Non-Filer Benefit Letter Initiative – Qualitative Research
Final Report

Prepared for the Canada Revenue Agency

Supplier name: Earnscliffe Strategy Group

Contract Number: # 46575-193626/001/CY

Contract value: $68,935.65

Award date: August 17, 2018

Delivery date: October 19, 2018

Registration number: POR 035-18

For more information on this report, please email media.relations@cra-arc.gc.ca

Ce rapport est aussi disponible en français.

Final Report

Prepared for the Canada Revenue Agency by Earnscliffe Strategy Group

October 2018

This public opinion research report presents the results of focus groups conducted by Earnscliffe Strategy Group on behalf of Canada Revenue Agency. The research was conducted in September 2018.

Cette publication est aussi disponible en français sous le titre : Recherche qualitative sur l’initiative de lettres de prestations pour les non-déclarants.

This publication may be reproduced for non-commercial purposes only. Prior written permission must be obtained from the Canada Revenue Agency. For more information on this report, please contact the Canada Revenue Agency at: media.relations@cra-arc.gc.ca

Catalogue Number:
Rv4-124/2019E-PDF

International Standard Book Number (ISBN):
978-0-660-29595-4

Related publications (registration number: POR 035-18)

Catalogue Number: Rv4-124/2019F-PDF (Final Report, French)

ISBN: 978-0-660-29596-1

© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, as represented by the Minister of National Revenue, 2018

Executive Summary

Earnscliffe Strategy Group (Earnscliffe) is pleased to present this report to the Canada Revenue Agency summarizing the results of the qualitative research on the Non-Filer Benefit Letter Initiative.

The Minister of National Revenue is committed to “Ensuring that the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) is a client-focused agency that will proactively contact Canadians who are entitled to, but are not receiving, tax benefits.” To meet this commitment, the Department embarked on a letter initiative encouraging low income non-filers to file an income tax and benefit return so that they could receive benefits to which they may be potentially entitled. The CRA wanted to better understand why certain individuals responded to the letter and others did not. The purpose of this research was to better understand whether there are any barriers or motivators to filing and what they are, as well as, changes that could be made to the letters to encourage more people to file. The total cost to conduct this research was $63,391.31, including HST.

The objective of the research was to gauge the effectiveness of, and refine as necessary, the wording of the communication material that is being sent to recipients who have not filed their taxes. The specific objectives were to:

• discover what might be the reasoning behind people not filing their taxes;
• evaluate the two different letters being sent to non-filers; and in doing so
  • determine if they are clearly understood by the audience, credible, relevant and of value to the audience,
  • utilize the right tone, and
  • able to motivate the audience to act and file their taxes.

Earnscliffe also set out to explore any barriers; and, if so, what they were, as well as if the information provided in the letter was sufficient or overwhelming for the audience.

To meet these objectives, Earnscliffe conducted a series of eight focus groups in four cities across Canada: Halifax, NS (September 18); Toronto, ON (September 19); Calgary, AB (September 24); and, Montreal, QC (September 27). The focus groups in Montreal were conducted in French.

The focus groups were conducted with Canadians eighteen years of age and older. In each city, one focus group was conducted with participants who received a letter but did not file a return; the other was conducted with participants who received a letter and filed a return. However, given that some of the contact information was outdated, we were required to supplement recruits in Calgary and Montreal with members of the general population. For each group, we tried to ensure a mix of demographics including sexes, ages, and education levels.

It is important to note that qualitative research is a form of scientific, social, policy and public opinion research. Focus group research is not designed to help a group reach a consensus or to make decisions, but rather to elicit the full range of ideas, attitudes, experiences and opinions of a selected sample of participants on a defined topic. Because of the small numbers involved the participants cannot be expected to be thoroughly representative in a statistical sense of the larger population from which they are drawn and findings cannot reliably be generalized beyond their number.

The key findings from the research are presented below.

• Unaided thoughts and feelings about filing taxes tended to be more negative than positive. Those who typically relied on others to file their taxes or who were tech-savvy and comfortable filing their taxes online, tended to have neutral to positive thoughts. Those who expressed negative thoughts and feelings tended to complain about a lengthy, time-consuming process; confusion and uncertainty as to what can and cannot be claimed; and, frustration in dealing with the CRA.
• The overwhelming majority of participants did not recall receiving one of the benefits letters from CRA. Of the handful who did, they described receiving it, skimming it, and recycling it once they discerned the intent of the letter (to encourage them to file their taxes). There was only one individual (across all of the groups) who claimed that receiving the letter was a helpful reminder that encouraged them to file their taxes right away.
• Though most did not recall receiving the letters, there was consensus that when one does receive something from CRA in the mail, it is felt to be important and something that likely requires their attention.
• In this sense, the majority of participants deemed the letters to be credible. The CRA logo was visible and recognizable and the overall graphics, font, and general layout was typical of Government communications.
• However, it is important to note that many participants found the content to be overly promotional which made participants question the credibility of the letter and CRA’s intent. When participants were asked to describe the main message of the letters, most described them as a reminder to file their taxes under the guise of an invitation to earn credits and financial benefits.
• Participants attributed this perception to a sense that the letters did not appear to be personalized or relevant to every individual; described as a form letter. For example, participants who were not parents or who were high income earners felt that the child and/or GST/HST credits promoted in the letters did not apply to them. This disconnect caused confusion in that most questioned the point of the letter. It also caused frustration because most were under the impression CRA knows enough about them (i.e., what their annual income is and whether they had kids) to be able to tailor the letter. Many came away feeling that if the point of the letter was to remind and encourage people to file their taxes, the CRA could be more to the point and simply state something to the effect of “Our records indicate you did not file your taxes for 2015.”
• When asked which letter they preferred, most tended to lean towards Letter 2. Participants described Letter 2 as being clearer, inviting to read, and visually appealing. They explained that having the credits and benefits centred on the letter helped accentuate and draw their attention to those aspects of the letter. They also felt that Letter 2 provided more clarity around eligibility of each credit/benefit. The addition of information about the benefits calculator and volunteer tax completion services was new information for most and particularly interesting. Indeed, these two services were very much in line with what participants suggested when asked how the CRA could help improve with personal tax preparation.
• Reactions to Letter 1 were neutral to negative. Participants felt Letter 1 came off as more of a sales pitch than informational letter. There were many who found it difficult to determine the ‘call to action’ of the letter. Most found the credits and benefits sections to be particularly confusing particularly in terms of eligibility which bolded ‘child’ throughout and gave the impression one must have children to be eligible for all of the credits and benefits mentioned. Of the few participants who preferred Letter 1, their reasoning included that it looked more professional and serious.

