Prosperity Indiana is pleased to announce an award of $30,000 from The Glick Fund, a fund of Central Indiana Community Foundation (CICF), to support the Indiana Assets & Opportunity Network (Indiana A&O Network) in establishing its Financial Capability Learning Cluster.

The Indiana A&O Network is a statewide coalition aiming to increase asset acquisition for low-wealth Hoosiers and to strengthen local economies through policy advocacy and capacity building, in partnership with local organizations and coalitions. Founded in 2014, the Indiana A&O Network has identified a lack of access to financial planning resources as a major obstacle to achieving financial stability. Integrating financial capability – understood as knowledge + skills + access – into existing programs may be the best way to provide the needed intervention.

The investment of resources from the Glick Fund will allow the Indiana A&O Network to deliver technical assistance to five Indianapolis organizations: Connected by 25, Families First, Dress for Success, EmployIndy, and Coburn Place. Each organization will identify at least one existing program into which they will directly integrate financial capability discussions, resources, and tools, instead of creating a standalone program.

During the project-based Learning Cluster pilot, organizations will participate in facilitated workshops and peer learning activities. Each organization will assess current clients’ financial capability, the services currently provided to meet the needs of clients, and the tools and mechanisms that can be incorporated to maximize outcomes for clients. Based on these assessments, the programs will be adapted to further meet the goal of helping families achieve financial security.

Kelsey Clayton, Indiana A&O Network Manager, said, “The integration process will not be reiterating what the organizations already know, but instead challenging assumptions they may have about their clients in order to improve services and empower clients to make the best financial decisions for themselves and their families.”

The Glick funding is being utilized in conjunction with $45,000 received in June 2016 from the Indianapolis Foundation, an affiliate of CICF. A portion of the funding will support the Learning Cluster participants once they successfully integrate financial capability services into their programs. They will each receive a $5,000 grant to their organization to help offset the cost of their time to catalyze new thinking and ways of doing business.

For those interested in learning more about this or other initiatives of the Indiana A&O Network, become a Network partner by signing up for Earn, Save, Invest, the Network’s monthly e-newsletter, and visit indianaopportunity.net. Indiana A&O Network partners play an active role in supporting, advocating, and helping to expand asset-based strategies in Indiana.

###

 ABOUT THE INDIANA ASSETS & OPPORTUNITY NETWORK:

The Indiana Assets & Opportunity Network aims to increase asset acquisition for low-wealth Hoosiers and to strengthen local economies through policy advocacy and capacity building, in partnership with local organizations and coalitions. It is co-led by Prosperity Indiana, which is a member organization skilled at coalition building and connected to local Indiana communities, and the Indiana Institute for Working Families (IIWF), skilled in research, policy analysis, and advocacy. The Indiana A&O Network is the state lead for Washington D.C.-based Prosperity Now Assets and Opportunity Network.

ABOUT THE GLICK FUND:

The Glick Fund is a donor-advised fund of the Central Indiana Community Foundation. It was established by Eugene and Marilyn Glick in 1998 to support a variety of causes. Grants are awarded by invitation only, with no unsolicited grant applications accepted. 

The Glick Fund also strives to align with CICF’s three broader community leadership initiatives of: Family Success & Making Connections; Inspiring Places; and College Readiness & Success – initiatives aimed at making central Indiana one of the best places in the nation to live, work and raise a family.

To date, The Glick Fund has awarded over $55 million in grants to not-for-profit organizations. Recent grant recipients include the Indianapolis Cultural Trail, the Glick Center for Glass at Ball State University, Heartland Truly Moving Pictures, the Eugene and Marilyn Glick Indiana Authors Award, Providence Cristo Rey High School and United Way of Central Indiana, among many other organizations. For more information, please visit cicf.org.

ABOUT CENTRAL INDIANA COMMUNITY FOUNDATION:

Central Indiana Community Foundation (CICF) is a $700+ million public foundation transforming the lives of central Indiana residents in three ways: consulting donors, family foundations and their professional advisors on charitable giving; awarding grants to effective not-for-profit organizations; and providing leadership to seize opportunities and address community needs. CICF was established in 1997 as a partnership between The Indianapolis Foundation, serving Marion County since 1916, and Legacy Fund, serving Hamilton County since 1991.

