, some pointed out that gathering the information is difficult and they should be given more time than it takes to do the review. The CRA allows for 45 days to complete the review, and while benefit recipients are also given 45 days, some of this time is lost because some participants do not check their mail on a daily basis. Those with community boxes may only check their mail once a week and this accounts for some loss in time in the ability to provide the documentation by the due date.
Respondents feel quite strongly that more time is necessary to complete the task at hand. Some documents would require them to take time off work to go to schools, doctors, etc. Others would require an appointment with a doctor that is not always possible to schedule right away. Lastly, many had to rely on other people to provide the information, specifically schools. Most participants found schools hesitant to provide this information and it took some time to have the schools comply. Additionally, trying to get information from the school during the holidays was impossible, further delaying the process.
While some want at least a month from the day the letter is received to the day it is sent back, there are a few who would prefer even longer. A few also thought the length of time given should be dependent on the amount of information needed. For instance, those families with multiple children, or those who need to provide information for multiple years would have to make trips to different schools, doctors’ offices, etc. to get all the needed information for the span of review period for all their children. This is a very time consuming process, one which takes longer than the few weeks that is given.
Overall, participants found the questionnaire to be overwhelming. The sheer amount of information was astounding to them. In addition, many were going through a separation or divorce – it was a very difficult time for them to deal with the benefit validation process and felt it was an added burden. They also did not understand why they had to provide some of the information that was requested. Those who had regularly filed their income tax thought that all the information about them and their children should already be available to the CRA. Participants felt that the way the questionnaire was worded was asking them to prove that their children existed. If their income tax cited their children as dependents, it was not clear why they now had to prove the existed.
Many participants found the nature of the information request to be invasive and embarrassing. They did not like the idea of having to share their personal lives, such as their separation or their reliance on family benefits, with others to obtain the requested information. They wanted to be able to keep their family situation private, but were unable to because of these requests. This was seen as particularly worrisome to those whose children were in the Catholic school board system. These parents felt they would be judged for their separation.
It was also stressed that obtaining this information cost money. This is both due to taking time off work to seek the information, and for the fees to get the doctors to fill out the form. The fact that they are being asked to spend this money at a time when their benefits have been suspended is frustrating.
Most participants needed to call the CRA at some point in the benefits validation process. For those who had not received the package, it was to find out what had happened to their benefits. However, there were many who needed to call when in the process of filling out the questionnaire. Some wanted clarity on what was needed or what to do if they could not meet requirements. Others called to ask for an extension or to find out what would happen if it was late, and some contacted the CRA to ensure the documentation had arrived. A few participants called to confirm that the letter was legitimate and not a scam.
When contacting the CRA, a very few managed to get their questions answered easily. Most expressed frustration with the process. At the first step of trying to call, they were on hold for extended lengths of time. Then, since they were calling a general enquiries line, the representative often did not have the information they needed and they were passed onto several other agents. In the situation where a second call was necessary, many were annoyed that they had to start the process over again, with someone who again did not know the answers. Participants would have liked to have a case worker that they could call directly who would help them with their specific case. If that was not possible, they would like at least a direct line that dealt specifically with the Benefits Validation process. Some also would appreciate talking to the CRA representative through a live online chat rather than over the phone.
When it comes to reporting residency status, a few participants questioned how long they would have to be out of the country for this to be relevant. They wondered if they would have to report week long vacations, or even day trips across the border. While most did not feel this should be an issue, they wondered if they would be penalized for taking a vacation.
Most participants did not have any issues with the information about shared custody and would not have to read the Appendix for more information. One mother did point out that it was confusing if the shared custody stopped (not started) during the review period. In this situation, she had shared custody with her husband at the start of the review period, but he moved and the shared custody stopped. She was not sure how to fill out this section.
While all understood the need to list children not living at home, a few took exception to having to provide the reason. They felt this was one example of how the CRA was asking for unnecessary information, particularly if they were not expecting to receive support for the child not living at home.
This area caused the most concern and confusion for participants on a number of issues. The first was the fact that a letter and questionnaire were also being sent to their ex-spouse/partner. While some were happy that their ex was being expected to complete the same work as they were, others were concerned for a number of reasons:
Proving the separation was also challenging for many participants. They often said all the household documents had only been in one person’s name from the beginning, so they were unable to provide documentation without their ex’s name at this point. Also, many had difficulty getting paperwork showing their ex is living at a different address. In some cases, they or their ex had moved back in with family, and at the time of validation you could not use a family member as a proof of address. Others, while being legally separated, were still living at the same address until other arrangements could be made. There were others who were not on good terms with their ex, did not want them in their lives, and were unwilling to ask them for this documentation.