Political Neutrality Certification

I hereby certify as a Senior Officer of Earnscliffe Strategy Group that the deliverables fully comply with the Government of Canada political neutrality requirements outlined in the Policy on Communications 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 with the electorate or ratings of the performance of a political party or its leaders.

Signed:
Stephanie Constable
Principal, Earnscliffe
Date: October 19, 2018

Sommaire

La société Earnscliffe Strategy Group (Earnscliffe) est heureuse de présenter ce rapport à l’Agence du revenu du Canada. Il fait la synthèse des résultats d’une recherche qualitative sur l’initiative des lettres de prestations à l’intention des non déclarants.

La ministre du Revenu national s’est engagée à faire en sorte que l’ARC soit « une agence axée sur la clientèle qui communique de façon proactive avec les Canadiens et les Canadiennes qui ne reçoivent pas les économies d’impôts auxquelles ils ont droit ». Pour respecter cet engagement, le ministère a lancé une initiative en envoyant des lettres aux non déclarants à faible revenu pour les inciter à produire une déclaration de revenus et de prestations afin de se prévaloir des prestations fiscales auxquelles ils pourraient avoir droit. L’ARC voulait mieux connaître les raisons qui ont poussé certaines personnes à répondre ou non à la lettre. Le but de cette enquête était de mieux évaluer s’il y avait des obstacles et des facteurs de motivation pouvant influencer la production d’une déclaration fiscale et à les cerner. De même, elle s’est attachée à déterminer quelles modifications pourraient être apportées aux lettres pour encourager davantage de personnes à soumettre leurs déclarations. Le montant total dépensé pour effectuer cette recherche s’élève à 63 391,31 $ (TVH incluse).

Cette étude visait à mesurer l’efficacité du libellé utilisé dans le matériel de communication envoyé aux destinataires n’ayant pas encore soumis leurs déclarations de revenus et à l’affiner, si nécessaire. Les objectifs précis étaient de :

• Découvrir quel raisonnement pousse certaines personnes à ne pas produire leurs déclarations;
• Faire l’évaluation des deux lettres différentes envoyées aux non déclarants; et ce faisant
  • dÉtablir si elles sont clairement comprises par le public cible, si elles sont crédibles, pertinentes et valables à leurs yeux,
  • Si elles adoptent le ton qui convient, et
  • Si elles sont en mesure d’inciter le public cible à l’action et à soumettre ses déclarations de revenus.

Earnscliffe a également examiné le matériel pour établir s’il comportait des barrières et, le cas échéant, les identifier. La firme s’est aussi attardée aux renseignements fournis dans la lettre afin de déterminer si le public cible juge qu’ils sont suffisants ou s’il peine à s’y retrouver.

Pour répondre à ces objectifs, Earnscliffe a organisé une série de huit groupes de discussion dans quatre villes réparties dans l’ensemble du Canada, soit à Halifax, N-É (18 septembre); Toronto, ON (19 septembre); Calgary, AB (24 septembre); et Montréal, QC (27 septembre). La rencontre de Montréal s’est déroulée en français.

Les groupes de discussion ont été menés auprès de Canadiens âgés de 18 ans et plus. Dans chaque ville, un groupe de discussion s’est tenu avec des participants qui ont reçu une lettre, mais n’ont pas soumis de déclaration fiscale, et un autre s’est déroulé auprès de participants qui ont reçu une lettre et produit leur déclaration. Cela dit, étant donné que certaines des coordonnées étaient obsolètes, nous avons dû recruter de nouveaux participants à Calgary et à Montréal auprès de la population générale. Dans chaque groupe, nous avons veillé à assurer une représentativité démographique diversifiée, en fonction du sexe, de l’âge et du niveau d’éducation.

Aux fins du présent rapport, il convient de mentionner que la recherche qualitative est une forme de sondage d’opinion publique dont les dimensions sont scientifiques, sociales et politiques. La recherche à l’aide de groupes de discussion n’est pas conçue pour aider un groupe à parvenir à un consensus ou à prendre des décisions, mais vise plutôt à faire le tour complet d’une question et à recueillir auprès des participants un ensemble d’idées, d’attitudes, d’expériences et d’opinions sur un sujet donné. En raison du nombre restreint de personnes interrogées, on ne peut pas s’attendre, sur le plan statistique, à ce que ces dernières soient pleinement représentatives de l’ensemble de la population dont elles proviennent. Les résultats ne peuvent donc pas faire l’objet de généralisations au-delà du nombre de participants.

Les principaux résultats de cette enquête sont présentés ci-dessous.

