Children and Youth Services Review 32 (2010) 129–136

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Children and Youth Services Review

j ourna l homepage: www.e lsev ie r.com/ locate /ch i ldyouth

Mapping the perspectives of low-income parents in a children's college savingsaccount program

Toni Johnson ⁎, Deborah Adams, Johnny S. KimUniversity of Kansas, School of Social Welfare, 1545 Lilac Lane, Lawrence, KS 66044, United States

⁎ Corresponding author.E-mail address: tkjohns@ku.edu (T. Johnson).

0190-7409/$ – see front matter © 2009 Elsevier Ltd. Aldoi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2009.08.008

a b s t r a c t

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 31 May 2009Received in revised form 6 August 2009Accepted 12 August 2009Available online 21 August 2009

Keywords:Child savings accounts (CSAs)AssetsInstitutional theoryPovertyCollege savingsConcept mapping

Policies andprograms designed tohelp low-income families save and build assets for developmental uses such ashigher education, homeownership, and entrepreneurship are emerging and growing globally. This study usesparticipatory concept mapping techniques to explore perspectives of low-income parents in a children's collegesavings accountprogram ina largeUScity. Participants in this studyworked together to generate data on effectivecomponents of child savings account (CSA) programs. They then sorted these CSA components into conceptualgroups reflecting their perspectives on which of the program elements were related to one another. Finally,participants were asked to rate the importance of each CSA component. Findings suggest that parents view CSAcomponents that: (1) demonstrate respect for parents and (2) enhance accountability as being particularlyeffective and important elements ofmatched savingprograms.Whilemuchmore research is needed, particularlywith lower-income families and communities, thesefindings are consistentwith anemerging institutional theoryof saving and asset accumulation. Implications for institutional theory, asset-building policies, CSA programs, andfuture research are discussed.

© 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Asset-building policies and programs to help low-income peoplebuild resources for long-term social and economic development haveemerged in many countries. These policies and programs followSherraden's (1991) proposal for a system of universal accounts openedat birth with progressive funding. Similar programs to help low-incomeadults save money for developmental goals such as going to college ortrade school, buying a home, or starting a small business have beenoperating, often in the formof IndividualDevelopmentAccounts (IDAs),since the mid-1990s (Sherraden et al., 1995).

Asset-building programs for children have been initiated in the US(CFED, 2006; Sherraden & Clancy, 2008) and abroad (Loke & Sherraden,2006) to help families invest for social and economic development.Progressively funded accounts for children are frequently known aschild savings accounts (CSAs) or child development accounts (CDAs),and are either in place or being designed in Singapore (Curley &Sherraden, 2000), the United Kingdom (Paxton, 2001), Canada (Leckie,Dowie &Gyorfi-Dyke, 2008), Korea (Han, Kim& Zou, 2006) and Uganda(Ssewamala, Alicea, Bannon & Ismayilova, 2006). CSAs are savingsaccounts established for children to provide structure and support forbuilding assets, which can be used in turn for developmental purposessuch as post-secondary education, buying a home, or starting a business(Curley & Sherraden, 2000). The accounts are started with an initialdeposit fromaprivate or public funding source, are eligible formatching

l rights reserved.

funds up to a specific amount, are managed by a financial institution,and are tax free. The child is able to access the account after age 18 (Loke& Sherraden, 2006).

This study is part of a larger multi-year, multi-method researchproject on the first large scale CSA initiative in the US known as Savingsfor Education, Entrepreneurship, and Downpayment (SEED). In thisstudy, we describe how low-income parents from the SEED initiative inChicago, Illinois actively participated in identifying effective elements ofCSA programs from their perspectives and rated those elements onlevels of importance.Webelieve this is thefirst time that a participatoryresearch method has been used to systematically explore the perspec-tives of low-income parents saving for their children's college educationin the context of a structured community-based CSA program.

2. Theory on saving and asset building

Social policies and programs that help people living in or nearpoverty have historically been based on income or social servicestrategies, and have provided assistance to meet basic and immediateconsumption needs (Sherraden, 1991). To achieve sustainableeconomic security, however, people need both income and assetsbecause resources built and held over time play important roles inachieving, maintaining, and enhancing future social and economicwell-being (Sherraden, 1991). For example, assets help people surviveunplanned events such as unemployment, illness, and other setbacksthat create sudden income inadequacies. In addition to cushioninghousehold economic blows, assets can enhance social and economicdevelopment through investments in home owning, education and

130 T. Johnson et al. / Children and Youth Services Review 32 (2010) 129–136

training, micro-enterprise and other business ventures, as well asintergenerational transfers (Sherraden et al., 2005).

A number of new asset-based policies and programs have emergedacross the globe in the last two decades. These initiatives generallyfocus on immediate consumption needs with a quest to improve thelong-term social and economic development of lower-income house-holds (Beverly et al., 2008; Sherraden, 2005). While asset building canhave many different meanings, we use the term in this paper to meanbuilding financial wealth and tangible property assets for the socialand economic development of households over time.

Beverly and her colleagues (2008) suggest that institutional factorsare largely responsible for saving and asset building. In their work oninstitutional economic theory, theyuse the term “institutions” to refer to“purposefully created policies, programs, products and services thatshape opportunities, constraints, and consequences” (Beverly et al.,2008, p. 90). This institutional perspective builds on behavioraleconomic theory by positing that saving and asset accumulation arenot only shaped by individual knowledge, choices and propensities, butalso result in large part from social structures that facilitate assetbuilding. Sherraden (1991) described these social structures asincorporating “connections, rules, incentives, and subsidies” (p. 116).Beverly and her colleagues (2008) note that, for non-poor households,these asset-buildingmechanisms include income tax benefits for homemortgage interest and retirement savings, as well as employercontributions to the pension plans of workers. Lower-income house-holds without existing savings lack similar access to or benefits fromstructured mechanisms that help people build assets.

