Abstract
For many reasons, there is growing interest and investment in financial capability interventions. People experience a financial product marketplace with an increasing number of product options to make their shorter-term financial decisions about saving and short-term borrowing, and longer-term about their retirement, longer-term borrowing and other investments. The lowest-income households have the highest risk in making these decisions due to their lower income, emergency savings (Collins & Gjertson, 2013), and financial wealth (Killewald, Pfeffer, & Schachner, 2017) to absorb the ramifications of financial mistakes and economic downturns. These households also struggle with low levels of financial literacy to inform their decision-making (Lusardi & Mitchell, 2014) and have less access to affordable bank accounts and consumer loans, as well as employer-provided retirement accounts (Hegerty, 2016; 2019). As a result of these trends, recent global financial crisis, and significant income and wealth inequality, in the U.S., there is growing recognition that people need stronger financial capability (Miller et al., 2014; Mitchell & Lusardi, 2015).
While definitions, terms, and practices vary across studies, for purposes of this study, financial capability is defined as demonstration of financial knowledge and skill through desirable financial behaviors (Xiao, Chen, & Chen, 2014). Financial capability interventions feature a combination of financial knowledge and skills and access to appropriate financial products and services (Sherraden et al., 2015). These interventions, such as Individual Development Accounts (IDAs), Child Development Accounts (CDAs), homeownership education and counseling, employer-provided retirement accounts, and financial education, counseling, and coaching, have the potential to result in financial behaviors and outcomes that facilitate financial well-being. Social work and other researchers are testing financial capability interventions with adults, children, immigrant populations, and other groups (Batty, Collins, & Odders-White, 2015; Curley & Robertson, 2017; Huang et al., 2013; Theodos et al., 2015). The interventions differ in their methods of financial education and financial products and services, but they share the coordinated combination.
The aim of this study is to review and synthesize the scientific evidence for financial capability interventions. To be included in this review, financial capability interventions combine financial education and financial products and services and thus capitalize on the interaction of the two elements to affect financial behavior and outcomes.
Prior Reviews of Financial Capability Interventions
While four prior reviews discussed next contribute to our understanding of financial capability interventions, they mostly focus solely on financial education, and have other limitations.
First, Fernandes et al. (2014) examined effects of financial literacy and financial education interventions on financial behaviors. Although the review methods were not clearly reported and the inclusion criteria were not well defined, the authors included 168 studies (published and unpublished) in the study, with 90 of those being studies that affected financial literacy with some education intervention and the remaining being studies that measured financial literacy (correlational studies). They found that financial literacy explains only 0.1% of the variance in financial behaviors studied, with weaker effects in low-income samples. Second, the review study authored by Miller and colleagues (2014) included studies of any intervention that would impact financial knowledge, attitudes, and/or behaviors in their review. They identified 188 studies using only one electronic database (Econlit), prior literature reviews, studies completed within the World Bank, and websites likely to include relevant studies. Their meta-analyses reported on outcomes of financial education interventions from a small number of studies. Findings indicate that financial education interventions had a positive and statistically significant mean effect on retirement savings (ES = 0.08; 95% CI, 0.01, 0.16), but a null or negative and non-statistically significant mean effect on savings (ES = 0.03; 95% CI, 0.00, 0.06), record keeping (ES = 0.04; 95% CI, 0.00, 0.09) and loan default (ES = −0.02; 95% CI, −0.06, 0.02). Third, Kaiser and Menkhoff (2016) conducted a review of financial literacy and financial education interventions on financial behaviors. The authors included 126 impact evaluation studies (published and unpublished) that were designed to impact financial knowledge or behaviors and that report on financial literacy and/or financial behavior outcomes. 44% of the included studies overlap with the Fernandes et al. (2014) study. Results suggest that financial education intervention impacts are less effective for low-income clients and for those in low- and lower-middle income countries. In a fourth review, Kaiser and Menkhoff (2019) conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies on school financial education programs for children and youth. They built on their existing dataset from their 2016 study by using the same search strategy to collect published studies on financial education in school between October 2016 and Sept 2018. They included 37 studies, 16 of which were new from their previous review. They found that financial education programs have, on average, .33 standard deviation impact on financial knowledge, which is similar to educational interventions in other domains. They also found a .07 standard deviation impact on financial behaviors among students. The authors found that effect sizes are statistically significant and larger for primary schools as compared to secondary schools, and higher intensity of teaching increases effectiveness. Findings did not include effect sizes on the various outcomes related to financial behavior.