“If you work hard and play by the rules, you shouldn’t be poor.” You may have heard this from our current president over the last eight years, and likely a similar version from President Clinton; but what is this statement really saying? We pondered this question during our final 2016 steering committee meeting with a senior fellow, Margy Waller from Topos Partnership. Topos Partnership develops framing strategies using cognitive and social sciences utilizing familiar methods of public opinion research and communications. Margy joined us to discuss how to reframe our language when discussing policy, specifically around poverty and low-wage work.

We learned there are three lenses through which we can frame our conversations: sympathy, economy, and community lenses. How are they different?

Let’s begin with the sympathy lens. How often do you hear a story focused on the individual? I know I do almost every day in the local paper or on news radio. For instance, today there was a story about homeless youth in Indianapolis. The story highlighted a few individuals and the services they are receiving in our city, the poor choices they made to get them to the place they are, and ended with the changes they are making for the better. Honestly, I love these stories. It makes me feel good that there are places the youth can go to get relief, and it pulls at the heart strings. But there is an underlying problem with framing the issue like this. It tells the reader that they don’t have to do anything, that everything is working, and if the youth didn’t make bad choices, they wouldn’t need services. It lays out the framework of an “us” and “them” mentality.

In contrast, the community and economy lenses frame issues in a way that says, “Hey, we’re all in this together.” For instance, framing the wage issue should take a big picture look, like “Our nation is relying too heavily on low-wage service sector jobs without insisting that workers get good wages and benefits to help stimulate our economy. The more money in people’s pockets, the more they will spend in their local community." This frame helps the reader think more broadly about how people can change the economy.

So what does the notion “if you work hard and play by the rules" mean then? This concept is misleading the public by saying: if you are poor or in poverty, you aren’t working hard or playing by the rules. But, as we know, to have a “decent life today you have to work harder, regularly reinvent yourself, obtain at least some form of postsecondary education, make sure that you’re engaged in lifelong learning, and play by the rules.”

Topos’ research shows that some people hold two beliefs, simultaneously, about why people are poor: bad jobs and bad decisions. But it is our job to promote our policy goals in a positive frame and in a way that others cannot dismiss them.

We will be working to reinvent how we discuss poverty and low-wealth Hoosiers in the coming year. Together we can change the outlook of our future and make steps toward a more inclusive economy. I hope you will join us.

One of the major obstacles preventing children, especially children of lower-income families from obtaining higher education is the belief that it is out of their reach. In order for these children to form a “college bound” mentality, a savings account with as low as $1 can be all it takes. Studies show children with college savings of $500 or less are three times more likely to attend college and four times as likely to graduate compared to their peers without any college savings. 

Unfortunately, without proper financial literacy, parents far too often spend their income without putting any into savings, let alone a college fund. Currently, there are plenty of programs already available to help incentivize savings behavior. For example Individual Development Accounts (IDAs) match contributions towards an asset such as a college fund. Also, there are tax incentives such as a 529 college savings account (CSAs), which allows contributions to grow and be withdrawn tax-free. However, a 2012 report showed that less than 3% of U.S. families have opened a 529 college savings account indicates, many parents are still not utilizing available incentives to save for their child’s college education. 

Now there is a new tool attempting to catalyze parents to begin saving for their child’s higher education. Offered by Blackrock financial institutions, and other organizations such as LEAF College Savings and Gift of College, family members, friends, and community members can buy special gift cards that are only redeemable in a 529 CSA. By gifting a child one of these 529 college savings gift cards, parents are more likely to be aware of, and start a 529 college savings  CSA for their child in order to obtain value from the gift. Once the parent goes through the process of opening the account, they may be more likely to see the monetary value in contributing to the 529 accounts themselves, which can kick start savings habits in other area.  

Although these gift cards have traditionally only been available online, the gift cards offered by Gift of College will be available for purchase at Toys “R” Us and Babies “R” Us brick and mortar stores. The visibility of the card within these stores will not only raise awareness of 529 college savings accounts, but will also allow access to unbanked or cash-preferred families and friends to make contributions towards a child’s 529 college savings account.

Last November Indianapolis residents voted for more than presidential and congressional seats; they also voted for the nation’s first income tax investment for public transit. Referred to as Question Two, residents overwhelmingly supported the referendum which paves the way for the development of the Marion County Transit Plan and improves the county’s IndyGo bus service. The increased income tax will be up to 25 cents per $100 of taxable income for all Marion County residents. The tax increase will help by extending IndyGo’s hours of operation, increasing the number of bus routes that run in 15-minute frequencies, running every route seven days a week, and creating three rapid-transit lines which run more often and make fewer stops. A City-County Council vote will make this a reality.