• Les pensées et les émotions spontanées à propos de la production d’une déclaration de revenus ont eu tendance à être plus négatives que positives. Les participants qui comptent généralement sur d’autres personnes pour soumettre leurs déclarations, tout comme ceux qui maîtrisent bien les nouvelles technologies et se sentent aptes à soumettre leurs déclarations en ligne avaient tendance à avoir des pensées neutres ou positives. Ceux qui ont exprimé des pensées et des émotions négatives avaient tendance à se plaindre de la longueur du processus, qu’ils ont aussi jugé fastidieux; de la confusion et de l’incertitude qu’il générait quant à ce qu’il est possible de réclamer ou non; et de la frustration ressortant des contacts avec l’ARC.
• La grande majorité des participants ne se sont pas rappelés avoir reçu l’une des lettres de prestation de l’ARC. Les quelques personnes qui l’ont reçue ont attesté l’avoir ouverte et parcourue avant de la recycler, après avoir pris connaissance de l’objet de la lettre (les incitant à soumettre leur déclaration fiscale). Une seule personne (parmi tous les groupes) a affirmé que la réception de la lettre s’était avérée un rappel utile qui l’a encouragée à produire sa déclaration de revenus immédiatement.
• Même si la plupart ne se souvenaient pas avoir reçu les lettres, ils se sont entendus pour dire avoir l’impression que lorsqu’une personne reçoit quelque chose de l’ARC par la poste, il s’agit de quelque chose d’important qui nécessite leur attention.
• Dans ce sens, la majorité des participants ont estimé que les lettres étaient crédibles. Le logo de l’ARC était visible et reconnaissable et selon eux, le graphisme, les polices de caractère et la présentation générale étaient typiques du genre de communications gouvernementales.
• Cependant, il est important de noter qu’ils ont été nombreux à trouver le contenu trop promotionnel, ce qui les a amenés à douter de la crédibilité de la lettre et de l’intention de l’ARC. Lorsqu’on leur a demandé de décrire le message principal de la lettre, la plupart ont répondu qu’ils l’ont vu comme un rappel les incitant à soumettre leur déclaration, sous le couvert d’une invitation à profiter de crédits ou d’avantages financiers. 
• Les participants ont attribué cette perception au sentiment d’avoir reçu des lettres qui ne semblaient ni personnalisées ni adaptées à chaque individu; selon eux, elles avaient l’apparence de lettres types. Par exemple, les participants qui n’étaient pas des parents ou qui avaient un revenu élevé ont pensé que les crédits pour enfant ou la TPS/TVH mentionnés dans les lettres ne s’appliquaient pas à leur situation. Cette discordance a semé la confusion en ce sens que la plupart remettaient en question la pertinence de la lettre. Cela a également engendré de la frustration : la plupart étaient d’avis que l’ARC en savait assez sur eux (c’est-à-dire leur revenu annuel et s’ils avaient des enfants) pour être en mesure de personnaliser la lettre. Plusieurs ont eu l’impression que si l’objet de la lettre était de rappeler aux gens de produire leurs déclarations et de les encourager à le faire, l’ARC pourrait être plus précise et simplement indiquer quelque chose comme : « Nos dossiers indiquent que vous n’avez pas rempli votre déclaration de revenus pour 2015 ».
• Lorsque l’on a demandé aux participants quelle lettre ils préféraient, la plupart ont eu tendance à choisir la deuxième lettre. Elle leur a semblé plus claire, invitait à la lecture en plus d’être attrayante sur le plan visuel. Ils ont expliqué comment le fait que les renseignements sur les crédits et prestations aient été centrés dans le corps de la lettre a contribué à éveiller et à attirer leur attention sur ces aspects. Ils ont aussi affirmé que la deuxième lettre leur semblait plus claire concernant les critères d’admissibilité pour chaque crédit et prestation. L’ajout de renseignements sur le calculateur des prestations et sur les comptoirs d’impôts gratuits était une information nouvelle et particulièrement intéressante aux yeux de la plupart d’entre eux. En effet, ces deux services correspondaient tout à fait à ce que les participants ont suggéré lorsqu’on leur a demandé quelles améliorations l’ARC pourrait apporter afin d’aider la population à mieux se préparer à remplir leurs déclarations de revenus.
• Les réactions à la première lettre étaient neutres ou négatives. Les participants ont eu l’impression qu’elle ressemblait davantage à un baratin publicitaire qu’à une lettre d’information. Plusieurs ont affirmé avoir trouvé difficile de cerner « l’appel à l’action » dans la lettre. La plupart ont déclaré que la section sur les crédits et prestations, tout particulièrement, avait été source de confusion en ce qui a trait à l’admissibilité parce que le mot « enfant » avait été mis en caractères gras partout, donnant l’impression qu’un individu se devait d’avoir des enfants pour bénéficier de toutes les prestations et les crédits mentionnés. Les quelques participants qui ont affirmé avoir préféré la première lettre l’ont fait en raison de l’apparence plus professionnelle et plus sérieuse qu’elle présentait.

En tant que représentant d’Earnscliffe Strategy Group, j’atteste par la présente que les produits livrables se conforment entièrement aux exigences en matière de neutralité politique du gouvernement du Canada exposées dans la Politique sur les communications et l’image de marque et dans la Directive sur la gestion des communications. Plus précisément, les produits livrables ne comprennent pas d’information sur les intentions de vote électoral, les préférences quant aux partis politiques, les positions des partis ou l’évaluation de la performance d’un parti politique ou de ses dirigeants.

Signature :
Stephanie Constable
Partenaire, Earnscliffe
Date: 19 octobre 2018

Introduction

Earnscliffe Strategy Group (Earnscliffe) is pleased to present this report to the Canada Revenue Agency summarizing the results of the qualitative research on the Non-Filer Benefit Letter Initiative.

The Minister of National Revenue is committed to “Ensuring that the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) is a client-focused agency that will proactively contact Canadians who are entitled to, but are not receiving, tax benefits.” To meet this commitment, the Department embarked on a letter initiative encouraging non-filers to file an income tax and benefit return so that they could receive benefits to which they may be potentially entitled. The CRA wanted to better understand why certain individuals responded to the letter and others did not.

The specific objectives of the research were to gauge the effectiveness of the communication materials that was sent to recipients, including:

• Why individuals are or are not filing?
• Evaluate the letters to determine if they are:
  • Clearly understood by the audience;
  • Credible, relevant and of value to the audience;
  • Utilize the right tone; and,
  • Able to motivate the audience to take personal action(s).
• Are there any barriers; and, if so, what are they?
• Is there enough or too much information on the letters?

To meet these objectives, Earnscliffe conducted a series of eight focus groups in four cities across Canada: Halifax, N.S (September 18); Toronto, ON (September 19); Calgary, AB (September 24); and, Montreal, QC (September 27). The focus groups in Montreal were conducted in French. 

The focus groups were conducted with Canadians eighteen years of age and older. In each city, one focus group was conducted with participants who received a letter but did not file a return; the other was conducted with participants who received a letter and filed a return. However, given that some of the contact information was outdated, we were required to supplement recruits in Calgary and Montreal with members of the general population. For each group, we tried to ensure a mix of demographics including sexes, ages, and education levels. 

All sessions were approximately two hours in length beginning at 5:30 pm or 7:30 pm across all locations. Participants received a $100 honorarium in appreciation of their time. 

Please refer to the Appendix of this report for all relevant screening and qualifications criteria as well as the focus group discussion guide and benefit letters.

It is important to note that qualitative research is a form of scientific, social, policy and public opinion research. Focus group research is not designed to help a group reach a consensus or to make decisions, but rather to elicit the full range of ideas, attitudes, experiences and opinions of a selected sample of participants on a defined topic. Because of the small numbers involved the participants cannot be expected to be thoroughly representative in a statistical sense of the larger population from which they are drawn and findings cannot reliably be generalized beyond their number.

Detailed Findings

The qualitative report is divided into two sections. The first explores participants’ feelings about income taxes including how they address their taxes each year (if applicable). The second explores specific reactions to the benefits letters in terms of their clarity, credibility, tone, and ability to motivate participants to take action.

Except where specifically identified, the findings in this qualitative report represent the combined results for filers, non-filers and members of the general public in both English and French.

Exploratory Discussion

The focus groups began with an initial warm-up discussion to gauge participants’ feelings toward income taxes and their process for completing their taxes every year (if applicable). This conversation provided useful context for understanding how participants viewed the benefit letters.

Participants were initially asked to write down one or two things that came to mind as it relates to filing their income taxes. The following diagram illustrates the words that were raised spontaneously. The size of the font depicts the frequency of mention: words represented by larger font were raised more often; those represented by smaller font were raised less often. There is no differentiation to be made by the font colour.