While these reviews provide some evidence related to effects of financial capability interventions, an evidence gap remains. Fernandes et al. (2014) and Kasier and Mankhoff (2016; 2019) included only financial education or literacy efforts without access to a financial product or service. Similarly, Miller and colleagues (2014) appear to have focused on financial literacy interventions. In addition to this limitation, the Miller et al. (2014) study had an insufficient search strategy by using a limited number of databases, and therefore the review may have missed potentially relevant studies. The review does not sufficiently describe the types of evidence included in the review and does not assess the risk of bias in the included studies. Thus, these studies do not provide evidence about whether financial capability interventions (that combine financial literacy with financial products and services) are effective.
Purpose of Study
The purpose of this study is to inform practice and policy by examining and synthesizing evidence of the effects of interventions designed to improve financial capability. Financial capability interventions combine financial education and financial products and/or services. The research question for this review is: What are the effects of interventions designed to improve financial capability on financial behavior and financial outcomes?
Method
This section provides information about the methods for the study. Detailed information about methods is available from the published Campbell Collaboration protocol for this review (Birkenmaier, Maynard, & Kim, 2019).
Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
Intervention
Studies eligible for this review examined the effectiveness of interventions designed to improve financial capability that uses a combination of financial education or information and access to a financial product or service. To meet the criteria for delivering financial education, interventions must have delivered information about: 1) a variety of general financial concepts and behaviors (such as using a formal education curriculum that covers the time value of money and the importance of keeping financial records), or advice about financial behaviors; 2) a specific financial topic (such as a formal or informal one-time education session about savings, homeownership, or a consumer credit report); 3) a specific product (such as retirement savings accounts or savings accounts that can be used for emergency savings); and/or 4) a specific service, such as the value of pre-purchase homeownership counseling to gain access to low-cost financing. Information about a specific product or a specific company also met the criteria, such as in the case when employer-based financial education is focused on educating their employees about their retirement plan investment options. Financial education could have been high-intensity, such as one-on-one delivery, one-on-one tailored delivery, or face-to-face classes, or low-intensity, such as flyers, emails, texts, videos, or online delivery.
To meet the criteria for access to a financial product or service, interventions must have facilitated access to one or more of the following: 1) a child development account (used for post-secondary education or training, or another type of asset purchased at age 18 or older); 2) a retirement account through an employer; 3) a “second chance” checking account (for persons listed in a consumer reporting bureau after having insufficient funds for a check; 4) a matched savings account (to pay debts to build assets); 5) a financial service, such as financial counseling or coaching; 6) a bank account; 7) an investment vehicle, such as a Saving Bond or Certificate of Deposit (CD); or 8) a home mortgage loan product. Facilitating access includes linking participants to products or services that are tailored toward the population of participants (such as or employees eligible for employer-provided retirement benefits). This linking could involve financial counseling or coaching, or occur through another process, such as tax filing. The interventions could also facilitate access by signing participants up for the product or service (such as a savings account), deliver services as part of the intervention (financial counseling or coaching), and/or provide on-going interpersonal support to make it possible for participants to maintain access to a product or service.
Studies that used multi-component interventions were included as long as two of the components were financial education or information and access to a financial product or service. Studies that described interventions that provided only financial education or literacy, mentoring, goal-setting, and therapy, or only facilitated access to products and services were excluded.
In our search, we found multiple reports of large longitudinal study projects that included different subsets of the large sample, different time periods, or different outcomes reported. We also found duplicate reports of the primary studies, as well as summary reports that spanned the findings of multiple primary and secondary studies. We designated these as secondary reports and extracted data from all reports that were relevant to a particular study/primary report.
Types of Participants
Financial and economic policies and practices can be quite different for high-income compared to low- and middle-income countries. Therefore, the focus of this review was on financial capability interventions for all ages in any of the 35-member countries of the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD).
Types of Outcome Measures
Studies must have measured at least one of the following primary outcomes that reflected financial behavior: 1) Behavior Change—Behavior change refers to changes in financial behaviors of participants, such as opening a savings or checking account; and 2) Financial Outcomes—Financial outcomes refers to implications of behavior change, such as higher fund balance, higher net worth, lower debt, and improved credit scores.
Measurement of above outcomes could have been conducted using standardized or unstandardized instruments, and self- or other-reported or researcher administered measures. If sufficient information to calculate an effect size was not provided, every effort was made to contact study authors and request the necessary information.