From this emerging institutional perspective, seven aspects ofinstitutions that promote saving and asset accumulation are identi-fied: access, information, incentives, facilitation, expectations, restric-tions, and security; and these often exist in concert rather than inisolation. For example, a defined contribution retirement plan with amatch from an employer provides a number of aspects of institutionalsupport for saving including access, information, incentives, facilita-tion, and restrictions. Low-income households have less access toand benefit less from institutional supports, and especially group ofrelated institutional supports, for saving and asset building (Beverlyet al., 2008).

This study was an opportunity to explore whether an institutionalunderstandingof saving andasset accumulationwouldemerge from thefocused discussions of low-income parents who were saving for theirchildren's college education in a structured asset-building program. TheChicago CSA program was designed to offer institutional supports forsaving that included information, incentives, and restrictions. Inplanning the study, we anticipated that many of the parent contribu-tions to the discussion would focus on program challenges because theChicago initiative had to overcome some difficult administrative andstaffing issues early in its operation. While such program start-up,recruitment, and early administrative challenges are relatively commonin community-based programs designed to help lower-income familiesbuild assets (CFED, 2006; Page-Adams, 2002; Scanlon & Adams, 2009;Brooks, 2008), the administrative and staffing issues at the Chicagoprogramwere of a more serious nature and involved a forced change inprogram leadership. In the face of early programming problems, weexpected that participants would be likely to focus on individual andinterpersonal factors suchas trust in the community-basedorganizationand rapport with program staff. However, because of the methodolog-ical approach we used in this study, we also had the chance to examinewhether institutional aspects of saving and asset accumulation werepart of the program experiences of parents who had established collegesavings accounts for their children.

3. Literature review

There is a small but growing body of literature on institutionalmechanisms that appear to promote saving and asset accumulation

among low-income families. It is not surprising that the literature oninstitutions, saving, and poverty is limited in size and strength giventhat asset-building initiatives for low-income families are a recentphenomenon (Beverly et al., 2008). The earliest matched savingsprograms in the US began in the mid-1990s, often in the form ofIndividual Development Accounts (IDAs), and were designed primar-ily for adult participants (Sherraden et al., 2005). Incentivized savingaccounts to help low-income families build assets for their childrenare newer still in the US, and have been established almost exclusivelyby community-based organizations to date.

In this section, we review research on CSAs and other similarincentivized accounts designed to help families save and accumulateassets. We are particularly focused in this review on the institutionalmechanisms that are part of the CSA program in Chicago includinginformation, incentives, and restrictions. What does prior researchsuggest regarding the likelihood that these institutional factorswill playa role in parent perceptions of effective and important CSA programcomponents?

3.1. Information

The Chicago children's college savings program was designed toprovide financial education as well as regular account information toparticipating parents. A review of the literature suggests that informa-tion shared as part of a financial communication, or financial education,effort may improve economic outcomes related to saving and assetbuilding.

For example, Nyce's (2005) study of financial communication withemployees with varying wage and salary levels working in 26companies found that financial information had significant positiveeffects on participation in and contributions to employer-sponsoredretirement plans. Of particular import for our study, the effects offinancial communication in Nyce's study were strongest for employeeswith relatively low earnings. Other researchers who have studied theimpact of employer-sponsored retirement seminars on saving and assetaccumulation find that such financial education is positively associatedwith participation in and contributions to pension and retirement plans(Bayer, Bernheim, & Scholz, 1996; Bernheim & Garrett, 2003) and thatthe associations are especially strong for employees with few existingassets and relatively low levels of education (Bernheim&Garrett, 2003;Lusardi, 2002).

In studies of information in the form of financial education designedspecifically for low-income adults, Hirad and Zorn (2002) find thathomeownership counseling provided before purchase is associatedwith a reduction in mortgage delinquency at 90 days following thehomepurchase. Clancy, Grinstein-Weiss, and Schreiner (2001)find thatup to 12 h of financial education for participants in IDA programsis associated with increased net savings. Grinstein-Weiss, Wagner,and Ssewamala (2006) found that low-income families with childrenwere able to save when provided with institutional supports includ-ing financial education. However, a potential problem with studies offinancial education for voluntary participants in asset-building pro-grams is selection bias.

3.2. Incentives

A second institutional factor that is of special interest in this studyis incentives for saving and asset accumulation. The prior researchthat is most instructive for our purposes here include studies on theimpact of matching contributions on participation and saving out-comes in asset-building programs. In reviewing such studies, Beverlyand her colleagues (2008) write:

Evidence suggests that the existence of a match increases parti-cipation and that higher match rates are associated with higherparticipation (p. 52).

131T. Johnson et al. / Children and Youth Services Review 32 (2010) 129–136

However, they also note that empirical evidence on the effect ofmatch rate on contributions to incentivized savings accounts is mixed,perhaps because of the complicating factor of match caps in suchprograms. Still, the existence of matching contributions has been foundto increase Individual Retirement Account opening (Duflo, Gale,Liebman,Orszag, &Saez, 2006) andparticipation indefinedcontributionretirement plans (Nyce, 2005) in the US. Further, the availability ofmatching contributionswas cited by parents as the primary reason theyopened children's savings accounts in England (Kempson, McKay &Collard 2005) and the US (Sherraden et al. 2005).