As illustrated in the diagram above, top of mind word associations tended to be more negative than positive.

Negative word associations revolved around:

• The process of filing taxes as it relates to the gathering/organization of relevant paperwork and supporting documentation. This sentiment was encapsulated in mentions such as: “time consuming”, “paperwork”, “annoying”, “painful”, “procrastinate” and “boring”. Some other word associations that relate to this included those who described the “deadline” and “constraint” around filing taxes. 
• Uncertainty around what can and/or cannot be claimed. This sentiment was encapsulated in mentions such as: “complicated”, “deductions”, “difficult”, “tax bracket”, “confusion” and “declarations”. 
• Frustration with the requirement to file taxes annually. For example, those who used the words “unfair”, “highway robbery”, “fraud”, “monitoring”, “angry” and “owe money” questioned why the Government was not deducting the right amount of taxes from each paycheque, removing the need for annual tax reconciliations.
• Challenges dealing with the CRA, which had become a disincentive for some to file their taxes. Specific mentions to this effect included: “bullies”, “fearful”, “stressful”, “anxiety” and “frustrating”. Some described having called CRA’s 1-800 number and not being able to speak to a representative or were put on hold for an unreasonable amount of time. Others complained of having received conflicting information from different agents. The most problematic were frustrations expressed by those who had unresolved inquiries/cases with CRA or those who had been audited in the past, were now fearful of CRA and anxious about reliving that negative experience, and therefore choose not to file each year.

Interestingly, those who tended to have more neutral to positive word associations were often those who relied on someone else to file their taxes or those who consider themselves to be technology-savvy and comfortable completing their taxes online.

Positive word associations included:

• Reliance on an accountant and/or comfort using online software to file taxes every year which were encapsulated by: “accountant”, “online software”, “simple”, “organized”, “numbers”, “write off” and “thorough”.
• Anticipation of receiving a “refund” or “return”. This also included a sense that the process was “satisfying” and would result in money participants could use towards “trips”.
• That the process was done on an “annual” basis and was “important”.

Participants were then asked to discuss the process by which they used to file taxes every year. The following table summarizes the key advantages and disadvantages of each process, discussed in more detail below:

Those who indicated that they typically rely on someone else, particularly an accountant, to file their taxes explained that they did so for the peace of mind in knowing that their taxes were completed correctly and that any credits/benefits or write offs to which they were eligible were captured. Participants also described it as a shift in responsibility for ensuring the accuracy of the information which they felt would be particularly helpful if they were audited. Participants felt that the toughest part of this process was having to gather up all of the relevant paperwork and booking an appointment to meet to discuss their taxes. The main drawback they offered was that accountants can be “expensive”.

Those who indicated that they usually complete their own taxes using the online software explained that they did so because of the cost savings (as opposed to contracting an accountant) and because they trust themselves better than anyone to know what they are or are not eligible for. Many added that their taxes are fairly straightforward and described the online software as being intuitive – leading the user to the appropriate boxes of information that are required for completion. The main drawbacks participants offered for this filing option included: requirement of a computer; perception that one needed to be tech-savvy to be able to complete their taxes online; and, and knowledge of which credits, benefits, and/or write offs they were eligible for.

Like those who file their own taxes online, those who indicated that they prefer to file their taxes on paper did so primarily because they trust themselves better than anyone to know what they are or are not eligible for. They also praised the fact that there were no costs associated with paper filing and that they had a paper record of their filings (and did not have to rely on electronic submission/records).

Those who do not file taxes every year provided a variety of reasons that were quite specific and individual which suggests non-filers cannot necessarily be generalized. For example, there were a couple of participants for whom it was beyond their control because they had contracted someone new to file their taxes and for whatever reason, that person did not submit their taxes. A couple of participants still had outstanding claims with CRA that they were waiting to resolve and had decided not to file until the claims were resolved. One participant spoke of having been through a stressful series of interactions with CRA in which CRA was requiring them to prove they had children (for whom they had claimed benefits in the past). Finally, there were a handful of participants who indicated that given their personal economic situations, and the fact they were always owed some money, the time and effort required to file taxes did not outweigh the benefit they would receive from CRA.

When asked what the CRA could do to help Canadians with the tax filing process, a number of suggestions were provided, many of which the CRA is currently doing:

• Create a series of YouTube video tutorials to educate Canadians on how to file their taxes.
• Make available free online software on CRA’s website that is CRA-approved and standardized. In fact, a number of participants criticized the CRA (and the Government) for requiring Canadians to complete annual income taxes without providing them with the necessary tools to do so.
• Lead income tax clinics in communities across the country.
• Make available volunteers to help do taxes.
• Encourage high schools to teach students about their responsibility to file income taxes annually and teach them how to do it.

Specific Reactions to the Letters

The primary focus of the discussions was to gauge participant reactions to the two Benefits Letters. Discussions focused on whether the letters were clear, credible, used an appropriate tone, and were able to motivate participants to take action.

While each letter will be discussed in turn below, we would make the following overarching observations common to both letters.

Very few participants, including both filers and non-filers, remembered having received either letter from CRA. Of the few who did, a number explained that they read the letter quickly, ascertained that they were still in arrears, and did not action the letter. Only one participant across all of the groups indicated that they proceeded to file their taxes as a result of receiving the letter; that it served as a helpful reminder to file their taxes. This participant was one of the non-filers who normally file their taxes but had relied on someone new and was unaware that their taxes were not filed that year until they received the letter.

While recall of these letters was very low, most indicated that when they receive something from CRA, particularly in the mail, they tend to pay attention and assume something is required of them. Participants pointed to and recognized the CRA and Government of Canada logos. There was also a sense that from a visual standpoint, the font and general layout of both letters were typical of Government communications in that they were not all that graphic, colourful, or visually appealing. For these reasons, the letters were deemed credible.

However, there was definitely a sense, across all of the groups, that the letters were a little promotional in their approach which caused many participants to question the credibility. When asked the main message of the letters, participants suggested that the letters were a reminder to file their taxes under the guise of an invitation to earn credit and benefit money. In fact, there was an assumption that CRA was doing this to collect money from non-filers who participants believe are high income earners trying to avoid paying taxes.

This was compounded by a sense that the letters were form letters and not necessarily applicable to most participants. Many of the participants were not necessarily the target audience for the Non-Filer Benefit Letter Initiative given that it targets those with low income and individuals who have children. Filers and non-filers who did not have children and/or were high income earners, and therefore ineligible for either the Canada Child Benefit or GST/HST credit, complained that the form letter approach was impersonal and insincere. In fact, most assumed that CRA knows most of their personal information if for no other reason than previous income tax filings (i.e., what they earn annually and whether or not they have children). However, whether this information is up to date depends on when an individual last filed their tax return. Alternatively, most would have preferred a simple reminder that their taxes had not yet been filed.