Types of Settings and Study Designs
Studies in all settings were eligible. To mitigate threats to internal validity, studies must have used a prospective randomized controlled trial (RCT) or quasi-experimental (QED) research design with parallel cohorts (the control/comparison group cannot consist of study dropouts). Studies using single-group pre-posttest design (SGPP), or single subject design (SSD), or historical comparisons were excluded. For RCT and QED studies, wait list control, no treatment, treatment-as-usual, and alternative treatment groups were considered acceptable comparison groups.
Other Criteria
The reviewers anticipated making attempts to have non-English articles translated; however, no eligible articles were located that required translation or inclusion in the excluded studies table.
Duration of Follow-Up
The reviewers included measurement points at post-test and all follow-up time points.
Literature Search and Procedures
Search Information.
Search results (title and abstract) were screened by two authors independently. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus after further detailed analysis and reading. The full-text of studies not obviously ineligible were uploaded into the online platform Covidence, where each study was independently screened for eligibility by two reviewers using a screening instrument (see (Birkenmaier et al., 2022) Appendix B). The two reviewers compared the coding and identified all discrepancies. The review team discussed and resolved all discrepancies through consensus. Any included study co-authored by a reviewer was only screened by non-author reviewers.
Data Extraction and Management
Two reviewers independently coded all studies that passed the eligibility screening process using a structured data extraction form (see (Birkenmaier et al., 2022) Appendix C). The coders pilot tested the code form together using diverse types of studies and discussed any items that were unclear and ensured mutual understanding of all items. Afterward, the two coders independently coded 100% of the included studies. The coders compared coding and identified and discussed discrepancies, which were resolved through consensus. Multiple reports on individual studies were collated. Any included study co-authored by a reviewer was only coded by non-author reviewers.
Risk of Bias Assessment
At least two review authors who were not study co-authors independently assessed risk of bias in all included studies using the Cochrane Collaboration’s risk of bias tool (Higgins et al., 2011) that is commonly used to assess risk of bias in experimental studies of intervention effects.
The review authors assessed risk of bias for each of the seven bias domains. Each study was coded as “low,” “high,” or “unclear” risk of bias on each of the domains. Any discrepancies were resolved through consensus.
Synthesis Procedures
The review authors conducted descriptive analyses on variables of interest from all included studies to provide information regarding: 1) publication type; 2) study design; 3) sample size; 4) target beneficiaries; 5) race; 6) gender; 7) income; 8) intervention target; 9) intervention goal; 10) financial capability intervention type; 11) financial education; and 12) age of beneficiaries.
Following descriptive analysis, we examined the data to calculate effect sizes. All effect sizes were calculated using the Practical Meta-Analysis Effect Size Calculator (Wilson, n.d.). For continuous outcomes, we used author-reported means and standard deviations to calculate the effect size when possible. Otherwise, we calculated the ES using other data when possible. In one case, dichotomous data were reported (e.g., number of participants who opened or did not open an account) and thus we calculated those effect sizes using a 2x2 frequency table and converted to d using the Practical Meta-Analysis Effect Size Calculator. Effect sizes could not be calculated for some studies due to authors not reporting sufficient information (most commonly, authors not reporting standard deviations). Review authors contacted study authors for missing information. Because we coded secondary reports, in order to ensure independence of study-level effect sizes, we included only one effect size estimate from each independent sample at each distinct measurement point (e.g., post-test, follow-up). Effect sizes are not pooled across different categories of interventions with different intervention goals (i.e., saving for child’s college education and saving for retirement).
Results
As seen in Figure 1, the search resulted in 35,484 possibly eligible citations. After excluding duplicates, non-relevant and ineligible reports (Birkenmaier et al., 2022) Appendix D), 24 unique studies (i.e., used unique samples) are included in this review. Six of those 24 unique studies were large longitudinal studies that presented unique analyses in sub-studies that used different time points, subsamples, and/or outcomes. Thus, we extracted data from 48 reports (including summary reports), and report data and analyses from 24 unique studies. Detailed results information is available from the final report published by the Campbell Collaboration (Birkenmaier et al., 2022) . Study Screening Process. Review of 35,484 titles/ abstracts for potential studies found in search process.
Characteristics of Included Studies
Characteristics of Included Studies Across Unique Studies (k=24).
