and “BizTown” programs in multiple

and “BizTown” programs in multiple locations through- out the country, which offer real-world learning simula- tions for elementary, middle, and high school students. Students learn about personal financial management and career exploration (Finance Park) as well as entrepreneur- ship, free enterprise, and financial planning (BizTown) in the classroom, and then visit a JA site to participate in a hands-on role play simulation. For example, students visit- ing Finance Park are randomly assigned a “life situation” card which determines their job, income, education level, marital status and number of children for the simulation. Based on these factors, students use bank services, pur- chase housing, food, health insurance, and other neces- sities, and experience firsthand the process of budgeting, saving, and making choices and tradeoffs to live within their means.
While it may be ideal to instill good financial habits at a young age, there is also a great need for financial edu- cation for adults. Many adults never learned the basics of good financial management and may be struggling with poor credit, while other adults may be facing new finan- cial challenges in the current economic climate, such as significant losses to their retirement portfolios. In addition, the ever-changing nature of financial markets and products means that adults must continue to educate themselves in order to successfully manage complex financial deci- sions, such as paying down debt or purchasing a home. Financial education for adults is generally voluntary and programs attract participants through a variety of chan- nels. For example, the FDIC’s “Money Smart” program is a comprehensive financial education curriculum designed to help individuals outside the financial mainstream and

is used by financial institutions and other community or- ganizations interested in sponsoring financial education workshops. In a recent longitudinal evaluation of Money Smart, respondents reported significant positive changes in their level of savings, amount of debt, and likelihood to comparison shop for financial products at the end of their training and over the intermediate term (six to twelve months later).10 Other financial education programs for adults may be tied to a specific asset building initiative. Many city-sponsored first-time homebuyer programs require participants to complete pre-purchase counseling in order to qualify. One study found that such counsel- ing can be effective in reducing mortgage delinquency, and that different counseling programs vary in their effec- tiveness: individual-based programs resulted in a greater reduction in delinquency rates, relative to classroom and at-home self-study counseling. Most individual develop- ment account (IDA) programs also have a financial edu- cation requirement for participation, and studies have shown that even short courses, from 8-10 hours, can have a significant impact on savings behavior.11
While the effectiveness of financial education is still under debate, there is some consensus that delivering fi- nancial education around a specific life event or finan- cial decision, such as the purchase of a home or opening a savings account, can increase the program’s salience and impact (for more on tying financial products into fi- nancial education, see the article “Banks and Financial Education”). Often referred to as “just-in-time” education, this approach provides targeted information that is rel- evant and can be applied in the near term. For example, workplace training on retirement planning gained popu-



. . . individuals must have the oppor- tunity to participate in economic life by being linked to financial institutions.




larity with the rise of defined contribution plans as the responsibility of saving for retirement increasingly fell on employees.12 Studies show evidence of increased levels of participation and savings in retirement plans after com- pletion of workplace training.13 But participation in these programs is voluntary, and it could be the case that those who participate in such training are more likely to save and plan for their retirement, thus making it difficult to understand the true effect of the education. Researcher Lewis Mandell summarizes the issue by pointing out that, “those who need financial education the most—workers with little formal education, who have accumulated few assets and are in the greatest danger of retiring without sufficient income—are least likely to attend.”14 However, one study found that retirement seminars appear to have the strongest effect among workers with lower levels of wealth and that the impact decreases or disappears among wealthier workers.15 This finding was verified by Dartmouth researcher Annamaria Lusardi, who also found that the effect of seminars was especially strong for those with little wealth or education, boosting financial wealth in some cases by as much as 18 percent.16

Challenges in the Field
One of the challenges facing the relatively young field of financial education is the lack of common terminol- ogy and standards. While “literacy” is universally defined as the ability to read and write, the meaning of the term “financial literacy” is less clear. The President’s Advisory Council on Financial Literacy, a group of industry experts formed in 2008, defines financial literacy as “the ability to use knowledge and skills to manage financial resourc- es effectively for a lifetime of financial well-being,” but points out that, “the term ‘financial literacy’ is being used to describe financial education programs without taking into consideration exactly what the program’s goal is, what particular skills the participants will learn, or if par- ticipants will emerge from the program with the ability to take control of their financial future.”17 Even the ap- propriateness of the term “financial literacy” is debated as practitioners point out that some program participants may find the connotation of illiteracy to be offensive, par- ticularly among low-income populations or those with low levels of educational attainment. In addition, Johnson