Although it may not sound like much, these advancements will greatly improve the economy, livability, and overall well-being of Marion County neighborhoods and its residents. By 2021, the plan will increase the population of residents within a five-minute walk to a high frequency bus route by 180 percent, or by over 160,000 individuals. Additionally, 200,000 residents will live within a half-mile of the three new rapid transit lines that will expedite travel to and from heavily-populated neighborhoods, employment centers, and the city’s major institutions. The connection to employment centers should not be underestimated; Transit Drives Indy claims over 500,000 new jobs will be accessible to Marion County residents. Combine increased access with a 70 percent total increase in service hours, allows commuters to access places of employment throughout the week, including evenings and weekends. Currently, employment opportunities available to asset poor individuals are limited without ownership of or access to a vehicle. However, increased transportation access puts individuals who are unable to afford a vehicle in a better position to secure a steady job necessary to build upon their assets. Furthermore, according to Transportation for America, those who are unable to drive make 15 percent fewer trips to the doctor, 59 percent fewer shopping trips and restaurant visits, and 65 percent fewer trips for social, family, and religious activities, therefore limiting the economic and social capital available to a community. Unfortunately, this lack of access disproportionately affects people of color, 12 percent of whom do not own a vehicle compared with 4.5 percent of Whites.

While voters are often weary of supporting any tax increases, Marion County residents’ overwhelming support for Question Two joins 76 other ballot measures passed around the country this year that support local investment towards public transit. Although this year’s ballot initiatives are the largest in history, it is not a new phenomenon as transit measures have passed at a 71 percent rate since 2000 signifying a firm and growing sentiment among Americans about the importance of maintaining an adequate public transit system. However, as mentioned above, Indianapolis is unique for being the first in the nation to use an income tax in order to invest in its public transit. An income tax is considered a progressive tax and does not disproportionally affect lower-income individuals. This is a significant improvement from traditional methods to fund public transit, such as sales and property taxes as they are considered regressive due to the proportionally higher tax burden placed on lower-income individuals.

To help make the Marion County Transit Plan a reality, please contact your local City-County Councilor and announce your support.  To find your Councilor, click this link.

After the Great Recession, Indiana sought to prevent future catastrophes by mandating financial literacy instruction in schools. Is this a reasonable approach, and what policies can the state look at to ensure more Hoosiers have the information they need to make sound financial decisions?

A generation or two ago, many working families had fewer financial decisions to navigate. They received health insurance and pensions through their employers, and banks offered a more limited range of mortgage products. Within the changing world of both work and finance, more and more options have been placed in the hands of consumers who frequently struggled to assess them. When the mortgage crisis hit, household financial decision-making received a new level of scrutiny, and surveys uncovered that not only were many adults in the U.S. ill-equipped to make basic financial decisions, but they also believed they were more capable than their performance on test questions suggested. While personal finance education had been promoted for many years prior to the crisis, it received a boost through new federal programs and states requirements to add personal finance classes or content to the mandatory K-12 curriculum. The logic is certainly compelling: if well-educated about financial decision-making, individuals will be better equipped to navigate a world that increasingly places important financial decisions about things like insurance, borrowing, saving, and investing in the household’s hands. The key question is, does it work? 

Indiana decided to give it a shot. Beginning with the 2009 school year, Indiana lawmakers required that all students receive personal financial responsibility instruction through Indiana Code 20-30-5-19. The State Board of Education approved guidelines for teaching all students in grades six through 12 at Indiana’s state-accredited schools. Defining financial literacy as “the ability to use knowledge and skills to manage one’s financial resources effectively for a lifetime of financial security,” the Department of Education adopted six standards for financial literacy with benchmarks at 8th and 12th grade:

·         Demonstrate management of individual and family finances by applying reliable information and systematic decision making.

·         Analyze how education, income, career, and life choices relate to achieving financial goals.

·         Manage money effectively by developing financial goals and budgets.

·         Manage credit and debt to remain both creditworthy and financially secure.

·         Analyze the features of insurance, its role in balancing risk and benefits in financial planning.

·         Analyze saving and investing to build long-term financial security and wealth.

However, the state did not put in place any systematic teacher training, end-of-course assessments, or other mechanisms to support the implementation of the new requirements. Nor did it engage in any study of the effects of the new standards on decision-making down the road. Unfortunately, Indiana is not unique in requiring personal finance instruction without fully supporting its implementation or measuring its results.