As seen in Table 2, the majority of the 24 unique studies were randomized control trials, and the remaining were quasi-experimental designs. Sample sizes were wide-ranging. There were many different targeted special populations for the interventions, such as low-income, newborns, low and moderate-income households, employees, and Head Start families.
Participant Characteristics
Unique studies: In the 24 unique studies, most of the study participants were adults, followed by infant to pre-Kindergarten, kindergarten through fifth grade, unknown, and multiple at the time of the beginning of the study. The predominant race for the majority of the study projects was White. Most of the studies had subjects of low-income and low–moderate income. The majority of studies did not assess whether the participants previously had received financial education.
Intervention Characteristics
Unique studies: As seen in Table 2, the interventions examined in the 24 unique studies were targeted to people without assets, education savings, credit, retirement savings, a bank account, or a home mortgage. The intervention goal for the majority of the studies was saving and investment, retirement savings, strong credit, education savings, a bank account, and a home mortgage. The interventions themselves were Individual Development Accounts, Child Development Accounts, retirement accounts, adult financial education, counseling or coaching, tax refund saving and investment, a bank account, and homeownership education and counseling. The majority of the interventions included high intensive financial education methods such as classes or one-on-one teaching.
Outcome Measures
As seen in Table 2, in the 24 unique studies, data were collected on the outcomes of financial behavior and financial outcomes of the study participants using unstandardized instruments, and including self-reported and administrative data.
Financial Outcomes of All Studies: As seen in Table 2, five behavior changes were studied as outcome measures: bank or retirement account opening, retirement saving rate, saving rate, budgeting, and purchased asset. The financial outcomes refer to implications of financial behavior change. Savings amount, debt amount, credit score, and asset value were studied.
Risk of Bias
Risk of Bias. Study Name: American Dream Demonstration Project (9 sub-studies).
Study Intervention, Design, and Outcomes by Financial Capability Intervention Strategy
Summary of Effects Sizes and Author-Reported Outcomes or Effect Sizes.
aParticipant-owned account.
Matched Savings Accounts
Three large longitudinal studies, "The American Dream Demonstration Project” (ADD) (Grinstein-Weiss et al., 2008, 2012, 2013a, 2015; Han, Grinstein‐Weiss, & Sherraden, 2009; Huang, 2010; Huang et al., 2016; Lombe & Sherraden, 2008; Mills, Gale, Patterson, & Apostolov, 2006), the “Credit Building in Individual Development Account (IDA) Programs” (Birkenmaier et al., 2012; 2014a; 2014b), and the “Assets for Independence” program (also known as the “Building Savings for Success” program) (Mills et al., 2016; Ratcliffe, McKernan, Mills, Pergamit, & Braga, 2019), focused on matched savings accounts. In addition, one unrelated matched savings account study (Leckie, Hui, Tattrie, Robson, & Voyer, 2010a) was also included in the study. Detailed information about each study is available from Birkenmaier et al., (2021b).
Matched savings account interventions provide restricted matched savings accounts for specific asset-building purposes, such as home purchase and renovation, postsecondary education, and microenterprise for low-income employed populations. The matched funds provide an incentive to save, and the match rates vary starting at one-to-one. Participants also complete high-intensity (face-to-face) financial education classes and often receive social support, such as peer group meetings, case management and counseling. The intervention is often delivered in community-based non-profit agencies, and for as long as several years, depending on participants completing their savings goals and requirements. The financial outcomes measured in these studies includes saving amount, debt amount, asset values, purchased asset, and credit scores.
Child Development Accounts
Two large longitudinal studies, the Michigan SEED (MI SEED) (Engelhardt, Dubnicki, Marks, & Rhodes, 2012; Marks, Rhodes, Engelhardt, Scheffler, & Wallace, 2009) and SEED OK (Beverly et al., 2014, 2015a; Clancy, Beverly, Sherraden, & Huang, 2016; Huang et al., 2013, 2015, 2017, 2019; Nam, Kim, Clancy, Zager, & Sherraden, 2013; Wikoff, Huang, Kim, & Sherraden, 2015), and one additional study (Osborne, Bobbitt, & Hovey, 2016) evaluated interventions that provided investment accounts designated for children’s future education. These interventions enroll low-income or a randomly selected young children from families of all incomes—automatically or opt-in—sometimes as early as birth, in a specialized investment account wherein the funds grow through the childhood and are used for post-secondary education. Some interventions provide seed funds to open the account, match parent contributions to the funds, and/or provide deposits to incentive accomplishments, such as at high school graduation. The intervention also includes financial education, often low-touch financial education for the parents, and sometimes case management. The intervention duration is from a few years to as many as 18 years. The financial outcomes measured in these studies include account opening, budgeting, asset value, and saving amounts. Detailed information about each Child Development Account study is available from Birkenmaier et al., (2021a).