3.3. Restrictions

Adults and youth participants with matched savings accounts inthe US have reported that they like the relative lack of access to theirsavings that is a structural component of such programs (Moore et al.,2001; Scanlon & Adams, 2009; Sherraden et al., 2005). Similarly,Kempson, McKay and Collard (2005) find that the majority of low-income participants in their study of a matched saving program inEngland like the fact that there are restrictions on how long they haveto wait to access their savings. The empirical evidence on dedicatedaccounts, or accounts that are restricted to certain uses, is not as clearhowever. For example, most of the participants in the UK studyreported that they would not be in favor of restrictions on the use oftheir savings.

By focusing this literature review on institutional mechanisms inincentivized savings programs, we hope to complement the moreestablished theoretical traditions that emphasize the impact ofindividual factors, social relationships, and behavioral economics onsaving and asset building. The way that institutions may shapeeconomic behaviors is of intellectual interest, and also has importantimplications for current global efforts to establish universal andprogressive CSA policies and programs. Even so, we do not want togive the impression that we have lost sight of the importance ofindividual factors and interpersonal relationships among participants ofmatched savings programs. Even in the best of circumstances, forexample, parents are often initially reluctant to enroll their children inCSA programs and require a strong rapport with key staff members andtrusted authorityfigures inorder to join andparticipate (Sherradenet al.2006).

4. Methods

The context of our study is a national policy, practice, and researchinitiative in the US called SEEDwhich is designed to helpmodel and testthe efficacy of matched savings accounts for children. Twelvecommunity-based organizations and one state government operateCSAs across the country and in Puerto Rico as part of SEED. In addition tooffering matched savings accounts, local SEED programs providefinancial education classes and events for participants and their parents,sponsor educational field trips for participating children, send regularstatements showing personal deposits and available matching con-tributions, and offer other supportive services to SEED families.

The site for this study is the SEED program in Chicago, Illinoiswhich is administered by a community-based organization thatpartnered with a local elementary school to provide CSAs to itsstudents. The SEED program in Chicago was designed to open CSAswith an initial deposit from the program of $500 and offered a dollar-for-dollar program match for family deposits up to $1500 over fouryears. In the Chicago program, SEED accounts were restricted collegesavings accounts to be used by participating children for post-secondary education and training. If the CSA is not used by that child,another family member can use it for schooling.

We designed the study in order to explore parent perspectives onparticularly effective and important components of CSA programs.Strengthening our understanding of parent experiences and views is

critical if we hope to enhance future asset-building policies andprograms to benefit children, especially those living in or nearpoverty. Using an explicitly participatory research approach calledconcept mapping, we asked SEED parents in Chicago to identify whatthey believed to be particularly effective components of a children'scollege savings account program. We also asked the parents to ratethe “effective” program components on importance relative to oneanother. As applied in this study, our use of concept mapping is in linewith the belief that program participants are in the best position toaccurately describe various components of their own local asset-building initiative by identifying, categorizing, labeling, and ratingdiscrete aspects of their program experience. Concept mapping is ageneric term used to describe a process where graphs or pictures areused to depict a visual relationship between ideas or concepts. Kaneand Trochim (2007) provide a detailed account of six steps of theconcept mapping process used here which include: (1) preparation,(2) data generation, (3) structuring the statements, (4) conceptmapping analysis, (5) interpretation of the maps, and (6) datautilization. This particular form of concept mapping combines qualita-tive and quantitativemethods to investigate the researchquestions (seeJackson and Trochim, 2002, for a discussion on the use of conceptmapping as an alternative to survey research). The research plan,including the informed consent protocol for this study, was reviewedand approved by the IRB office at the University of Kansas.

4.1. Research questions

Two questions guided our investigation: (1) What do parent partic-ipants perceive to be effective components of a college savings programfor children? (2) How important is each of these components in a CSAprogram?

4.2. Study sample

An invitation to participate in the study was extended to all parentsactively involved in the Chicago SEEDprogram. Aflierwas developed bythe program director and the lead researcher explaining the researchstudy and was hand delivered during individual and group meetingsthat the program director held with the parents. Parents were informedthat participation in the study was voluntary and their decision aboutparticipation in the research study would have no effect on theirinvolvement with SEED. Approximately 28% (n=11) of the parents, allfrom different households, responded and consented to participate inthe study. Of the eleven parents who participated in the data generationphase of the study, 10 of these parents also participated in the sorting,rating process, and interpretation phases. Each of the parents selfidentified as African American. Annual household income ranges werereported by the parents as $15,000 or less (5), between $15,001 and$25,000 (3), and between $25,001 and $35,000 (3).Our samplematchesthe full parent group at the Chicago SEED program on race andhousehold income. All of the SEED parents in Chicago are AfricanAmerican, and the income ranges for the larger group nearly matchthoseof our sample. For example,while 42.7%of theentire Chicago SEEDgroup reported incomes in the lowest range, 45% of our sample (5 of 11)was living within this lowest income range. The next lowest level ofpovertywas reportedby28%ofChicago SEEDparents in total, and27%ofour sample (3of 11) reported incomes in this range (Mason et al., 2007).Parents were asked to attend a total of three meetings in summer 2006to participate in our study, and were given $30.00 (USD) afterparticipating in each meeting along with train or bus vouchers forthosewhoneeded transportation assistance. Data (described in thenextsection) was collected by one of the authors of this article along with adoctoral student. Notes were taken on the first day, during the opendiscussion, but the meetings were not audio recorded.