It is perhaps unsurprising, then, that K-12 personal finance education mandates have not been the silver bullet policymakers hoped. This 2014 Harvard Business School study concluded that overall, the mandates did not have the desired effect on savings or asset development, although other research focused on states with supported mandates has found positive effects. For example, researchers compared three states with more intensive mandates and/or implementation supports (e.g. exit tests, teacher training, model curriculum, tools to conduct simulations) to other states without mandates and found increased average credit scores and lower delinquency rates. At a minimum, then, we can say that a K-12 mandate alone is likely to be insufficient to change financial behaviors but supported mandates may.

At the same time, even reviews of fully-implemented personal finance curricula offer mixed results. The Council for Economic Education suggests that students who receive instruction in personal finance from a well-trained teacher are more likely to save, budget, and invest.  However, a recent meta-analysis of studies on financial education and financial behaviors found that while students may show short-term increases in knowledge, the effects of general financial literacy classes diminish over time and may not change behaviors all that much. Research also suggests that this is particularly true for low-income samples.

So what can we make of all this? Some speculate that providing standalone personal finance education to older students without first infusing it into elementary school curriculum and providing regular opportunities to practice new skills is a misstep that needs correcting. Others suggest that stepping back to a slightly more nuanced version of the past with “defaults, ‘nudges,’ and ‘choice architecture’ such as opt-out retirement savings plans and ‘plain vanilla’ financial products” would be both less costly and more effective than K-12 financial education. These policy options sometimes meet with resistance, particularly where individuals’ needs and preferences differ. For example, how much money to set aside for retirement depends a great deal on factors like projected retirement age and desired income. To help resolve this, advocates of this option propose “smart agents” or recommender systems that tailor advice based on individuals’ personal characteristics - such as desired age of retirement.

There is also some evidence from that “just-in-time” financial education tied to a specific behavior or decision may be helpful. In other words, part of the reason financial education in the K-12 space may lack robust results is due to difficulty retrieving and applying knowledge from earlier education to a personal decision several years later. Therefore, education that occurs in the moment of a major decision or at a time of life transition may be helpful. Studies have shown some success, for example, coaching college students as they sign up for college loans or home-buyers faced with mortgage decisions. 

Finally, given that many Hoosiers do not make enough money to cover the basic costs of living, it is perhaps unsurprising that that they miss payments, have low credit scores, and have not accrued assets – and possible that this would be true whether they received financial education or not. Sufficient income is an important precursor to any expectation of improved financial decision-making. In short, a combination of steady, sufficient income, evidence-based K-12 personal finance education, “just-in-time” financial coaching, and smart policy nudges may all be needed to better equip individuals to navigate the complex new world of personal finance.  

Replicating the I’ve Been Everywhere singer Johnny Cash, the 2016 Indiana Cohort for Your Money, Your Goals represented by the Indiana Assets & Opportunity Network and Indiana Legal Services, Inc. has concluded its statewide Your Money, Your Goals road show. Training sites included Crown Point, Fort Wayne, Evansville, Huntingburg, and six trainings in Indianapolis. In total, the Cohort trained 177 individuals who will have the opportunity to bring back new knowledge on the Your Money, Your Goals financial empowerment toolkit to their 71 unique organizations. These organizations themselves can be found throughout the state and is represented by the image below. By clicking the image, you can interact with the map and find the contact information of our trainees and their respective organizations.

Your Money, Your Goals is a financial empowerment toolkit developed by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and contains extensive resources which provide frontline staff impartial information about the financial marketplace and tools to help their clients make informed financial decisions.  In particular, our trainings equipped legal service and social service staff with resources to help clients and consumers build financial capability and increasing their confidence in managing money, credit, and debt. Notably, the Cohort’s trainings brought together professionals from the legal, social services, and banking fields as both presenters and trainees, which will increase collaboration across sectors.

The Cohort's trainings would not have been possible if not for the generous sponsorship from the JP Morgan Chase Foundation.

To view the Your Money, Your Goals toolkit for social services programs, please click here.

To view the Your Money, Your Goals toolkit for legal services programs, please click here.