The third party letters were met with mixed reaction. To some, it was the solution to the problem and they were very appreciative of this option. However, many had issues with using these letters. Some said they could not find people on the acceptable list who would be willing to substantiate their situation. People such as their doctor, school authority or employer did not know what was going on in their personal life or could not verify whether or not their spouse still lived with them. Others who could have filled in the letters seemed reluctant to get involved with the CRA in case it had negative implications on them.
Some said the third party letter added to the humiliation of the experience. They did not want to have to go and ask people such as their employer or school authority for this kind of letter, nor did they want to have people involved in their lives in this way.
This list was overwhelming to many. Some did not clearly see that only two were required and thought they had to get all these documents together. Even those who realized only two from the list were necessary, believed the documents to be too detailed and requiring too much work to pull together.
The level of detail needed in this information was thought to be too much. For instance, they did not understand why the CRA would need to see an attendance record. Again, this was another example of where the request seemed too intrusive. Parents wondered if they would get in trouble because their child had been off sick. While this did not make sense, they could not see another reason for needing to provide that type of information. Some felt the same about listing the dates their child had been to the doctor. They believed that would be arduous and unnecessary. The wording of the different requests was also overwhelming. Some had to be signed by a school authority, on letter head. Some were worried that the authorized person would not provide all the information correctly and that the right person would not provide the information in the right form. Some also said the schools felt the same way and did not know how to fulfill the request. Participants were unsure what would happen if they made a minor mistake with these forms, but were worried that they would have their benefits suspended while they had to start the process over again.
The note about children being home schooled was thought to be in not the right place. Some were confused what it was talking about, specifically thinking that the bus route information was for children who are home schooled.
Some groups were shown a Decision Tree which could be used by benefit recipients or volunteers to help with the benefits validation process. It could either be an online tool or handout. It is important to note that the decision tree was not finalized and still in development. Overall, the concept of the Decision Tree was understood. Participants could follow the path and understand how this showed the process. Many appreciated this idea and – they did see how this would show them that they were on the right path and had done all the right steps to complete the validation process.
Some did not think this type of tool was necessary. While the validation process was arduous, it was not confusing. Those people would rather go through the questionnaire and make sure they had everything they need. A few liked the idea of a list on page to show everything that was required. However, many thought that was also unnecessary.
A few found the Decision Tree to be overwhelming and they were unsure of its purpose or how to follow the path. While some of these participants thought it might be easier to follow online, many had a hard time picturing this and still thought they would be confused.
Some were confused by the box that asked if their spouse or partner filed their taxes. These people were separated or divorced and had no idea if their ex had done their taxes or not. They worried that depending on these ex’s to do their taxes could affect their family benefits. This box should clarify it is only for those who are actually still married or living with their common law spouse.
Many noticed and were surprised about the comment that they would receive a call if they did not reply in time. Most of these participants had not gotten a call from the CRA about this process, even when their claim was not received and their benefits were cut off. The addition of a phone call before the benefits were cut off would be appreciated and were pleasantly surprised to hear that the CRA had implemented this feature.
Focus Group Recruitment Screener for: CRA Benefits Validation Research
RECRUIT 10 FOR 8 TO SHOW INCENTIVE: $100
Hello / Bonjour. May I please speak to ENTER NAME?
My name is , and I am calling from Pollara Strategic Insights, a Canadian research firm, on behalf of the Canada Revenue Agency. Please be assured that I am not trying to sell you anything nor will I ask you for any money in any way.
Would you prefer that I continue in English or in French? Préférez-vous continuer en français ou en anglais? [If prefers French, either switch to the French screener and continue, or say the following and then hang up and arrange French- language call-back] Nous vous rappellerons pour mener cette entrevue de recherche en français. Merci. Au revoir
The Canada Revenue Agency is conducting research to understand how they could better communicate with Canadians. We are conducting focus groups, where a group of 8 to 10 people will meet with a research moderator to offer their opinions over a two hour time period. If you qualify and attend this research, you will be paid $100 for your participation. We received your information from the Canada Revenue Agency because you have received letters from them in the past.
1. Are you, or is someone in your household currently receiving the Canada Child Benefit?
2. Have you or has any member of your household ever worked or volunteered for any of the following organizations (READ LIST, - IF YES TO ANY, THANK AND TERMINATE)
3. I would like to invite you to attend a research focus group on DATE, in LOCATION READ TO ALL POTENTIAL PARTICIPANTS
“A focus group consists of about eight to ten participants and one moderator. During a two-hour session, participants will be asked to discuss a range of issues related to the topic – in this case, communication from the Canada Revenue Agency.”
Participation is voluntary and should you decide to take part, it will not affect any dealings you may have with the Government of Canada. We are interested in hearing your opinions, no attempt will be made to sell you anything or change your point of view. The sessions will be recorded but all opinions expressed will remain anonymous and views will be grouped together to ensure no particular individual can be identified.