132 T. Johnson et al. / Children and Youth Services Review 32 (2010) 129–136

4.3. Data generation

At the first meeting, participants met as a group and were asked tocomplete the following focus prompt: A college savings program, such asSEED, is effective when it_________________________. Group participantswere informed that their responses would be combined with a list ofstatements that parents from other SEED programs had made duringfocus groups. Prior to our study in Chicago, we had conducted focusgroups with SEED parents at seven other programs across the country.These focus groups were designed to elicit information from parentsregarding how they made decisions to enroll their children in CSAprograms, open CSAs, and make personal deposits into those accounts(Brooks, 2008). Challenges encountered early in the SEED initiative bythe Chicago program prompted us to choose a research method that isbetter than traditional focus groups at maximizing the involvement ofparticipants. Concept mapping allows the aggregation of similar datafrom different sources to be included in data collection and analysisprocesses (Trochim, 1989, 1993). We explained that our goal was togather a set of unduplicated statements representing ideas fromparentsin different parts of the country in order to allowChicago participants towork with an array of statements in identifying effective and importantCSA program components. The Chicago parents generated 38 state-ments and these statements were compared to information gatheredfromother focusgroups. Thefinal data set used for the study consistedof45 statements. Almost all of the statements that surfaced during otherfocus groupswere represented in some formduring the data generationdiscussion in Chicago, however 7 statements came from participants inother programs. We included those statements in the statement setused in this study to identify whether or not the Chicago parents wouldview them as essential components in a CSA program. The sevenstatements thatwere not raised by this groupof parents are identified inthe Appendix. Some statements were shortened to more efficientlycomplete the statement, clarify the intended idea as it emerged withinthe context of the discussion, and minimize redundancy.

4.4. Structuring ideas

At the second meeting, each participant was given a set of 45computer-generated cards reflecting each individual statement on thelist. They were asked to sort the statements into groups that madeconceptual sense to them, label each group of statements with a wordor phrase that best described the common “idea” represented by thestatements in that group, and place a rubber band or paper clip aroundeach group of cards. After the sorting process was complete, eachindividual's sort data was placed in separate envelopes in preparationfor data entry. Participants were then given a rating form and asked torate each statement on importance using a five point Likert-type scale(5=extremely important to 1=not important). Individual sorts andrating data was entered into the software program. The sorting andrating tasks took an average of 1.5 h.

4.5. Idea representation/analysis

The research team conducted preliminary analyses prior to thefinal meeting with participants. Concept maps were producedproviding graphic representation of the conceptual ideas producedby the group and the relationship of the ideas to each other. Thesoftware program used in this particular concept mapping techniqueuses multidimensional scaling (MDS) and hierarchical cluster analysisto derive a visual representation, or map, of the conceptual relation-ships among a set of qualitative statements. In this case, the maprepresents the 45 statements sorted and rated by the Chicago SEEDparents. According to McCallum (1988) the purpose of MDS isto provide a basis for understanding the structure in certain types ofjudgment driven data. Using individual sort data as input, themultidimensional scaling analysis uses a bivariate distribution of X–Y

coordinates to create a two-dimensional spatial map of points thatbecomes a reflection of how participants conceptualized the relation-ships between ideas (Kane & Trochim, 2007). Statements closertogether on the map were more likely to be sorted in the same pilesmore frequently while statements that were further apart were sortedinto different piles more frequently. The end result is a map that showshow the CSA program elements that were considered to be particularlyeffective were sorted into conceptual groups and rated in terms ofimportance by the parents.

Ward's method of agglomeration is employed for this analysis(Trochim, 1989). The process begins with each statement represent-ing its own cluster. Using an algorithm, two statements are combinedat each stage of the analysis until all statements end up in clusters.Guided by the purpose of the research, the researcher determines thenumber of clusters that provide the best “solution” for the study basedon the conceptual fit of the statements within each cluster and therelationship between clusters as indicated by bridging indices. Clustersolutions of as few as five clusters and as many as 12 clusters wereexamined, andwe concluded that the six cluster solution provided thebest fit with the data (see Kane & Trochim, 2007 for a detaileddiscussion of analysis and interpretation decisions using the ConceptSystems software program).

4.6. Interpretation

Ten participants attended the interpretation discussion. Partici-pants were briefed about the initial analysis process and engaged in adiscussion about the meaning of the clusters. There was consensusamong the group members about the cluster solution, but the grouprejected some suggested labels for clusters. The conceptual fit of thestatements in each cluster was discussed, and labels for three of theclusters were changed to better reflect the group's interpretation ofthe clustered statements. With additional contextual information anddecisions made by the group, the researchers returned to the data tochange cluster labels and produce final maps (see Johnson, Kim, &Adams, 2007 for more details).

5. Results

The concept map in the Fig. 1 is a visual representation of thematicclusters of parent statements identifying effective elements of collegesavings programs for children. The numbers in each cluster representthe numbered statements as listed in the Appendix. The layers reflectthe relative importance participants placed on the statements in eachconceptual cluster and provide a visual representation of theimportance of each cluster as part of the overall map. The importanceratings, as represented by the cluster layers, ranged from 3.17 to 4.39on a five point scale.

