“Freedom to Think What Could Be Best for Our Family”: A Guaranteed Income Experiment in <i>CollegeBound</i> St. Paul/A Children’s Savings Account Program

William Elliott, Amanda Jones-Layman, Megan O’Brien, Audrey Dombro
{"title":"“Freedom to Think What Could Be Best for Our Family”: A Guaranteed Income Experiment in <i>CollegeBound</i> St. Paul/A Children’s Savings Account Program","authors":"William Elliott, Amanda Jones-Layman, Megan O’Brien, Audrey Dombro","doi":"10.4236/sm.2023.134014","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The City of Saint Paul’s CollegeBound Boost (Boost for short) program is the first to test combining Children’s Savings Accounts (CSAs) with a monthly guaranteed income payment ($500 per month) and targeted quarterly CSA deposits ($250 per quarter) to families living at 300% of the poverty line or below. The goal of this study is to understand policy implications of focusing on meeting basic needs today versus security and growth needs for tomorrow in the lives of the poor. Semi-structured interviews with 32 Boost participants reveal that families characterize their financial situation as just “making it” through use of budgeting, welfare, family help, extra work, and borrowing. Congruent with a financial needs’ theory of saving, we find that across study groups participants, in part, spend and save according to a hierarchy of needs (first spending on survival such as food and bills, followed by saving for security, and lastly, saving for growth needs such as education and retirement), with findings supported by actual spending data. Further, this study design allows us to see that, consistent with financial needs theory (and contrary to conventional attitudes about irresponsible spending), after survival needs are met, participants receiving guaranteed income use a portion of the $500 payment to save for their security and growth needs. A policy implication of this study is that programs like the prototype Boost which combines present income and future asset strategies such as CSAs together might be able to provide low-income families with an environment rich for pursuing security and growth needs (i.e., the freedom to think what could be best for their futures).","PeriodicalId":498626,"journal":{"name":"Sociology Mind","volume":"53 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sociology Mind","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4236/sm.2023.134014","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The City of Saint Paul’s CollegeBound Boost (Boost for short) program is the first to test combining Children’s Savings Accounts (CSAs) with a monthly guaranteed income payment ($500 per month) and targeted quarterly CSA deposits ($250 per quarter) to families living at 300% of the poverty line or below. The goal of this study is to understand policy implications of focusing on meeting basic needs today versus security and growth needs for tomorrow in the lives of the poor. Semi-structured interviews with 32 Boost participants reveal that families characterize their financial situation as just “making it” through use of budgeting, welfare, family help, extra work, and borrowing. Congruent with a financial needs’ theory of saving, we find that across study groups participants, in part, spend and save according to a hierarchy of needs (first spending on survival such as food and bills, followed by saving for security, and lastly, saving for growth needs such as education and retirement), with findings supported by actual spending data. Further, this study design allows us to see that, consistent with financial needs theory (and contrary to conventional attitudes about irresponsible spending), after survival needs are met, participants receiving guaranteed income use a portion of the $500 payment to save for their security and growth needs. A policy implication of this study is that programs like the prototype Boost which combines present income and future asset strategies such as CSAs together might be able to provide low-income families with an environment rich for pursuing security and growth needs (i.e., the freedom to think what could be best for their futures).
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
“自由地思考什么对我们的家庭是最好的”:在& i>CollegeBound</i>圣保罗/A儿童储蓄计划
圣保罗市的“升学促进”(简称“促进”)项目是首个将儿童储蓄账户(CSA)与每月保证收入(每月500美元)和目标季度CSA存款(每季度250美元)结合起来的项目,目的是为生活在贫困线300%或以下的家庭提供保障。本研究的目的是了解关注满足今天的基本需求与关注穷人未来的安全和增长需求之间的政策含义。对32名Boost参与者的半结构化访谈显示,家庭将自己的财务状况描述为通过预算、福利、家庭帮助、额外工作和借贷来“勉强维持”。与金融需求的储蓄理论一致,我们发现,在各个研究小组中,参与者在一定程度上是根据需求层次来消费和储蓄的(首先是为了生存而消费,比如食物和账单,其次是为了安全而储蓄,最后是为了增长需求而储蓄,比如教育和退休),这些发现得到了实际支出数据的支持。此外,这个研究设计让我们看到,与金融需求理论一致(与对不负责任的消费的传统态度相反),在生存需求得到满足后,获得保证收入的参与者使用500美元支付的一部分来储蓄他们的安全和增长需求。这项研究的一个政策含义是,像Boost原型这样将当前收入和未来资产策略(如csa)结合在一起的项目,可能能够为低收入家庭提供一个丰富的环境,以追求安全和增长需求(即,自由地思考什么对他们的未来最好)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
“Freedom to Think What Could Be Best for Our Family”: A Guaranteed Income Experiment in &lt;i&gt;CollegeBound&lt;/i&gt; St. Paul/A Children’s Savings Account Program &lt;i&gt;The Fable of the Bees&lt;/i&gt; and Its Legacy for Social Sciences Betrayed by the Blue: Intimate Partner Violence and Institutional Betrayal by the Criminal Legal System
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1