Moreover, filers and non-filers with children and/or lower incomes argued that awareness of the Canada Child Benefit and GST/HST credit was high, arguing that people talk about these credits/benefits. Most believed that the proportion of Canadians unfamiliar with these credits/benefits was very low and perhaps limited to newcomers/immigrants, which made the generalized approach impersonal and unsatisfying.

A number of participants also questioned the CRA’s decision not to include what they felt was critical information about reminding letter recipients of both the obligation of filing taxes every year and the repercussions of not doing so (i.e., interest charges, etc.).

When asked which letter they preferred, most tended to lean towards Letter 2. For this reason, we provide the following specific analysis of each letter beginning with Letter 2.

Letter 2

Overall, participants described Letter 2 as being clearer, inviting to read and visually appealing. Much of this sentiment was attributed to the format of the letter that provided more white space and differentiation allowing viewers to more easily discern the various information points. Participants also felt that the right parts of the letter were accentuated (in bold type).

The image below illustrates the areas participants found helpful (✔), unhelpful (✘), and confusing/unclear (?). Each of these is discussed in detail below.

HELPFUL (POSITIVE REACTIONS)

• The title, “Important”, was noticed and appreciated. Participants felt that it conveyed that they needed to pay attention to the letter. For some, however, there was a bit of a disconnect once they digested the rest of the information. Participants could accept that it was important to remind non-filers to file their taxes; they had a harder time accepting it was important to communicate that they may be missing out on credits/benefits as a means to file their taxes.
• The majority of participants appreciated the first sentence, “Our records show that you did not file an income tax and benefit return for 2015.” In fact, this was what participants understood to be the main message of the letter. It was deemed clear and to the point.
• Having the credits/benefits centred on the letter provided a visually pleasing break in the format and helped draw participants’ attention to that part of the letter. Moreover, participants felt that this letter provided a more concise and clear explanation of eligibility and payments associated with each credit/benefit. In fact, participants did not come away thinking that they had to have children to be eligible for these credits/benefits.
• Participants reacted very positively to the option “To see how much you could get, go to Canada.ca/benefits-calculator.” This was definitely something most were unaware of but something that would be of interest to them.
• Even more interesting was the offer of free software options online and volunteer assistance in tax preparation for low income earners which was new information for most. The volunteer service was especially appealing to non-filers who indicated they do not do their taxes every year because of the enormity of the task (even though they are likely owed money). Bear in mind these were very much in line with what participants volunteered when asked what CRA could do to help Canadians file their taxes every year.
• Participants appreciated the reference (in both letters) to CRA’s website and the 1-800 number for more information. In terms of the formatting of these references most felt that the 1-800 number should also be bolded in the letters (and not just the website address).

UNHELPFUL (NEGATIVE REACTIONS)

• The reference to “You might be missing out on benefits and credits!” while attention grabbing was felt to be misleading and added to the promotional tone of the letter. 
• Participants were aware of the intent of the paragraph, “Last year, over 21,000 taxpayers filed their tax returns after receiving this letter. They each got an average of more than $1,200 in benefits and credits. This year, if you file, you could be one of them.” but questioned the sincerity of the inclusion of this information. Many participants indicated that it would not motivate them to file their taxes to hear that others were motivated to do so. In fact, many were surprised that there were that many Canadians who do not file their taxes every year. Moreover, participants questioned whether it was misleading to quote an average claim amount which seemed unfair for those who would not receive the same amount (if anything at all). 
• Those who reacted negatively to the benefits/credits section did so because they believed they were not eligible, and they questioned the approach of enticing recipients to file.

Letter 1

Overall, reactions to Letter 1 were slightly less positive. It seemed to come off as more of a sales pitch than Letter 2. Participants also had difficulty determining the ‘call to action’ of Letter 1.

HELPFUL (POSITIVE REACTIONS)

• Reactions to the title, “You might be missing out on benefits and credits!”, were both positive and negative. Those with positive reactions felt it was attention-grabbing and catchy. As with Letter 2, those with negative reactions felt that it was misleading and not in line with the main message of the letter (to encourage non-filers to file).
• Participants had the same positive reaction to the first sentence, “Our records show that you did not file an income tax and benefit return for 2015.” as they did in Letter 2.
• They also appreciated the sentence, “Filing a tax return is key to getting your benefits and credits.” It was short and to the point and came across as more informational (an important reminder) than promotional. Some thought that CRA’s letter could have simply included those two sentences along with information about why it is important to file every year and potential repercussions for not filing.
• The reminders about how to get more information on CRA’s website or 1-800 number were noticed and appreciated as was the information about the availability of free online software. Again, this was in line with participants’ suggestions for ways CRA could help.

UNHELPFUL (NEGATIVE REACTIONS)

• The most confusing and unhelpful element of Letter 1 was around the benefits and credits explanations. For the most part, this was attributed to confusion as to eligibility of each benefit/credit. One of the more problematic elements was the bolded reference to children in each benefit/credit which implied that only those with children were eligible for each, including the GST/HST credit. For this reason, many participants came away feeling that these benefits did not apply to them which added to their sense that these letters were not as tailored as they would have appreciated.
• The reference to, “File your return and use My Account or Form RC66…” was confusing to most and felt like they would have to do more work than they were prepared to do.
• The reference to “Provincial and territorial benefits and credits” was also a source of much confusion, but more in response to Letter 1 than Letter 2. Part of this could be attributed to the fact that the letters were presented in order beginning with Letter 1 in each group. However, the caveat of “Related” in Letter 2 seemed to help assuage some concerns participants raised that these credits were not applicable in all provinces. Furthermore, the language in Letter 2, “We will determine your eligibility for each tax year that you file a return” was much clearer than the language in Letter 1, “You do not need to apply separately for these.” This language caused a certain level of confusion in terms of what recipients were expected to do to apply for these benefits.
• Participants felt that the tone of the wording, “…we thank you.” of the last sentence was a little patronizing, with preference for the simplicity of Letter 2, “…, thank you.”.

Conclusions

Overall, the two benefit letters were met with generally neutral to negative reactions:

• Neutral in the sense that participants did not recall receiving either letter and did not appear to be motivated to take any action as a result of reading either letter.
• Negative in the sense that both letters came off as more promotional than informational and certainly seemed to be trying to entice non-filers, for whom the perception was that the benefits and credits mentioned in the letters would not apply, to file their taxes.

