DO GIRLS NEED A SAVINGS ACCOUNT

TO SAVE? PRELIMINARY RESULTS FROM THE ADOLESCENT

GIRLS EMPOWERMENT PROGRAM Karen Austrian, Ph.D.

Project Director AGEP Population Council

Paul C. Hewett, Ph.D. Lead Investigator AGEP Population Council

Global Youth Economic Opportunities Summit – October 8, 2015 – Washington, DC

AGEP Overview

• November 2011 – June 2018 • Funding by UK Aid through DFID • Based on Council's global body of work with

vulnerable adolescent girls • Two major components

Program: Adolescent girls ages 10―19 Social, health and economic asset building

Research: Impact evaluation Cluster randomized design

10 Sites – 5 Urban, 5 Rural

AGEP Sites

“Safe Spaces” Mentoring sessions

Savings accounts opened

Financial education

Sexual and reproductive health education

Health vouchers

Economic assets

Social assets

Health assets

Reduced gender- based violence

Fewer early/unintended pregnancies

Reduced STI transmission

Increased school completion

Delayed sexual debut

Reduced early marriage

Reduced HIV transmission

Asset Building Theory of Change

Mediating Longer-Term Intervention

AGEP Intervention

Safe Spaces/Girls Groups

• Weekly group meetings over course of two years

• Health and life skills, financial education and nutrition curricula

• Led by female mentor from the community – 20―40 years old

• Segmented by age; marital status

Aim of Safe Spaces

Serve two critical functions: • To build a platform to

reach vulnerable girls with interventions and educational topics

• To build friendships, trusting relationships, boost self-esteem, and other positive influences

Girls Dream Savings Account

• Collaborating Partners NatSave (host) Making Cents

International (market research and product development)

Girls Dream Savings Account

• Minimal opening deposit - $0.30

• No transactional fees

• Girls can deposit on their own

• Withdrawals dependent on age of the girl

Aim of Savings Account

• Help build a culture of savings at a young age

• Reinforce money management skills • Promote economic assets building

Assist girls in… • facilitating their economic

independence • managing emergencies • helping make safe health related

decisions

AGEP Evaluation

Study Design Randomized cluster design

AGEP No Program

Randomization within each site

Eligible participants

Females Age 10–19 Socio-econ vulnerable

AGEP Study Clusters

Chawama & Misisi Masaiti

Urban Rural

47 total clusters (CSAs) 27 total clusters (CSAs)

Census Supervisory Areas

16 clusters selected 16 clusters selected

AGEP Study Arms

Controls – No exposures, no placebo • Internal controls – within program sites • External controls – different sites (urban)

Exp. Arm 1 Exp. Arm 2 Exp. Arm 3

Safe Space Groups

Health Voucher

+ +

+

Bank Account

Selection of Girls

Program: Target ~10,000 thru 2 years • 1,200–1,400 invited to participate per site

• Girls ranked by vulnerability, most vulnerable selected

• All eligible girls in a household invited

Research: Target 3,520 observed thru 4 years • Girls invited to participate in AGEP

• Randomly selected among AGEP participants

• Never married at baseline

• One girl per household

Study Implementation

Electronic data capture (Android Tablets) • CAPI, ACASI

Biological testing

• HIV rapid test (national algorithim) • HSV-2 laboratory testing (Kalon ELISA) • Anemia rapid test (Hemocue 201+)

Anthropometric measurement • Girls & children

Evaluation Timeline

2013: Baseline Completed

2014: Round 2 Completed

2015: Round 3 In-field

2016: Round 4

2017: Endline

AGEP Intervention ends

Savings Account Use

• 2,175 accounts established • 34% of girls deposited some funds • 4% of girls have withdrawn funds • Average balance: $5.20

What effect does having a savings account have on financial literacy

and having saved?

Increase in average financial literacy score

Urban 10-14

Rural 10-14

Urban 15-19

Rural 15-19

Baseline

4.8

4.6 6.0 5.7

Round 2

5.4

5.3 6.3 6.0

Financial Literacy

Scale: from 0 to 9 score

All AGEP segments

Difference in score significant only for savings account arm

Mean Financial Literacy Score

Regression Coefficient

Control 5.5 - - - SS Only 5.6 0.15 SS + HV 5.5 0.04

SS + HV + SA 5.8 0.36** **p < 0.01

Financial Literacy

Urban 10-14

Rural 10-14

Urban 15-19

Rural 15-19

Baseline

11% 10% 21% 18%

Round 2

28% 22% 32% 30%

Savings Increase in percentage of girls saving

All AGEP segments

% Saved at Round 2 Odds Ratio

Control 25% 1.0 SS Only 26% 1.1 SS + HV 28% 1.2

SS + HV + SA 30% 1.3*

*p < 0.05

Savings Difference in saved at round 2 significant only for savings account arm

Summary

• The savings account has a positive effect on girls likelihood of saving either formally or informally, despite overall low levels of use of account

• Having the ability to “put in practice” some financial literacy skills vis-à-vis a savings account increases financial literacy after one year

Further Analysis

• Looking at financial literacy scores and savings behavior vis-à-vis: – Account usage – Amounts of savings – Actual exposure to financial education sessions

• Observe trend after the full intervention is completed

Thank you