and Sherraden suggest that financial literacy is “a helpful but not sufficient idea,” pointing out that individuals must have the opportunity to participate in economic life by being linked to financial institutions; they introduce a new term to the field and refer to this combined functioning of knowledge and practice as “financial capability.”18
This inconsistency in terminology creates particular challenges for researchers trying to evaluate the effective- ness of the financial education field; without consistent definitions and clear standards, it’s extremely difficult for evaluators to compare the changes in knowledge or be- havior from one program to the next and make industry- wide assessments.19 In addition, there is wide variation across programs in terms of what is being measured and how.20 Program evaluation remains a significant challenge for financial education practitioners and researchers alike for a number of reasons: a general lack of understand- ing about how to measure program impact (designing a survey instrument, identifying appropriate metrics); capacity limits in terms of staff, time, and funding for program evaluation; and the difficulty and cost associ- ated with collecting sufficient data for a rigorous study. Longitudinal data collection over the long term is par- ticularly costly and challenging, as maintaining contact over time requires significant effort and participants may be unresponsive. As a result, many evaluations utilize a pre- and post-test model of assessment, which generally relies on self-reported data and does not capture behav- ior change that is more likely to occur over the longer term.21 A number of useful resources are available to help simplify the program evaluation process, such as the Na- tional Endowment for Financial Education (NEFE) Evalu- ation Toolkit (see the article “Learning and Growing” for more information from NEFE), and many of these guides and web resources are designed to be practitioner-friendly and easy to use.22
In addition to the broader challenges discussed above, there are a number of challenges at the individual level. For example, motivating a person to change their behav- ior is extremely difficult. Knowing and doing are sepa- rate matters, and good financial behavior requires not only knowledge, but also discipline, future orientation, and self-control. Even highly knowledgeable and skilled individuals may have a difficult time controlling their spending and debt, despite knowing the “good” behaviors of financial management. There are some promising ad- vancements in the field of behavioral economics that may help financial education providers better understand the link between knowledge and behavior (see the article “An Apple or a Donut” for more on behavioral economics). Other challenges at the individual level include language and cultural barriers. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Ber- nanke has recognized the need for greater financial edu-

Kết quả (Việt) 1:

and “BizTown” programs in multiple locations through- out the country, which offer real-world learning simula- tions for elementary, middle, and high school students. Students learn about personal financial management and career exploration (Finance Park) as well as entrepreneur- ship, free enterprise, and financial planning (BizTown) in the classroom, and then visit a JA site to participate in a hands-on role play simulation. For example, students visit- ing Finance Park are randomly assigned a “life situation” card which determines their job, income, education level, marital status and number of children for the simulation. Based on these factors, students use bank services, pur- chase housing, food, health insurance, and other neces- sities, and experience firsthand the process of budgeting, saving, and making choices and tradeoffs to live within their means.Trong khi nó có thể được lý tưởng để thấm nhuần thói quen tốt tài chính tại một tuổi trẻ, đó cũng là một nhu cầu rất lớn cho edu-cation tài chính cho người lớn. Nhiều người lớn không bao giờ học được những điều cơ bản của quản lý tài chính tốt và có thể đấu tranh với tín dụng kém, trong khi những người lớn khác có thể phải đối mặt với finan - cial những thách thức mới trong khí hậu kinh tế hiện tại, chẳng hạn như các thiệt hại đáng kể cho danh mục đầu tư hưu trí của họ. Ngoài ra, luôn thay đổi bản chất của thị trường tài chính và các sản phẩm có nghĩa là người lớn phải tiếp tục giáo dục chính mình để thành công quản lý phức tạp tài chính deci-sions, chẳng hạn như trả nợ xuống hoặc mua một ngôi nhà. Tài chính giáo dục cho người lớn là thường tự nguyện và các chương trình thu hút người tham gia thông qua một loạt các chan-nels. Ví dụ, chương trình "Tiền thông minh" của FDIC là một chương trình giáo dục tài chính toàn diện được thiết kế để giúp các cá nhân bên ngoài chính tài chính và được sử dụng bởi các tổ chức tài chính và các cộng đồng hoặc-ganizations quan tâm đến việc tài trợ hội thảo giáo dục tài chính. Trong một đánh giá tại theo chiều dọc của tiền thông minh, người trả lời báo cáo tích cực thay đổi đáng kể trong mức độ tiết kiệm, số tiền nợ, và khả năng để so sánh mua sắm cho các sản phẩm tài chính vào cuối của đào tạo của họ và trong trung hạn (sáu đến 12 tháng sau).10 các chương trình giáo dục tài chính khác cho người lớn có thể được gắn với một tài sản cụ thể xây dựng sáng kiến. Nhiều thành phố tài trợ lần đầu homebuyer chương trình yêu cầu người tham gia để hoàn thành trước khi mua tư vấn để vượt qua vòng loại. Một nghiên cứu cho thấy rằng luật sư-ing có thể được hiệu quả trong việc giảm phạm pháp thế chấp, và chương trình tư vấn khác nhau khác nhau về của effec-tiveness: cá nhân dựa trên chương trình dẫn đến một sự giảm lớn trong tỷ lệ delinquency, liên quan đến lớp học và tư vấn tự học tại nhà. Đặt cá nhân phát triển-ment tài khoản (IDA) chương trình cũng có một yêu cầu tài chính edu-cation để tham gia, và nghiên cứu đã chỉ ra rằng các khóa học thậm chí ngắn từ 8-10 giờ, có thể có một tác động đáng kể về tiết kiệm behavior.11While the effectiveness of financial education is still under debate, there is some consensus that delivering fi- nancial education around a specific life event or finan- cial decision, such as the purchase of a home or opening a savings account, can increase the program’s salience and impact (for more on tying financial products into fi- nancial education, see the article “Banks and Financial Education”). Often referred to as “just-in-time” education, this approach provides targeted information that is rel- evant and can be applied in the near term. For example, workplace training on retirement planning gained popu- . . . individuals must have the oppor- tunity to participate in economic life by being linked to financial institutions.larity with the rise of defined contribution plans as the responsibility of saving for retirement increasingly fell on employees.12 Studies show evidence of increased levels of participation and savings in retirement plans after com- pletion of workplace training.13 But participation in these programs is voluntary, and it could be the case that those who participate in such training are more likely to save and plan for their retirement, thus making it difficult to understand the true effect of the education. Researcher Lewis Mandell summarizes the issue by pointing out that, “those who need financial education the most—workers with little formal education, who have accumulated few assets and are in the greatest danger of retiring without sufficient income—are least likely to attend.”14 However, one study found that retirement seminars appear to have the strongest effect among workers with lower levels of wealth and that the impact decreases or disappears among wealthier workers.15 This finding was verified by Dartmouth researcher Annamaria Lusardi, who also found that the effect of seminars was especially strong for those with little wealth or education, boosting financial wealth in some cases by as much as 18 percent.16Challenges in the FieldOne of the challenges facing the relatively young field of financial education is the lack of common terminol- ogy and standards. While “literacy” is universally defined as the ability to read and write, the meaning of the term “financial literacy” is less clear. The President’s Advisory Council on Financial Literacy, a group of industry experts formed in 2008, defines financial literacy as “the ability to use knowledge and skills to manage financial resourc- es effectively for a lifetime of financial well-being,” but points out that, “the term ‘financial literacy’ is being used to describe financial education programs without taking into consideration exactly what the program’s goal is, what particular skills the participants will learn, or if par- ticipants will emerge from the program with the ability to take control of their financial future.”17 Even the ap- propriateness of the term “financial literacy” is debated as practitioners point out that some program participants may find the connotation of illiteracy to be offensive, par- ticularly among low-income populations or those with low levels of educational attainment. In addition, Johnson
and Sherraden suggest that financial literacy is “a helpful but not sufficient idea,” pointing out that individuals must have the opportunity to participate in economic life by being linked to financial institutions; they introduce a new term to the field and refer to this combined functioning of knowledge and practice as “financial capability.”18
This inconsistency in terminology creates particular challenges for researchers trying to evaluate the effective- ness of the financial education field; without consistent definitions and clear standards, it’s extremely difficult for evaluators to compare the changes in knowledge or be- havior from one program to the next and make industry- wide assessments.19 In addition, there is wide variation across programs in terms of what is being measured and how.20 Program evaluation remains a significant challenge for financial education practitioners and researchers alike for a number of reasons: a general lack of understand- ing about how to measure program impact (designing a survey instrument, identifying appropriate metrics); capacity limits in terms of staff, time, and funding for program evaluation; and the difficulty and cost associ- ated with collecting sufficient data for a rigorous study. Longitudinal data collection over the long term is par- ticularly costly and challenging, as maintaining contact over time requires significant effort and participants may be unresponsive. As a result, many evaluations utilize a pre- and post-test model of assessment, which generally relies on self-reported data and does not capture behav- ior change that is more likely to occur over the longer term.21 A number of useful resources are available to help simplify the program evaluation process, such as the Na- tional Endowment for Financial Education (NEFE) Evalu- ation Toolkit (see the article “Learning and Growing” for more information from NEFE), and many of these guides and web resources are designed to be practitioner-friendly and easy to use.22
In addition to the broader challenges discussed above, there are a number of challenges at the individual level. For example, motivating a person to change their behav- ior is extremely difficult. Knowing and doing are sepa- rate matters, and good financial behavior requires not only knowledge, but also discipline, future orientation, and self-control. Even highly knowledgeable and skilled individuals may have a difficult time controlling their spending and debt, despite knowing the “good” behaviors of financial management. There are some promising ad- vancements in the field of behavioral economics that may help financial education providers better understand the link between knowledge and behavior (see the article “An Apple or a Donut” for more on behavioral economics). Other challenges at the individual level include language and cultural barriers. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Ber- nanke has recognized the need for greater financial edu-