For centuries and in cultures spanning the globe, humans have practiced the concept of a “lending circle,” or short-term, interest-free loans among close associates to pay for emergencies, repairs, down payments, or even vacations. The concept is simple; a small group of people organize themselves and agree to contribute a predetermined but financially feasible amount of money into a collective pot every month. Each month, the pot is given to a different participant who has not yet received the pot until everyone has had a chance to collect. For example, five neighbors decide to contribute $100 a month and each month one of the neighbors receives $500. This continues for five months until the fifth neighbor receives $500. Although the success of lending circles hinges on every participant contributing their monthly obligation, the close social connection between neighbors along with the negative consequences to one’s relationship with their neighbors if they fail to make a payment reduces the risk of defaulted loans.

Lending circles like the example above, have traditionally been practiced informally among members of a particular community with direct social links between the participants. However, non-profits such as the Mission Asset Fund (MAF) in San Francisco have formalized the concept of lending circles to the benefit of vulnerable populations by improving their access to institutions and financial products otherwise restricted from them. For instance, similar to traditional lending circles, MAF lending circles have no fees and 0 percent interest. However, unlike traditional lending circles, MAF requires and provides free financial training and reports loan payments to credit bureaus in order to improve participant’s credit scores.  Participants based in San Francisco are further incentivized to repay their loan on time with competitive small business loans available only after successfully finishing a lending circle.

The success of MAF’s lending circles is staggering. MAF reports that only .7 percent of participants default on their loan payments. This is incredible when compared to the microlending industry standard which is around 12 to 14 percent. Since 2008 when the lending circle program was first launched, MAF has saved participants over 1 million dollars in interest and fees, facilitated over 6 million dollars in loans, and improved participants’ credit score by an average of 168 points. Even more incredible was the success of the “invisibles,” or individuals who previously had no credit score. Their credit scores grew an average of 650 points upon completion of a MAF lending circle. Now these invisibles that were vulnerable to predatory lending practices, such as payday loans, check cashers, and pawn loans, have access to proper alternative financial products and services provided by traditional financial institutions due to their credit history. In addition, entrepreneurs are more eligible for credit lines offered by financial institutions and are able to afford initial startup costs due to the loan they received for participating in the lending circle. Currently, one out of seven participants of the MAF’s lending circles are self-employed and directly contributing back into their own communities.

MAF has quickly expanded the reach of its lending program across 18 states nationwide, including Michigan, Illinois, Ohio, and Minnesota due to partnerships with other local non-profits. Now, more Americans across the US are given the opportunity to raise capital, afford down payments, and build credit scores.

To learn more about lending circles, please visit Mission Asset Fund at www.missionassetfund.org.

A guest blog from Martha Henn, Community Health Network Foundation, Grant and Proposal Writer

My work in financial empowerment began in a research coordination position I held in a university-affiliated research center.  Through the promotion of externally-funded research and graduate student learning, research centers and institutes enhance opportunities to create synergies among faculty and students to pursue a wide range of scholarship. They are critical to the process of innovation, collaboration, and discovery in a research university, but for me, they altered the path of my life to move me away from a strictly academic career path out into the community.  Our research center focused on the financial services sector – banking, insurance and securities – but we also had a thread of research based around what was originally called “financial literacy.” Through that academic, research-based focus on shifting personal money power and independence to individuals, I became more and more intrigued by the problem of poverty.  British academics Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett published a book in 2009, entitled The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better.  Their argument is the essence of the idea that captured me: that “almost every social problem common in developed societies - reduced life expectancy, child mortality, drugs, crime, homicide rates, mental illness and obesity - has a single root cause: inequality.”

While societal responses to the problems of poverty and income inequality are often treated as silo issues, be it access to or improvement of health care, transportation, safe housing, child care, quality education, food security, public safety, Pickett and Wilkinson argue compellingly that they stem from the opportunity gap between rich and poor.  The more unequal a society, they argue, the more intractable the problems of social cohesion can be.   I was and am convinced, and I decided I was called to do something about it.

Which is how I ended up moving out from the sphere of research into the world.  I work in community development now, which the United Nations describes globally as “a process where community members come together to take collective action and generate solutions to common problems. “The emphasis on collection action in community development is largely about relationship building and bringing engaged residents into civic, social, and economic relationship with their governments, human service providers, corporations, and so on.

Does this model sound familiar?  If you read about the mission and purpose of the Indiana A&O Network, we see that it was formed around this same ideal: programs, policies and people coming together – collaborating – to address asset poverty, toward the improvement of economic security for Hoosiers. Community development work is anti-poverty work, and the Indiana A&O Network is a crucial resource for bringing asset empowerment into the lives of people.