While no one questioned the authenticity of the letters – the CRA and Government of Canada were visible and recognized – there were certainly a number of questions related to the credibility. An important element of this view was the perception that the CRA already knows a lot about filers (based on previous filings), especially their annual income and whether they have children or not. The promotional, form letter approach, amplified their negative reactions. In the absence of a more tailored approach, most volunteered they would have preferred a shorter, more direct, reminder to file their taxes.

When asked to choose, participants seemed to prefer Letter 2. It was felt to be a little more visually appealing with helpful differentiation of the benefits/credits and more clarity in terms of eligibility and process for applying for each. Participants struggled to identify the call to action of Letter 1 which seemed to target parents.

Top of mind feelings toward filing taxes tended to be more negative than positive. Those with more positive feelings tended to be those who relied on tax experts which provided peace of mind or those who were tech-savvy and comfortable filing online. Those with more negative feelings tended to complain about a time consuming process, that was confusing (in terms of what can and cannot be claimed), and tense especially if dealing with CRA was required.

There was a lot of confusion as to why there was not an easier system for filing taxes. Participants were pleasantly surprised to learn in Letter 2 that there were volunteer services and free online software to help with tax preparation. These were certainly in line with their suggestions for ways CRA could help improve the process.

Appendix A: Moderator's guide

Introduction

10 min

Moderator introduces herself and her role: role of moderator is to ask questions, make sure everyone has a chance to express themselves, keep track of the time, be objective/no special interest.

• The name of the firm the moderator works for, and the type of firm that employs them (i.e. An independent marketing research firm)
• The research purpose and research sponsor, described, at a minimum (in this case as the government of canada).
• Role of participants: speak openly and frankly about opinions, remember that there are no wrong answers and no need to agree with each other
• Results are confidential and reported all together/individuals are not identified/participation is voluntary.
• The length of the session (2 hours)
• The presence of any observers, their role and purpose, and the means of observation (one-way mirror, teleconference/webstreaming; colleagues viewing in the back room and listening in remotely)
• The presence and purpose of any recording being made of the session (audio and video taping of the discussion
• Turn off cell phones for the duration of the discussion

Moderator will go around the table and ask participants to introduce themselves.

Warm-up: general context

30 min

Tonight, we are going to be discussing income taxes. For whatever reason, not everyone files their income taxes every year and while i understand you may or may not be comfortable discussing whether you do or don’t, i’m going to ask you to set aside those insecurities for the purposes of our discussion tonight. Cra works hard to encourage people to file their taxes and we will be looking at some of the materials they have produced to do just that. Now before we look at those documents, i want to start off understanding your views towards income taxes generally.

To begin, on the paper in front of you, i would like you to write down one or two things that come to mind as it relates to filing your income taxes. Feel free to write down anything at all.

MODERATOR TO GO AROUND THE TABLE AND GET PARTICIPANTS TO EXPLAIN WHAT THEY WROTE DOWN.

• What did you write down? Why do you say that?
• [HANDS UP] Do you file your income taxes every year? Why or why not?

[FOR GROUPS WITH FILERS]

• How do you go about filing your taxes (probe: online or paper)? Why do you do it that way?
• Do you have help? If so, what kind of help? (friend, accountant, volunteer)
• How would you describe the overall process (probe: difficult or straight forward)? Why do you say that?
  • [IF DIFFICULT] What are some of the challenges/obstacles you have faced?

[FOR THOSE WHO HAVE NOT FILED THEIR TAXES]

• Why do you not file your taxes?
• Are there any specific challenges or obstacles preventing you from filing your taxes? If so, what are they?
• What could canada revenue agency or the government of canada do to encourage you to file your taxes?

Concept testing

70 min

Tonight, we’re going to be reviewing a couple of letters that were sent out to canadians who did not file their taxes for 2015.

MODERATOR TO REVIEW AND DISCUSS EACH LETTER SEPARATELY IN TURN BEGINNING WITH LETTER 1. THE FOLLOWING APPROACH WILL BE THE SAME FOR BOTH LETTERS.

[MODERATOR TO PASS OUT THE PAPER COPY OF THE LETTER AND ASK PARTICIPANTS TO DO AN INITIAL CURSORY REVIEW]

• [HANDS UP] Do you recall having received this letter?
• [MODERATOR TO RECORD HOW MANY PARTICIPANTS ACKNOWLEDGE HAVING RECEIVED THE FIRST LETTER]
• When you receive this type of letter, do you read it right away?
• What were your first impressions of this communication? Does it give you the impression that it is important? Why or why not?
• Was it clear? Easy to understand? Did you know what was expected of you?
• Is it clear that it is asking you to take action? Why or why not?
• What did you do as a result of receiving this letter?

GROUP OF FILERS:

• Why did you file your taxes? What specifically motivated you to file your income tax return? Why?

GROUP OF NON-FILERS:

• Why did you not file your taxes?
• What was it about this letter that you did not find particularly motivating? Why?

[MODERATOR ASKS PARTICIPANTS TO REVIEW THE LETTER IN MORE DETAIL]

Now I would like you to review the letter in more detail. Please feel free to mark it up. I would ask that you note with a “√” any elements that you find particularly good or interesting (helpful information); note with an “x” any elements that you did not find particularly good or interesting; and, note with a “?” Any elements you find particularly confusing or unclear.

Let’s review how you marked up the letter.

• What are the elements that you noted with a “√”? Why is that? What do you like about that?
• What are the elements that you noted with a “x”? Why is that? What do you not like about that?
• What elements did you find confusing or unclear?

In general…

• Was the letter credible/believable? Why or why not?
• What about the tone of the letter, was it appropriate? Why or why not?
• Ask about the language, is it clear?
• Is the message or the intent of the letter clear?
• What do you think about the tagline “you might be missing out on benefits and credits!” Does that say anything to you? Is there other wording or messaging that you would find more motivating or encourage you to keep reading the letter?
• Ask about layout, design. Is the right information in bold text. Should anything else be highlighted?
• In terms of the amount of information, do you feel there is too much, enough or not enough information in the letter? Why do you say that?
• [IF NOT ENOUGH INFORMATION] What else would you have wanted to know? What else could/should cra have indicated in the letter
• Is it appropriate for the government of canada to provide this kind of information? Why or why not?
  • [FOR LETTER 2 ONLY] – “last year, over 21,000 taxpayers filed their tax returns after receiving this letter. They each got an average of more than $1,200 in benefits and credits. This year, if you file, you could be one of them.” Is that information important? Did you find that interesting and/or motivating?
• [IF NOT MENTIONED SPONTANEOUSLY] Did anyone notice the reference to find out more about benefit and credit payments including how to apply on the canada.ca/benefits website?
  • Did anyone visit the website for more information? Did anyone apply via the website? Why or why not?
    • [FOR THOSE WHO VISIT THE WEBSITE] Were you able to get the information you needed?
    • [FOR THOSE WHO APPLIED VIA THE WEBSITE] How would you describe the process (probe: easy or difficult)? Why do you say that?
    • Should there be more information about how to file your taxes in the letter?
  • What about the toll-free number? Did anyone notice it? Did anyone call it? Why or why not?
    • [For those called the toll-free number] how would you describe your experience? Why do you say that?