An audio and/or video tape of the group session will be produced for research purposes. The tapes will be used only by the research professional to assist in preparing a report on the research findings and will be destroyed once the report is completed.
Do you agree to be audio and/or videotaped for research purposes only?
It is necessary for the research process for us to audio/video tape the session as the researcher needs this material to complete the report.
4. Would you be interested in attending this session?
IF YES:
5. Have you attended a focus group within the last 6 months?
I would like to ask you a few brief questions to see if you qualify. Your responses will remain confidential.
6. Which age group do you fall into?
RECRUIT INSTRUCTIONS: Get a good mix of ages.
7. RECORD GENDER:
RECRUIT INSTRUCTIONS: Get a good mix.
8. In which province do you live?
9. IF ONTARIO ASK: In Ontario, the focus groups will be held in North Toronto. Would you be available to attend a group in this area?
10. IF QUEBEC ASK: In Quebec, the focus groups will be held in downtown Montreal. Would you be available to attend a group in this area?
11. IN ALL OTHER ASK: In your province, the focus groups will be held online, meaning you will need a computer with a video camera capability and internet access. Would you be able to take part in an online focus group?
12. This discussion group will require participants to read materials and write – and possibly watch video or listen to audio. So, please bring your glasses.
Do you have any problems which may prevent you from doing this?
13. How many children do you have living in your house in each of the following age categories?
RECRUIT INSTRUCTIONS: All must have at least one child under 18. Obtain mix of family size and age of children
14. What is your current marital status?
RECRUIT INSTRUCTIONS: Mix of married and not married respondents
15. Which of the following categories best describes your current employment status?
16. And what is your annual household income before taxes? Just stop me when I reach your
RECRUIT INSTRUCTIONS: in each centre, one group of Under $40,000 income, one group of $40,000 and more
17. Could you please tell me what is the highest level of education that you have attained? ENSURE GOOD MIX PER GROUP
18. In order for our client to understand the demographics of those attending the group, it may be necessary for us to share with them some of the answers to the questions we've just asked you. However, this information will not be attached to your full name or contact information. Do you consent to this? (RECRUIT ONLY IF THEY AGREE)
I would like to invite you to attend the session on: [SEE SCHEDULING].
And at the end of the session you will be paid $100 for your participation
| LOCATION | GROUP TYPE | DATE | TIME |
| Toronto CRC Research North | Face-to-Face | Monday March 19 | 5:30 and 7:30 ET |
| Western | Virtual | Tuesday March 20 | 7:00 and 9:00 ET |
| Eastern | Virtual | Thursday March 22 | 4:30 and 6:30 ET |
| Montreal | Face-to-Face | Monday March 26 | 5:30 and 7:30 ET |
ONTARIO AND QUEBEC
The session will last approximately two hours and will be held at the X FACILITY, at LOCATION, near DIRECTIONS. The phone number there is (XXX) XXX-XXXX. Please arrive 10 to 15 minutes prior to this time for registration. You will need to show picture identification to be admitted into the group. If you need to cancel for any reason, please call me back at (XXX)XXX-XXXX. This invitation is extended to you only. Please do not ask anyone else to attend the group in your place as they will not be admitted into the group nor will they be paid. Sandwiches/Cookies [530PM sandwiches, 730PM cookies] and refreshments will be served during the session.
VIRTUAL FOCUS GROUPS
The session will last approximately two hours and will be held on ENTER DATE at ENTER TIME. You will be emailed specific instructions on how to log into the session before this group. This email will also provide you with a technical support contact in case you have any questions or concerns. You will need to login to the group 5 to 10 minutes prior to the start of the group for registration. If you need to cancel for any reason, please call me back at (XXX)XXX-XXXX. This invitation is extended to you only. Please do not ask anyone else to attend the group in your place as they will not be admitted into the group nor will they be paid. Can I please have your email address so I can send you these instructions?
ENTER AND CONFIRM EMAIL ADDRESS
Thank you for your participation!
TERMINATION SCRIPT: (IF TERMINATE THROUGHOUT THE SURVEY) I am sorry, but the focus group that you would be in is already full. Thank you for taking the time to speak to me today.
Note to recruiter: Should a participant require validation that this is a legitimate research project, please refer them to:
Stephanie Jacques Marhue Research Officer
613-957-3573
CRA Benefits Validation Moderator's Guide
1.5 – 2 Hours
A: START/INTRO (10 Minutes)
Introduce moderator – from Pollara (Research firm)
Explain focus groups: What, Why (Quant vs. Qual)
Advise on the length of the session (1.5 to 2 hours)
Importance/Interest in honest opinions – No right/wrong. – no need to agree with each other
Your job: Participate – Incentive, Respect
My job: Moderate participation, Ask questions
Explain room: Mic, cam, glass, observers – But strictest confidentiality (recorded for note taking purposes only)
Purpose of research - The Canada Revenue Agency is conducting research to understand how they could better communicate with Canadians.