Youth Bank Accounts
One study, from Loke et al. (2016), evaluated a youth financial capability initiative within a youth workforce development program in San Francisco, California (U.S.). The 12–30 week intervention targeted low-income working youth for financial education and non-custodial bank accounts. High-intensity financial education (multi-session, face-to-face) and supported enrollment into bank accounts was provided, along with peer-led group coaching. The financial outcome of saving amount was studied.
Retirement Accounts
Four studies (Collins & Urban, 2016; Duflo, Gale, Liebman, Orszag, & Saez, 2006; Goda, Manchester, & Sojourner, 2012; Lusardi, Keller, & Keller, 2009) evaluated a financial capability intervention that provides retirement accounts to participants, along with financial education. Detailed information about each study is available from Birkenmaier et al., (2021c). These interventions were targeted at a range of participants, including tax filers of all incomes, employees of all types, and only female and low-income employees. Participants were provided low-intensity or high-intensity financial education about retirement savings, and in some cases, information about and/or support to sign up for their employee retirement plan information. Some interventions included matches of funds saved into retirement accounts. The duration of the intervention was a few minutes through 7 months. Study authors analyzed savings amounts, saving rate, budgeting, and account opening. Pre-Purchase Home Buying Education
One study, Smith et al. (2017), tested the effects of pre-purchase homeownership financial education and supported access to a home mortgage loan. Study subjects were renters of all incomes attempting to become first-time homebuyers. Participants received high-intensity financial education and one-on-one counseling that included individualized supported access to home mortgage products. In this study, the length of treatment was not reported, and the intervention was evaluated 5 years after baseline measurement. The study authors studied credit scores, saving amount and debt 5 years after the baseline survey.
Adult Financial Education, Counseling and/or Coaching Paired with Financial Access
One large longitudinal study (Parks Opportunity Program (also called the “Assessing Financial Capability Outcomes Adult Pilot”)) (Collins & Nafziger, 2019; Gons 2013; Wiedrich, Gons, Collins, & Drever, 2014) and five additional unrelated studies (Kim, Garman, & Sorhaindo, 2005; Moulton, Collins, Loibl, & Samek, 2015;Modestino, Sederberg, & Tuller, 2019; Roder, 2016 & Theodos et al., 2016) reported on financial capability interventions related to adult financial education, counseling and coaching paired with a financial product. The interventions included pairing a low-cost transaction account or credit building loan product with financial counseling, coaching and education for adults. Participants in the studies were: 1. low-income adult employees in a workforce development program for adults moving off public assistance; 2. participants committed to a debt management plan with a non-profit credit counseling organization; 3. first-time low-income homeowners; 4. low income “credit card revolvers,” or people who carry debt on their credit card from month to month; 5. unemployed adults seeking assistance from community-based non-profit agencies; and 6. low-income young adult (age 18–19) participants in a workforce development program. The intervention duration lasted between 6 months to 3 years. The intervention could also include job search counseling and other services. Participants were offered high- or low-intensity financial education, counseling, and/or coaching. Study authors evaluated the outcomes of debt, saving amount, credit scores, and budgeting.
Tax Refund Saving and Investment
Four identical studies with unique samples (Refund to Savings; Grinstein-Weiss et al., 2015, 2017a, 2017b and Roll, Davison, Grinstein-Weiss, Despard, & Bufe, 2018) and one additional unrelated study (Tufano, 2011) report on the financial capability intervention focused on tax-time savings. The intervention involves either in-person high-intensity financial education information or low-intensity online messaging built into tax filing software about the importance of saving a portion of the tax refund. The intervention either automatically or manually deposits refund funds directly into saving vehicles (e.g., account or savings bonds) while filing taxes. Participants are all incomes or low- and moderate-income tax filers. The intervention duration is either a few seconds or minutes. Study authors reported saving amount and rate outcomes, and purchased asset outcomes.