[FOR LETTER 2] “if you have a low income and a simple tax situation, volunteers from the community volunteer income tax program may be available to do your taxes for you, for free. To find if a tax preparation clinic is available near you, go to canada.ca/taxes-volunteer.”  Did you find this information useful?  Should it be in the letter?

• What could cra do to improve this letter? What should cra put in the letter to encourage you to file your taxes? Why do you say that?
• [FILERS] So what was it about the letter that motivated you to file your taxes? What specifically motivated you to file your income tax return? Why?
• [NON-FILERS] So what was it about the letter that did not motivate you to file your taxes? Why?
  • What could have been improved to encourage you to file your taxes?
  • Is there something beyond this letter that is a barrier/obstacle to you filing your taxes? What are they?
  • Is there something else cra could do to encourage you to file your taxes every year? Why?

REPEAT FOR LETTER 2

Wrap-up

• Which letter did you prefer? Why?
• [If no preference] what were the most important or your preferred elements in each letter? Why?
  • What would you like to see instead? Why?

Conclusion

10 min

MODERATOR TO CHECK IN THE BACK ROOM AND PROBE ON ANY ADDITIONAL AREAS OF INTEREST.

• This concludes what we needed to cover tonight. We really appreciate you taking the time to come down here to share your views. Your input is very important.
• Before we conclude, do you have any last thoughts you want to provide canada revenue agency or the broader government of canada?
• Reminder to those in the first group about reserving comments so as not to influence those waiting at reception for the next group.

Appendix B: Letters

Benefit Letter 1

Benefit Letter 2

Appendix C: Screener

Focus group summary

Group 1 /Filed 2015

• Filed 2015 taxes (use information taken from list)
• Good mix of demos (gender, age, household situation, ethnicity, etc.)
• Mix of those who received letter 1 and letter 2 (use information from list)
• Recruit 10 for 8 to show

Group 2 Did not file 2015

• Did not file 2015 taxes (use information taken from list)
• Good mix of demos (gender, age, household situation, ethnicity, etc.)
• Mix of those who received letter 1 and letter 2 (use information from list)
• Recruit 10 for 8 to show

Hello/Bonjour, my name is _______________ and I’m calling on behalf of the Earnscliffe Strategy Group, a national public opinion research firm. We are organizing a series of discussion groups on behalf of the Government of Canada. The Government of Canada is conducting this research to understand how they could better communicate with Canadians. We received your information from the Government of Canada because you have received a letter from them in the past related to filing taxes.

[IF PROBED] We received your information from the Government of Canada, more specifically the Canada Revenue Agency, which may share information for research purposes in the course of the administration or enforcement of the Income Tax Act.

Would you prefer that I continue in English or French? Préférez-vous continuer en français ou en anglais? [IF FRENCH, CONTINUE IN FRENCH OR ARRANGE A CALL BACK WITH FRENCH INTERVIEWER: Nous vous rappellerons pour mener cette entrevue de recherche en français. Merci. Au revoir].

The purpose of the study and the small group discussion is to better understand barriers and motivators to filing taxes. We are looking for people who would be willing to participate in a discussion group that will last up to two hours. These people must be 18 years of age or older. Up to 10 participants will be taking part and for their time, participants will receive $100.00 for participating in the group discussion. May I continue?

• Yes CONTINUE
• No THANK AND TERMINATE

Participation is voluntary. We are interested in hearing your opinions; no attempt will be made to sell you anything or change your point of view. The format is a ‘round table’ discussion led by a research professional. All information collected, used and/or disclosed will be used for research purposes only and the research is entirely confidential. But before we invite you to attend, we need to ask you a few questions to ensure that we get a good mix and variety of people. May I ask you a few questions; this should only take 5 minutes?

• Yes CONTINUE
• No THANK AND TERMINATE

READ TO ALL: “This call may be monitored or audio taped for quality control and evaluation purposes.

ADDITIONAL CLARIFICATION IF NEEDED:

• To ensure that I (the interviewer) am reading the questions correctly and collecting your answers accurately;
• To assess my (the interviewer) work for performance evaluation;
• To ensure that the questionnaire is accurate/correct (i.e. evaluation of CATI programming and methodology – we’re asking the right questions to meet our clients’ research requirements – kind of like pre-testing)
• If the call is audio taped, it is only for the purposes of playback to the interviewer for a performance evaluation immediately after the interview is conducted or it can be used by the Project Manager/client to evaluate the questionnaire if they are unavailable at the time of the interview – all audio tapes are destroyed after the evaluation.

S1. Do you or any member of your household currently work for or have you or has any member of your household ever worked for…IF “YES” TO ANY OF THE ABOVE, THANK AND TERMINATE

• A marketing research firm or communications or a creative agency
• A magazine or newspaper, online or print
• A radio or television station
• A public relations company
• An advertising agency or graphic design firm
• An online media company or as a blog writer
• The government, whether federal, provincial or municipal

S2. DO NOT ASK – NOTE GENDER. ENSURE GOOD MIX OF GENDER.

• Male 1
• Female 2

S3. Could you please tell me which of the following age categories you fall into? Are you...ENSURE GOOD MIX OF AGE

• 18-24 years 1
• 25-29 years 2
• 30-34 years 3
• 35-44 years 4
• 45-54 years 5
• 55-64 years 6
• 65+ years 7
• DK/NR 9 THANK AND TERMINATE

S4. What is your current employment status? ENSURE GOOD MIX OF EMPLOYMENT STATUS

• Working full-time 1
• Working part-time 2
• Self-employed 3
• Retired 4
• Unemployed 5
• Student 6
• Stay at home parent 7
• Other (please specify) 8
• DK/NR 9 THANK AND TERMINATE

S5. Which of the following categories best describes your total household income? That is, the total income of all persons in your household combined, before taxes? [READ LIST]

• Under $20,000 1
• $20,000 to under $40,000 2
• $40,000 to under $60,000 3
• $60,000 to under $80,000 4
• $80,000 to under $100,000 5
• $100,000 to under $150,000 6
• DK/NR 9 THANK AND TERMINATE

S6. What is the last level of education that you have completed? ENSURE GOOD MIX OF EDUCATION