5.1. Interpersonal aspects of effective CSAs

The cluster of statements labeled Respect at all Levels, with fivelayers, emerged from our analysis as the most important conceptualcluster from the perspective of the parents. This was consistent withour expectations that interpersonal aspects of the Chicago SEEDprogram would be emphasized by parents because of the relativelyrecent staffing and related administrative challenges at that site. Infact, we entered the study wondering if all of the contributions to thediscussion from parents at the Chicago SEED program would focus onindividual and interpersonal aspects of CSA program operations.

Comments from parents during our final group discussion helpillustrate the administrative and personnel issues that emerge withsome frequency in organizations that establish CSA programs. As oneparent said, “account management mistakes were made and poorlyhandled.” Other parents said that the administrative problems werenever clearly explained, their questionswere ignored, and they received

Fig. 1. Point cluster map: importance rating.

133T. Johnson et al. / Children and Youth Services Review 32 (2010) 129–136

“the run around.” The parents understood that “human beings makemistakes” but felt that responses to their questions were somewhatdisrespectful and created barriers to program involvement that led for atime to a general “mistrust” of the organization.

More recently, parents told us that new staff members had workeddiligently to assure clear and accurate statements from the organi-zation's financial services partners, alert parents to any changes in theprogram or the accounts, respond to questions with honesty andrespect, and help them improve their financial knowledge. Parallelfindings from data analysis related to this interpersonal concept ofRespect at all Levels emerged from reviewing the statements in thecluster. These statements included effective and important CSAprogram features such as “friendly, helpful staff” and availability ofthose staff members to answer questions. Staff members of CSAprograms are described by parents as being effective when “personsare treated in a respectful manner” and “I don't get the runaround.”

5.2. Institutional aspects of effective CSAs

Turning to other components of CSAs that were identified aseffective in this study, three parent statement clusters reflectinstitutional aspects of college savings accounts and related financialservices. These clusters are labeled Options for Money Saved, ProgramAccountability, and Teaching Children to Save.

In fact, one of themost importantfindings to emerge from this studyis that about two-thirds of the CSA program components that parentsidentified as “effective” represented institutional factors that have beentheorized to promote saving and asset accumulation (see Appendix).This finding has important implications for policy and practice. Somestatements reflected more than one institutional construct simulta-neously, in line with theoretical work by Beverly and her colleagues(2008) who write “Applied social theory and research is compli-cated by many ‘real world’ factors, one of which is ‘bundling’ of mul-tiple constructs within a single policy, program, or other intervention(p. 125–126).”

An example of “bundling” of institutional constructs that emergedfrom our study can be seen in a number of parent statements

regarding account statements from the financial services providerthat managed their children's college savings accounts. From theparent perspectives, effective CSA features include bank statementsthat are accurate, contain information about earned interest, andshow “how your money is growing.” These CSA features appear toreflect the institutional constructs of access, information and security,and may also relate to the constructs of incentives and facilitationespecially in programs targeting low-income parents.

The first of the three institutional clusters of effective CSA featuresas identified by parents in this study is labeled Options for MoneySaved. This construct has three layers, indicating a moderate level ofimportance. The statements in this cluster emphasize the benefits ofthe institutional feature known as transferability. In this context,transferability means that CSAs can be used by other family membersfor post-secondary education or training if the SEED participant doesnot continue in school beyond the secondary level. Statementsregarding effective CSA programs that parents grouped together inthis cluster include:

• “SEED can be used for another child in the family.”• “If the child doesn't use it, the parent can use it to further theireducation.”

• “If one of my children is unable to use his account, I can use it for myother children.”

Transferability relates to the institutional factor of security, in thatparents are evidently reassured that money in their children's collegesavings accounts will be secure even if those particular children do notend up attending college. Rather the savings are not lost, and can beused to educate another family member.

Program Accountability is the second of the clusters comprised ofstatements reflecting institutional elements of CSAs that are effectivefrom the perspectives of parents. This three layer cluster included tenparent statements on effective elements of CSA programs, second innumber only to the interpersonal cluster labeled Respect at all Levels.In the Program Accountability cluster, many parent statements have todo with access to financial services from banks holding children's

134 T. Johnson et al. / Children and Youth Services Review 32 (2010) 129–136

college savings accounts. The institutional factors parents identified asindicators of an effective CSA program include:

• “Makes more branches of the SEED bank available.”• “Make banks more accessible (longer hours).”• “Lets me transfer money from my bank to SEED bank.”

It is noteworthy that this list of CSA features related to thetheoretical constructs of access and facilitation includes statementsthat were contributed by parents who, while all lower-income, havequite different opportunities and constraints. For example, someparents need more physical access to banks while others makeautomatic transfers into their children's SEED accounts. Still othersappear to need cash in hand in order to make deposits because theyhave taken the rather remarkable step of opening college savingsaccounts for their children while being otherwise unbanked. Thesetypes of within-group differences must be explored in more depth infuture studies of CSAs.

Third, the Teaching Children to Save cluster, also had three layersindicating its importance relative to other groupings of parentstatements regarding effective CSA components. This constructappears to relate to the institutional feature of information intheoretical work on saving and asset building (Beverly et al., 2008).According to parents, an effective CSA program:

• “Has events for the children.”• “Teaches children how to save.”• “Motivates children to keep saving after the SEED program ends.”• “Teaches a new way of thinking about money and finances.”