For online groups – explain any technical requirements and how to get technical support if needed
Introductions/Warm-up (Moderator First): Name, Occupation, Family, Hobbies
Tonight, I want to talk to you about the Canada Revenue Agency and how they communicate with you. First we will start by talking about how the CRA communicates with you.
C: BENEFIT VALIDATION COMMUNICATION (30 minutes)
[Note about communications: They would have received 2 separate types of communications from CRA, try to focus on BV letters:
Note: once BV has done an adjustment and sent a letter to communicate the changes, the system will also follow up with a monthly auto notice as defined above.
The target audience would have received at least 4 separate CRA communications regarding benefits, 2 system notices and 2 BV letters.]
Now I want to talk to you specifically about the correspondence that you've had with the CRA about your child and family benefits
I believe everyone here has received communication from the Canada Revenue Agency regarding their child and family benefits.
NOTICES: AUTO PRODUCED – SHOWING CALCULATION AND PAYMENT SCHEDULE IN JULY, MONTHLY COMMUNICATION OF CHANGES, NOTICE OF ASSESSMENT OF TAXES. ASK BRIEFLY ABOUT THESE COMMUNICATION.
BENEFITS VALIDATION: ASKING FOR INFORMATION TO SUPPORT THEIR PERSONAL INFORMATION OR DESCRIBING ADJUSTMENT ACTIVITIES DONE TO THE ACCOUNT.
IF DO NOT REMEMBER RECEIVING BENEFITS VALIDATION ASK: At some point, you should have received a letter from Canada Revenue Agency asking to review your account. This letter included a questionnaire that you had to fill out regarding your status and asking for receipts or other documents to support your information. The questionnaire response and documents would have to be completed in in order to receive your child and family benefits. Do you recall receiving this letter?
Now I specifically want to discuss the letter you received which asked you to fill out the questionnaire.
What did you do with this communication once it was received? Did you answer it immediately? Why or why not?
Did you notice how long it would take the Canada Revenue Agency to conduct the review of the information you sent? IF DID NOT NOTICE: The letter said you would receive the results of the review within 45 days of them receiving the information.
According to my records, everyone here did not respond to the communication regarding their child and family benefits within the time frame provided.
What happened when you did not respond on time? PROBE IF NOT MENTIONED: Did you receive another letter or a different form of communication? Did you stop receiving your benefits?
Again, I believe, according to my records, that everyone has now complied with the communication and is back to receiving your benefits. Is this true?
Can you please walk me through what happened in this process?
The Canada Revenue Agency has conducted checks like these to make sure the right benefits are going to the right people. But they want to make sure people are providing the information when they are supposed to, so they don’t get their benefits cut off. I want to understand from you how the Canada Revenue Agency can help in the future to ensure that people answer the letters and do not have their benefits stopped.
D: LETTER EXAMINATION (20 minutes)
Now we are going to look at a letter that that some of you may have received from the CRA about your child and family benefits.
I have a copy of a letter you would have received, and would like to go over it with you. Please take a minute to go over the letter and then we will discuss.
Is this the letter you remember receiving from the CRA?
Even if this is not the letter you received, I would like to talk about this version. Looking at this letter now, what do you think of it? Is it clear as to why they have contacted you? IF NO: What is not clear? What needs to be improved?
PROBE: You mentioned earlier having questions regarding ENTER ANY QUESTION AREAS when you were going through this process. Now that you have the letter in front of you, do you still have questions about that?
Do you understand what is expected of you from this letter? PROBE FOR SPECIFIC AREAS
Do you understand the methods you could send the information to the CRA?
Is it clear to you where you could go if you had any questions?
When you received this letter, do you remember if it was signed by an employee of the CRA or not? Would it make a difference to you if the letter was signed by an agent?
Now that you have had the time to look at the letter again, what do you think about this process? Would it be easy to do? Difficult? Why?
E: DECISION TREE (As Time Permits)
I have one other thing I would like to you took at. This is called a Decision Tree. The point of this is to help people walk through the validation process, to see if they are on or off the mark in this journey. This is not a final version. It is still being worked on. Please take a look – we will not be going through it in great detail, but I want to get your opinions on it.
Overall, what do you think of this?
Let’s look at Getting Started.
Moving to What Now.
Now on to Uh-Oh.
And looking at Now what?
F: OUTRO (1 Minute)
Thanks. Be Safe.
Payment Process.
Group 1: Do not talk to Group 2
Letters evaluated