• Elementary school 1
• Some high school only 2
• Completed high school 3
• Some college/university 4
• Completed college/university 5
• Post-graduate studies 6
• DK/NR 9 THANK AND TERMINATE

S7. Which of the following best describes your current household situation? Are you living…? ENSURE GOOD MIX OF HOUSEHOLD SITUATION

• By yourself 1
• As a single parent with your children at least some of the time 2
• With a partner or spouse 3
• With a partner or spouse and your children 4
• As a blended family (with a spouse and yours and/or their children) 5
• With your parents only or with siblings 6
• Other (please specify) 7
• DK/NR 9 THANK AND TERMINATE

S8. To make sure that we speak to a diversity of people, could you tell me what is your ethnic background? DO NOT READ. ENSURE GOOD MIX OF ETHNICITY

• Caucasian 1
• Chinese 2
• South Asian (i.e., East Indian, Pakistani, etc.) 3
• Black 4
• Filipino 5
• Latin American 6
• Southeast Asian (i.e. Vietnamese, etc.) 7
• Arab 8
• West Asian (i.e. Iranian, Afghan, etc.) 9
• Korean 10
• Japanese 11
• Indigenous (First Nations, Métis, or Inuit) 12
• Other (please specify) 13
• DK/NR 14

S9. Have you participated in a discussion or focus group before? A discussion group brings together a few people in order to know their opinion about a given subject. (MAX 1/3 PER GROUP, ASK S10, S11, S12)

• Yes 1
• No 2 SKIP TO S13
• DK/NR 9 THANK AND TERMINATE

S10. When was the last time you attended a discussion or focus group?

• If within the last 6 months 1 THANK AND TERMINATE
• If not within the last 6 months 2 CONTINUE
• DK/NR 9 THANK AND TERMINATE

S11. How many of these sessions have you attended in the last five years?

• If 4 or less 1 CONTINUE
• If 5 or more 2 THANK AND TERMINATE
• DK/NR 9 THANK AND TERMINATE

S12. And what was/were the main topic(s) of discussion in those groups?

IF RELATED TO CRA OR TAXES/TAX BENEFITS, TERMINATE.

INVITATION

S13. Participants in discussion groups are asked to voice their opinions and thoughts. How comfortable are you in voicing your opinions in front of others? Are you… (READ LIST)

• Very comfortable 1 MINIMUM 4 PER GROUP
• Fairly comfortable 2 CONTINUE
• Comfortable 3 CONTINUE
• Not very comfortable 4 THANK AND TERMINATE
• Not at all comfortable 5 THANK AND TERMINATE
• DK/NR 9 THANK AND TERMINATE

S14. Sometimes participants are asked to read text and/or review images during the discussion. Is there any reason why you could not participate?

• Yes 1 THANK AND TERMINATE
• No 2 CONTINUE
• DK/NR 9 THANK AND TERMINATE

S15. Based on your responses, it looks like you have the profile we are looking for. I would like to invite you to participate in a small group discussion, called a focus group, we are conducting at [TIME], on [DATE].

As you may know, focus groups are used to gather information on a particular subject matter; in this case, the motivators and barriers with filing taxes. The discussion will consist of 8 to 10 people and will be very informal. It will last up to two hours, refreshments will be served and you will receive $100.00 as a thank you for your time. Would you be willing to attend?

• Yes 1 RECRUIT
• No 2 THANK AND TERMINATE
• DK/NR 9 THANK AND TERMINATE

PRIVACY QUESTIONS

Now I have a few questions that relate to privacy, your personal information and the research process. We will need your consent on a few issues that enable us to conduct our research. As I run through these questions, please feel free to ask me any questions you would like clarified.

P1) First, we will be providing the hosting facility and session moderator with a list of respondents’ names and profiles (screener responses) so that they can sign you into the group. This information will not be shared with the Government of Canada department organizing this research. Do we have your permission to do this? I assure you it will be kept strictly confidential.

• Yes 1 GO TO P2
• No 2 GO TO P1A

We need to provide the facility hosting the session and the moderator with the names and background of the people attending the focus group because only the individuals invited are allowed in the session and the facility and moderator must have this information for verification purposes. Please be assured that this information will be kept strictly confidential. GO TO P1A

P1a) Now that I’ve explained this, do I have your permission to provide your name and profile to the facility?

• Yes 1 GO TO P2
• No 2 THANK & TERMINATE

P2) 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 video taped for research purposes only?

• Yes 1 THANK & GO TO P3
• No 2 READ RESPONDENT INFO BELOW & GO TO P2A

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.

P2a) Now that I’ve explained this, do I have your permission for audio/video taping?

• Yes 1 THANK & GO TO P3
• No 2 THANK & TERMINATE

P3) Employees from the CRA and/or the Government of Canada may be onsite to observe the groups in-person from behind a one-way mirror.

Do you agree to be observed by Government of Canada employees?

• Yes 1 THANK & GO TO INVITATION
• No 2 GO TO P3A

P3a) It is standard qualitative procedure to invite clients, in this case, Government of Canada employees, to observe the groups in person. They will be seated in a separate room and observe from behind a one-way mirror. They will be there simply to hear your opinions first hand although they may take their own notes and confer with the moderator on occasion to discuss whether there are any additional questions to ask the group.

Do you agree to be observed by Government of Canada employees?

• Yes 1 THANK & GO TO INVITATION
• No 2 THANK & TERMINATE

Invitation:

Wonderful, you qualify to participate in one of our discussion sessions. As I mentioned earlier, the group discussion will take place the evening of [Day, Month, Date] @ [Time] for up to two hours.

Do you have a pen handy so that I can give you the address where the group will be held? It will be held at:

We ask that you arrive fifteen minutes early to be sure you find parking, locate the facility and have time to check-in with the hosts. The hosts may be checking respondents’ identification prior to the group, so please be sure to bring some personal identification with you (for example, a driver’s license). If you require glasses for reading make sure you bring them with you as well. And, please, don’t forget to bring your smartphone as you will not be able to participate without one.

As we are only inviting a small number of people, your participation is very important to us. If for some reason you are unable to attend, please call us so that we may get someone to replace you. You can reach us at [INSERT PHONE NUMBER] at our office. Please ask for [NAME]. Someone will call you in the days leading up to the discussion to remind you.

So that we can call you to remind you about the discussion group or contact you should there be any changes, can you please confirm your name and contact information for me?

First name
Last Name
email
Daytime phone number
Evening phone number

If the respondent refuses to give his/her first or last name or phone number please assure them that this information will be kept strictly confidential in accordance with the privacy law and that it is used strictly to contact them to confirm their attendance and to inform them of any changes to the discussion group. If they still refuse THANK & TERMINATE.