Interestingly, the parallel cluster for parents of SEED participants,which was labeled Speakers and Events for Parents and had only onelayer, reflecting that the statements in this grouping were onlysomewhat important relative to other statements reflecting effectiveelements of CSA programs. In this cluster, the parents in this studysuggested that giving “parents the chance to learn strategies to savemoney” and offering financial workshops were CSA programcomponents that were effective. Other statements that evokedeffective informational opportunities for parents included “speakerson budgeting, homeownership, and entrepreneurship” and “speakerson all aspects of the college experience.” In our interpretation session,parents helped us better understand their effectiveness and impor-tance ratings for the statements in the Speakers and Events for Parentscluster. Their conclusion as a group was that speakers and events thatcontribute to their financial knowledge or personal growth are valuedover events that provide social activities or outlets for the parents.

Benefits of Savings was the final cluster of statements reflectingparent perspectives on effective CSA programs. The cluster had a singlelayer, and only three statements, indicating relativelyminor importancein the experience of Chicago parents who had children with collegesavings accounts. Looking at the statements in this cluster, a morereflective label for this cluster may be “Other Miscellaneous Benefits ofSaving” since the statements in the cluster identified rather diverseaspects of the program and were less important to parents than theother elements of effective programs. These statements included:(1) incentives for participation, which are a component of some butnot all CSAs, (2) parent fundraising activities to earnmoneywithwhichto make CSA deposits, which is also a component of some but not allCSAs and (3) “helping me better myself in other ways” such as throughcontinuing education.

6. Discussion and conclusions

Policies and programs designed to help low-income families saveand build assets for developmental uses by children are emerging andexpanding in many countries. Often such accounts are dedicated forpost-secondary education and training, though some are alsoavailable for achieving other developmental goals such as home

owning and entrepreneurship, and others are completely unrestrictedin terms of use once the child becomes an adult. In this study, parentsof elementary-school children in a CSA program worked together togenerate data on effective components of CSAs for college. The parentssorted these effective components into conceptual groups reflectingtheir perspectives on which of the program elements were related toone another, and rated the importance of each individual component.

Our findings suggest that CSA components that demonstrate respectfor parents and enhance accountability are particularly effective andimportant elements of college savings programs for children from theperspectives of parents. Thus, we find some support for the work ofBeverly and her colleagues (2008) on an emerging institutional theoryof saving and asset accumulation. This institutional theory on assetbuilding posits that both individual and institutional factors shapeexperiences with saving and asset accumulation among low-incomefamilies, just as they do among middle- and high-income families.Community-based CSA programs are quite new, and are vulnerable tohitting “rough patches” like those experienced by the Chicago programin its early days. Yet, parents participating in the program weregenerally favorable about the asset-building potential of CSAs, andwerewilling and able to share valuable information on effective andimportant components of asset-building initiatives for children andtheir families. This finding is consistent with other study results andreports of community-basedCSAsandothermatched savings programs,which often note struggles with early program start-up, recruitment,and administration and enthusiasm for asset-building opportunities(CFED, 2006; Page-Adams, 2002; Scanlon & Adams, 2009; Brooks,2008).

The factors identified as effective, and those rated as particularlyimportant, by parents of children in this CSA program reveal additionalinformation thathas special import for future researchon asset-buildingpolicies and programs. As noted earlier, many community-based CSAprograms face early implementation challenges, including difficultieswith recruitment and the resulting lower thananticipated take-up rates.Indirectly, this study sheds some light on program and account featuresthatmay shape recruitment success in futureCSApolicies andprograms.More research is needed on recruitment challenges and take-up issuesin community-based CSA programs, as well as on the effects ofautomatic enrollment in universal CSAs (Kempson, McKay & Collard,2005; Paxton, 2001; Sherraden & Clancy, 2008).

In turn, factors that were not identified by parents in this study aseffective and important may be as notable as identified factors. Moststrikingly, neither initial deposits nor matching deposits fromprogram funds into their children's SEED accounts emerged fromthe parent discussions of effective CSA components. Our review ofsavings and asset-building theory suggested a focus on institutionalmechanisms that were part of the CSA program in Chicago includinginformation, incentives, and restrictions. While our findings revealattention by parents to institutional features of CSAs, financialincentives did not emerge as strongly as we thought they might. Infact, none of the 45 statements generated by the parents who wereinvolved in this study evoked either initial deposits or matchingdeposits provided by the program. It could be that the administrativeand staffing challenges at this particular CSA program were seriousenough that financial incentives did not emerge as strongly as theywould in other community-based saving and asset-building sites.Regardless of the underlying reasons for the absence of discussion onthis point, our finding here points to the need formore research on therole of incentives in asset building among lower-income families,especially since the role of incentives has been a subject of somedebate in prior theoretical and empirical work (Beverly et al., 2008;Mason et al., 2009; Schreiner & Sherraden, 2006).

Among the limitations of this study is the size of our sample. WhileTrochim and his colleagues report that a sample of ten yields enoughdata for multidimensional analyses in concept mapping (Trochim1993; Kane & Trochim 2007), a larger sample would have been

135T. Johnson et al. / Children and Youth Services Review 32 (2010) 129–136

preferable from our perspective. Furthermore, while SEED programstaff believed that our study sample reflected the larger group ofparents in the Chicago CSA program, we were working with a non-random sample of self-selected participants so our findings are notgeneralizable. Finally, using a group process to gather information hasboth strengths and limitations. While group dynamic can serve toenrich discussions, what people choose to articulate in a group settingmay differ from what they would say in an individual interview orsurvey. Despite these limitations, however, the findings we reporthere are both new and potentially useful for CSA policy and programdevelopment in that they provide a first look at parent perceptions ofeffective and important components of college savings accounts foryoung children living in low-income, urban households.

