Differences Between SEED Account Openers and Non-Openers: Demographic and Economic Characteristics

Differences Between SEED Account Openers and Non-Openers: Demographic and Economic Characteristic

Review of \u3cem\u3eConsumption and Social Welfare: Living Standards and Their Distribution in the United States.\u3c/em\u3e Daniel T. Slesnick. Reviewed by Sondra G. Beverly.

Book review of Daniel T. Slesnick, Consumption and Social Welfare: Living Standards and Their Distribution in the United States. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001. $54.95 hardcover

Economic Poverty Reconsidered: The Case for Direct Measures

Although there has been much discussion in the United States regarding the definition of economic poverty, we continue to measure poverty almost exclusively in terms of current income. However, there are many reasons to supplement measures of income-poverty with “direct” measures of poverty, that is, with measures that capture the inadequate consumption of particular goods and services. First, direct and indirect measures of poverty represent alternative conceptions of poverty. Second, experiences of “direct” poverty are of both normative and instrumental concern. Third, direct measures of poverty have a number of practical uses, particularly in the context of welfare reform

Financial Knowledge, Attitudes, Ownership, and Practices Among Families in the SEED Pre-School Demonstration and Impact Assessment

Financial Knowledge, Attitudes, Ownership, and Practices Among Families in the SEED Pre-School Demonstration and Impact Assessmen

Assets for Independence: Asset Building for and by Young People

Young people need assets to make the transition to adulthood. This article summarizes the four preceding articles on youth and saving, identifies policy and program implications, and suggests directions for future research. It is clear that saving is difficult for many people and throughout the life course. Efforts to help young people accumulate assets might encourage saving by parents, encourage saving by youth, or provide subsidies. The latter strategy is most likely to reduce inequities associated with socioeconomic status. These strategies do not have to be pursued in isolation, and ongoing conversations across disciplines and between scholars and practitioners could yield useful insight. In addition, research on existing asset-building initiatives that combine two or more of these strategies will provide important lessons for policy and program development

Financial Education in a Children and Youth Savings Account Policy Demonstration: Issues and Options

Financial Education in a Children and Youth Savings Account Policy Demonstration: Issues and Option

Using Tax Refunds to Promote Asset Building in Low-Income Households: Program and Policy Options

Using Tax Refunds to Promote Asset Building in Low-Income Households: Program and Policy Option

Barriers to Asset Accumulation for Families in the SEED Pre-School Demonstration and Impact Assessment

Barriers to Asset Accumulation for Families in the SEED Pre-School Demonstration and Impact Assessmen

Staying on Course: The Effects of Savings and Assets on the College Progress of Young Adults

Staying on Course: The Effects of Savings and Assets on the College Progress of Young Adult

Asset Limits for Means-Tested Public Assistance: Considerations for Child Development Account Proponents

If low-income families believe that having savings will jeopardize their public assistance benefits, they are unlikely to participate in Child Development Account (CDA) programs. This policy brief (1) documents the impact of CDA savings on five public assistance programs (Medicaid, CHIP, SNAP, LIHEAP, and TANF) and (2) identifies opportunities for policy change at the state level. CDA savings held in agency-owned accounts do not affect public assistance because students and families do not own the savings. Personal deposits held in individually-owned CDAs may affect assistance, but our review shows that they often do not, especially when held in 529 college savings plans. Yet, most states have at least one asset limit, and the perception that assets reduce assistance probably still exists. Thus, an important goal remains to abolish asset limits in means-tested assistance programs