Discussion
The purpose of this systematic review was to determine the state of research and examine effects of financial capability interventions on selected populations to increase beneficial financial behaviors and financial outcomes. This review included a total of 24 unique studies. The studies reported on a wide range of types of financial capability interventions that all included financial education and access to a financial product or service. The largest category of studies related to financial education, counseling, and coaching, followed closely by tax refund saving and investment, retirement, and matched savings accounts for adults. The studies also included child development accounts, youth bank accounts, and homeownership education.
Overall, the evidence of the effects of financial capability interventions on financial behavior and financial outcomes is sparse, given the lack of standardization of outcomes studied, measurement of the outcomes, or timing of measurement. Moreover, there were either only one or very few studies that examined effects of similar types of interventions on similar outcomes. We were unable to calculate the effect sizes for the majority of the outcomes in the studies. For those we were able to calculate, effect sizes varied from small to large. A few studies were able to demonstrate large effects for saving amount, budgeting, and lowering debt. The studies with large effect sizes for account opening and saving amounts were child development accounts and retirement account studies, while one debt management intervention resulted in large effect sizes for budgeting and lowering debt.
The included studies have important strengths. The majority of the studies are RCT’s (k=17) and many examine outcomes across several years. However, while many of the primary studies were RCTs, several of the sub-studies used subsamples of the total sample, thus those sub-studies may introduce additional bias depending on how those subsamples were selected.
The risk of bias varies across studies. A number of the studies were assessed as high risk of bias for attrition and comparison groups differing on important demographic characteristics. Because the included studies did not have pre-registered protocols, it is difficult to assess reporting bias for incomplete outcome data for all outcomes or selective outcome reporting. There is a general absence of information related to the blinding of participants or personnel, as well as other indicators of bias.
While the number and quality of studies included in this review precludes providing a clear answer on the effects of financial capability interventions, this review identified several important gaps to inform future research. Few interventions were evaluated by more than one study that measured the same or similar outcomes. Therefore, additional evidence is needed to conclude whether participants’ financial behaviors and/or financial outcomes are improved after receiving a financial capability intervention included in this review.
Quality of the evidence
While the majority of the studies used random assignment (71%), many of the studies had some important methodological weakness. For example, the majority of studies did not use a manualized intervention or examine fidelity. We did not find protocols for the included studies, few of the included studies reported using blinding, and the majority did not report on allocation concealment nor on the researchers’ roles in intervention development or implementation. Several of the studies experienced high attrition (more than 20%) in the control and treatment groups. Few assessed whether treatment or control group participants previously had financial education. Several large longitudinal studies also assessed outcomes on subgroups taken post-hoc from the full sample, thus compromising random assignment.
Limitations and Potential Biases in the Review Process
The conduct and reporting of this review were guided by Campbell Collaboration’s standards and policies for the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews to ensure a rigorous and transparent review designed to minimize bias and error. This review is not without its limitations, however, and the findings must be interpreted in light of the study’s limitations. We made every attempt to search for published and unpublished studies; however, the majority of the studies included in this review were published journal articles, although there were several white papers, research reports, and dissertations included. The included studies presented with various risks of bias and thus caution must be used when interpreting findings. Moreover, a significant proportion of included studies were derived from just six large longitudinal experimental studies; thus, while there are a relatively large number of studies in this review, many of them explore effects of a few interventions at different time points on different outcomes.
Implications
The lack of strong evidence about the effectiveness of financial capability interventions has implications for practice and policy. While each type of financial capability intervention has a unique evidence base, this lack of evidence across financial capability intervention points to the need to develop a more definitive evidence base about whether the combination of financial education and financial access provides benefits to clients on specific outcomes. The growing number of financial capability interventions provided by social work and other helping professionals must be grounded in empirical evidence about effectiveness. Federal, state and local governmental bodies and nonprofit organizations involved in these interventions can promote standardization of outcome measures, measurement time points post-intervention, and other aspects of the service delivery and research methods across financial capability interventions would assist in the development of an evidence base. Policy work can facilitate additional research on financial capability interventions using strong methodology, manualized interventions, and common outcomes would assist to build strong evidence.
Footnotes
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Two of the review authors (Julie Birkenmaier and Youngmi Kim) are also co-authors of some included studies. These authors did not extract data, code data, or critically appraise data from any study which they co-authored. Further, the authors have no vested interest in the interventions or outcomes of this review, nor any incentive to represent findings in a biased manner.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Author’s note
This systematic review protocol was registered with the Campbell Collaboration and published as Birkenmaier et al., (2019). The final report was published as (Birkenmaier et al., 2022).