To summarize, our findings suggest that low-income parents canreadily identify effective institutional as well as interpersonal aspects ofprograms designed tobuild assets for their children. Further, parents areinclined to balance their discussion of individual and interpersonalprogram experiences with institutional saving and asset-buildingmechanisms. In this study, parents were generally supportive of theirlocal CSA program and wanted to build assets for their children incollege savings accounts, despite the usual difficulties that suchprograms often experience. Parents were also quite engaged in theeffort to identify particularly effective CSA program components, two-thirds of which reflect institutional mechanisms that may enhance theability of low-income families to build assets for their children'seducation.

While much more research is needed, particularly with lower-income families and communities, these findings are consistent withan emerging institutional theory of saving and asset accumulation. Inthis study, both interpersonal and institutional factors that aretheorized to lead to saving and asset building emerged from acollective effort to identify effective CSA components by a group oflow-income parents saving for college on behalf of their children inone of the first local college savings programs to be implemented inthe US. Given the findings reported here, we believe that the mostinformative future research on CSA policies and programs will bethose studies that capture the perspectives and “lived experiences” ofchildren, youth, and parents who participate in saving and buildingassets for developmental goals.

Appendix A

Final statements on effective elements of CSA programs generatedby low-income parents participating in community-based children'scollege savings programs

1. Statements that show how your money is growing.2. I know savings goes directly to education.3. I can use savings for current educational needs.4. My child can use themoney for other things that let themprosper.5. SEED can be used for the education of another child in the family.6. My child appreciates me saving for college.7. If the child doesn't use it, the parent can use it to further their

education.8. When it addresses the total needs of the participants.9. When persons are treated in a respectful manner.

10. When I don't get the runaround when I have questions.11. When someone is available to answer questions.12. When my confidentiality is respected.13. Knowledgeable speakers are introduced to participants.14. Speakers on all aspects of the college experience.15. Motivational speakers for parents.16. Speakers on budgeting, homeownership, entrepreneurship.17. To have the funds available to use in other investment accounts

(CDs, money markets).

18. When banks have knowledgeable people to explain things andanswer questions.

19. Immediately notify parents of changes in the account.20. Make more branches of the SEED bank available.21. Make banks more accessible (longer hours).22. Lets me transfer money from my bank to the SEED bank.23. The program openly and honestly shares information about SEED.24. Lets parents choose how to use incentive money.25. Motivates children to keep saving after the SEED program ends.26. If one of my children is unable to use his account, I can use it for

my other children.27. If equal amounts are deposited into children's accounts, the

accounts have the same balance.28. Account statements accurately list the principal and interest.29. When the interest is kept in the accounts.30. When it teaches a newway of thinking aboutmoney and finances.31. Allows parents in other SEED programs to meet each other.32. Has a SEED program for parents, and offers financial workshops.33. Permanently correct fee problems with banks, including loss of

interest.34. Parents aren't required to have a bank account to make deposits

into the SEED account.⁎35. Treats parents with respect and acknowledges their intelligence.36. Allows parents to draw a loan off of the SEED account.⁎37. Thoroughly explains the program to participants.38. Gives parents the chance to learn strategies to save money.39. Teaches children how to save.40. Have social events for the parent participants.⁎41. Has events for the children.⁎42. Provides child care for the meetings.⁎43. Has friendly, helpful staff.44. Helps me to better myself in other ways (for example, continuing

education).⁎45. Encourages parents to do fundraising.⁎

⁎All statements were generated by parents in the Chicago SEEDprogram, except for those indicated by asterisks which emerged fromfocus groups with parents in other SEED programs.

References

Bayer, P. J., Berheim, B. D., & Scholz, J. K. (1996). The effects of financial education in theworkplace: Evidence from a survey of employers. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau ofEconomic Research.

Bernheim, B. D., & Garrett, D. M. (2003). The effects of financial education in theworkplace: Evidence from a survey of households. Journal of Public Economics, 87,1487−1519.

Beverly, S., Sherraden, M., Cramer, R., Shanks, T. R. W., Nam, Y., & Zhan, M. (2008).Determinants of asset holdings. In S. McKernan &M. Sherraden (Eds.), Asset buildingand low-income families (pp. 89−151). Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press.

Brooks, J. W. (2008). Focus groups with SEED Parents: How parents decide to participate,open accounts, and save. SEED Research at KU: Research Report. Lawrence, KS:University of Kansas School of Social Welfare.

CFED. (2006, October). Saving for Education, Entrepreneurship, and Downpayment:CommunitypartnerUpdates. SEED semi-annual progress report.Washington,DC:Author.

Clancy, M., Grinstein-Weiss, M., & Schreiner, M. (2001). Financial education and savingsoutcomes in Individual Development Accounts. St. Louis, MO:Washington University,Center for Social Development.

Curley, J., & Sherraden, M. (2000). Policy lessons from children's allowances forchildren's savings accounts. Child Welfare, 79, 661−687.

Duflo, E., Gale, W., Liebman, J., Orszag, P., & Saez, E. (2006). Saving incentives for low-and middle-income families: Evidence from a field experiment with H&R Block.Quarterly Journal of Economics, 121, 1311−1346.

Grinstein-Weiss, M., Wagner, K., & Ssewamala, F. (2006). Saving and asset accumulationamong low-income families with children in IDAs. Children and Youth Services Review,28, 193−211.

Han, C. H., Kim, Y., & Zou, L. (2006). Global assets announcement: Child DevelopmentAccounts proposed in South Korea. St. Louis, MO: Washington University, Center forSocial Development.