A recent study by CreditCards.com analyzed the readability of over 2,000 current credit card contracts banks offered and concluded that the majority of contracts are written at a reading level beyond the reading capability of the average American consumer. The study used the Flesch-Kincaid formula (commonly used to evaluate educational texts), which examines the number of syllables, words, and sentences in credit card contracts in order to determine the reading grade level necessary to comprehend the text. Through this method, the study found on average that the contracts are written at an 11th grade reading level which is far too complicated for the majority of American consumers who have a 9th grade or below reading comprehension level.

View fullsize

An earlier scientific telephone poll conducted in August reflects this conclusion and asked Americans, who have actually read their credit card agreement, to describe their experience using one word. The responses overwhelmingly indicated a negative experience with 71 percent of respondents using unfavorable words such as “lengthy,” “wordy,” “confusing,” or “boring,” and only nine percent of respondents using a positive word such as, “informative” to describe their experience.

Although one would assume that the nearly 88 percent of Americans over the age of 25, who have completed high school, should have no problem understanding a contract written at the 11th grade reading level but readability experts claim that most adults read at a level below the highest grade they finished in school. This creates an exacerbated problem for persons of color who according to the Department of Education have significantly higher dropout rates and lower graduation rates when compared to white students, which makes them much more susceptible to the risks associated with not fully understanding the terms and conditions of their credit card. These risks include not understanding the rights of the consumer, such as the right to dispute charges, protections against the card issuer’s right to collect from you, confusion over fees, interest rates, and payment obligations, which can ultimately cause lingering damage on your credit.

 

View fullsize

View fullsize

Proponents such as such as the American Bankers Association argue that the contracts need to remain lengthy in order to remain enforceable; further stating that the language is written to conform either to legal precedents or federal regulations. However, several banks and credit unions, such as Navy Federal Credit Union have disproven this notion by  creating contracts that are written near the 9th grade reading level, which was suggested by consumer advocates. Additionally, an example of how to create a legally binding yet simple to understand contract was created by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) in 2011. The CFPB urged banks to simplify and shorten credit card contracts. Unfortunately, little progress has been made. For instance, although the average credit card contract has been reduced by 500 words since 2011, the average contract length is still 4,900 words with some contracts maxing out at over 15,000 words. For reference, the model credit card contract created by the CFPB (mentioned above) is only 1,188 words in length.

A home. A degree or certification. The start-up costs for a small business. For families living paycheck to paycheck, these kinds of high-priced assets can feel completely unattainable, yet research suggests that these essential resources serve as buffers from economic volatility and pathways to the middle class. How do we help families secure them? For decades, matched savings accounts likeIndividual Development Accounts (IDAs) have been helping families make the acquisition of these assets a reality.

A number of organizations in Indiana administer Individual Development Accounts (the Indiana Housing and Community Development Authority maintains a list), which often include financial counseling and a 3-to-1 match on every dollar a low-income family saves. The Indiana General Assembly evenvoted unanimously in 2016 to expand the program’s eligibility and available uses. However, programs like these run the risk of disappearing unless program administrators can demonstrate their value. In fact, earlier this year the U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee voted to eliminate funding for the Assets for Independence (AFI) program, which supports Individual Development Accounts. Shortly thereafter, the House’s Appropriations Committee voted to fund AFI at the same level as last year. Congress will have to reconcile these differences before the end of the year.

Program administrators and other advocates need to continue to build the case for Individual Development Accounts. While researchers have conducted some larger-scale, nationwide studies of the program, demonstrating somesignificant and someinconclusive results for participants, local program administrators have also jumped into the evaluation game. Community Action Agency of Southern New Mexico partnered with New Mexico State University to conduct an economic impact study of their IDA program. As a result,CAASNMnot only tracked the 50 home purchases, 33 post-secondary enrollments, and 43 business start-ups, and expansions it achieved through the IDA program, but was also able to estimate the direct and induced revenues to the county and state.

These kinds of local studies are important. If advocates feel that Individual Development Accounts and other programs are truly benefitting the families and communities they serve, they must find ways to demonstrate these effects. Building evaluation into new programs and finding ways to capture the statistics and stories behind existing programs may help to keep valuable funding streams off the chopping block and, ultimately, help low-income families continue to have access to the tools they need to acquire those seemingly unattainable assets.