Research That Matters (January 17 - 20, 2008)

Purpose: This study describes saving experiences of young people in an asset building program. Asset based social welfare programs focus on helping low income citizens accumulate wealth in the form of homeownership, savings, and personal businesses. Examples include Habitat for Humanity's homeownership program, micro-lending programs such as those offered by the Grameen Bank, and individual development accounts funded by the Department of Health and Human Service's Assets for Independence program.

Recent large scale demonstrations of matched savings accounts have increased the theoretical and empirical literature regarding asset based social welfare (Scanlon & Page-Adams, 2001; Sherraden, 2005). Using data from one such project, Saving for Education, Entrepreneurship, and Downpayment (SEED), this study explores youth participants' perceptions of factors which facilitated or reduced their likelihood of saving in their matched accounts.

Method: In-depth interviews were conducted with 27 youth participants in an asset building program administered by a San Francisco Bay Area youth development organization. Youth were between 15 and 20 years old, and predominantly Latino, Asian American, and African American. The sample was selected to include relatively high and relatively low savers based on the median savings rate for program participants. Transcripts were analyzed with inductive codes derived from the data and deductive codes from savings and asset theory. Two researchers coded the data, checking for reliability throughout the coding process. Matrices were also developed to assist in identifying inductive themes across cases and to organize deductive themes for which we found support (Miles & Huberman, 1994).

Results: The most common barriers to savings reported by youth stem from employment complications. Youth experienced irregular employment and earnings, limited work hours because of their age or school schedule, and low paying informal employment (e.g. babysitting). These problems made it difficult for youth to cover expenses and also have enough to save. Youth also struggled with temptation to spend money they had earned or had been given by their parents. They spoke of being unable to manage debit cards, and needing to spend money on items or events that were important to them, such as school activities or clothing.

Institutional structures are designed to facilitate saving by making it easier to manage. Youth reported that these structures helped them to save, especially the promise of having deposits matched, being unable to easily access deposits, and the ease with which they were able to save using direct deposit. Youth also talked about personal methods they devised to encourage themselves to save, such as saving money at home until they had an amount that felt was significant enough to take to the bank. Finally, one of the factors most closely associated with saving was a high degree of parental involvement in youths' saving activities.

Conclusions and Implications: This study provides information that social workers in community based programs can use to develop more effective asset-building programs, and in tailoring these programs to youth. These findings also provide useful data for policy practitioners who create and evaluate asset building policies, including broader scale initiatives.