Hirad, A., & Zorn, P. M. (2002). Prepurchase homeownership counseling: A littleknowledge is a good thing. In N. P. Retsinas & E. S. Belsky (Eds.), Low-incomehomeownership: Examining the unexamined goal (pp. 146−174). Cambridge, MA:Joint Center for Housing Studies.

136 T. Johnson et al. / Children and Youth Services Review 32 (2010) 129–136

Jackson, K., & Trochim, M. (2002). Concept mapping as an alternative approach to theanalysis of open-ended survey responses. Organizational Research Methods, 5,307−336.

Johnson, T., Kim, J., & Adams, D. (2007). Mapping the perspectives of low-income parentsin a school-based children's college savings account program, SEED Research at KU.Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas School of Social Welfare.

Kane, M., & Trochim,W. (2007). Concept mapping for planning and evaluation. ThousandOaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Kempson, E., McKay, S., & Collard, S. (2005). Incentives to save: Encouraging savingamong low-income households. Bristol, UK: University of Bristol, Personal FinanceResearch Centre.

Leckie, N., Dowie, M., & Gyorfi-Dyke, C. (2008). Learning to save, saving to learn: Earlyimpacts of the LearnSave Individual Development Accounts project. Ottawa, Ontario:Social Research and Demonstration Corporation.

Loke, V., & Sherraden, M. (2006). Building assets from birth: A comparison of the policiesand proposals on children savings accounts in Singapore, the United Kingdom, Canada,Korea, and the United States (Working Paper No. 06-14). St. Louis, MO: WashingtonUniversity, Center for Social Development.

Lusardi, A. (2002). Preparing for retirement: The importance of planning costs. NationalTaxAssociation Proceedings (pp. 148−154).Washington,DC:National TaxAssociation.

Mason, L. R., Loke, V., Clancy, M., Nam, Y., Kim, Y., & Lo, S. (2007). SEED participantcharacteristics and financial accumulation. St. Louis, MO: Washington University,Center for Social Development.

Mason, L. R., Nam, Y., Clancy, M., Loke, V., & Kim, Y. (2009). SEED account monitoringresearch: Participants, savings, and accumulation.St. Louis,MO:WashingtonUniversity,Center for Social Development.

McCallum, R. (1988). Multidimensional scaling. In J. R. Nesselroade & R. B. Cattell (Eds.),Handbook of multivariate experimental psychology (pp. 421−445). New York:Plenum.

Moore, A, Beverly, S., Schreiner, M., Sherraden, M., Lombe, M, Cho, E. Y. N., Johnson, L., &Vonderlack, R. (2001). Saving, IDA programs, and effects of IDAs: A survey of participants.St. Louis, MO: Washington University in St. Louis, Center for Social Development.

Nyce, S. A. (2005). The importance of financial communication for participation rates andcontribution levels in 401(k) plans. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, WhartonSchool, Pension Research Council.

Page-Adams, D. (2002). Design, implementation, and administration of IndividualDevelopment Account programs (research report). St. Louis: Washington University,

Center for Social Development. Retrieved on 10/13/2008 from http://gwbweb.wustl.edu/csd

Paxton, W. (2001). The asset-effect: An overview. In J. Bynner & W. Paxton (Eds.), Theasset-effect London: IPPR.

Scanlon, E., & Adams, D. (2009). Do assets affect well-being? Perceptions of youth in amatched savings program. Journal of Social Service Research, 35, 33−46.

Schreiner, M., & Sherraden, M. (2006). Can the poor save? Saving and asset accumulationin Individual Development Accounts. Piscataway, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Sherraden, M. (1991). Assets and the poor: A new American welfare policy. New York: M.E.Sharpe.

Sherraden, M. (2005). Assets and public policy. In M. Sherraden (Ed.), Inclusion in theAmerican dream (pp. 3−19). New York: Oxford University Press.

Sherraden, M., & Clancy, M. (2008). SEED for Oklahoma Kids: Demonstrating childdevelopment accounts for all newborns. St. Louis, MO: Washington University, Centerfor Social Development.

Sherraden, M., Page-Adams, D., Emerson, S., Beverly, S., Scanlon, E., Cheng, L.,Sherraden, M. S., & Edwards, K. (1995). IDA evaluation handbook: A practical guideand tools for evaluation of pioneering IDA projects. St. Louis, Missouri: WashingtonUniversity, Center for Social Development.

Sherraden, M. S., McBride, A., Johnson, E., Hanson, S., Ssewamala, F., & Shanks, T. (2005).Saving in low income households: Evidence from interviews with participants in theAmerican dream demonstration. (Working Paper No. 05-02). St. Louis, MO:Washington University, Center for Social Development.

Sherraden, M. S., Johnson, L., Elliott, W., Porterfield, S., & Rainford, W. (2006). School-based children's savings accounts for college: The I Can Save program. Children andYouth Services Review, 29, 294−312.

Ssewamala, F. M., Alicea, S., Bannon, W. M., Jr., & Ismayilova, L. (2006). Economicempowerment as a health care intervention among orphaned children in rural Uganda.Working Paper No. 06-16. St. Louis. MO: Washington University, Center for SocialDevelopment.

Trochim, W. M. (1989). Concept mapping: Soft science or hard art? Evaluation andProgram Planning, 12, 87−110.

Trochim, W.M. (1993). The reliability of concept mapping. Paper presented at the AnnualConference of the American Evaluation Association, Dallas, TX, November 6, 1993.