Working Conference On CSA Research. October 15 th -16th, 2018 Federal Reserve Bank of Boston Connolly Center

Transcription

1 Working Conference On CSA Research October 15 th -16th, 2018 Federal Reserve Bank of Boston Connolly Center

2 Welcome/Opening Remarks Sol Carbonell Federal Reserve Bank of Boston Jeff Fuhrer Federal Reserve Bank of Boston Frank DeGiovanni Independent Consultant, Formerly of the Ford Foundation

3 Current State of CSA Research Shira Markoff Prosperity Now Becca Loya & Jessica Santos Institute on Assets and Social Policy at Brandeis University

4 Agenda I. Completed CSA Research What do we already know? Interim and Long-Term Impacts of CSAs CSA Design Features II. Current & Planned CSA Research What topics and questions are we studying? Overview of Research Topics Discussion on Research Topics, Methods, and Implications

5 Completed Research Interim and Long-Term Impacts Postsecondary Education Family Health and Well-Being Equity Economic Mobility and Financial Capability

6 COMPLETED RESEARCH Interim Postsecondary Education College Savings likelihood of having college savings & higher balances with universal, automatic CSAs (Beverly, Clancy & Sherraden, 2016) Parental Educational Expectations expectations; parents place more importance on college education (Kim, Sherraden, et al., 2015; Hashmi, 2014; Marks, Rhodes, et al., 2009) Children s Educational Expectations More likely to plan to attend college (Long, 2016) Academic Achievement Higher attendance rates; grades & standardized test scores (Long, 2016; Elliott, 2018; Elliott, Jung & Friedline, 2010)

7 COMPLETED RESEARCH Interim Interim Health and Wellbeing Psychological wellbeing of parents and youth symptoms of maternal depression (Huang, Sherraden, & Purnell, 2014) Having an account sense of security able to worry less (Gray, et al., 2012; Scanlon & Adams, 2008) Youth who saved: self perception proud, confident, happy (Scanlon & Adams, 2008) frequency that parents scream at their children (Nam, Wikoff, & Sherraden, 2014) Child development and social-emotional functioning social-emotional functioning, with similar effect size to Early Head Start (Huang, Sherraden, & Purnell, 2014) Lessens negative effects of material hardship on child development (Huang, Kim, & Sherraden, 2017)

8 COMPLETED RESEARCH Long-term Interim Equity College savings gaps Low income families participate in CSAs (opt-in and opt-out) at higher rates than traditional 529s (Elliot, 2018) Racial disparities in deposits and account accumulation occur in CSAs: Latinos, Native Americans, and African Americans fall behind white and Asian participants (Mason et al., 2009) Racial wealth gap A universal, progressive national CSA could close the black/white gap by 23% and the Latino/white gaps by 28% (Sullivan et al., 2016) Program design matters: modeling the effect of universal, progressive CSAs with matched savings for Illinois predicts Black and Latino families would see greater wealth gains (Buitrago & Mullany, 2017)

9 COMPLETED RESEARCH Long-term Interim Interim Economic Mobility & Financial Capability Economic Mobility and Workforce Development Parental savings student loan debt (Elliott, Lewis, et al., 2014) Financial Capability CSA + FLE financial capability among elementary school students (MS Sherraden, Johnson, et al., 2011) parents savings for children s future (Lewis, O Brien, et al., 2017) connections to mainstream financial institutions (Elliott & Lewis, 2015; Huang, Nam, et al., 2013) Parents & kids account ownership in childhood: savings account ownership in young adulthood (Friedline, 2014) Kids account ownership in childhood: savings as young adults (Friedline, 2014)

10 Completed Research CSA Design Features

11 COMPLETED RESEARCH CSA Design Features & Outcomes Design features Participation Engagement Account Accumulation Universal, automatic enrollment (compared to opt-in) Account type: 529 (compared to savings account) Initial deposit/seed Savings match Benchmark incentives

12 COMPLETED RESEARCH Account type Account accumulation Under the same conditions, 529s yield a higher return on investment than savings accounts (90-day CD rates) Assumptions: $500 seed $600/year family contribution $300/year match (Elliot, Lewis, et al., 2015, p. 19)

13 COMPLETED RESEARCH Takeaways on program features Universal automatic enrollment: Key to reaching everyone But not always politically or practically feasible Account type: There is no one answer New hybrid accounts may be needed to meet all of our needs Financial incentives Incentives matter, particularly for LMI families In many cases, effects of individual incentives on specific outcomes have not tested Particular set of incentives that works may vary with location and context

14 Current & Planned Research

15 CURRENT RESEARCH Summary of Current/Planned Research Interim and Long-Term Effects Design Features and Program Delivery Other Program Alternatives for Girls Education Health and Well- Being Equity Economic Mobility & Financial Capability Enrollment Family Engagement Incentives Program Delivery/ Operations Savings Boston Saves Behavioral Interventions College Kids Harold Alfond College Challenge Inversant Kindergarten to College (SF) Lansing SAVE Michigan SEED Oakland Promise- Brilliant Baby Oakland Promise- K2C Promise Indiana Promise Scholars Program Prosperity Kids SeedMA & SoarMA SEED OK Rewards Cards

16 CURRENT RESEARCH Effects on Education & Health Domain Interim Effects Long-Term Impact Academic achievement, including attendance, High school math and reading proficiency graduation Parental educational expectations for child; Postsecondary engagement with child s education enrollment and Education Child s educational expectations, collegebound identity, development of identity-based completion motivation Family savings for college Health & Well-Being Child development (social-emotional, cognitive & physical) Parents attitudes and behaviors None

17 CURRENT RESEARCH Effects on Equity & Economic Mobility Domain Equity Economic Mobility & Financial Capability Interim Effects Variations in savings and the effects of programs and design features by demographic factors Family economic outlook and well-being Asset effects on family of having a CSA Program impact on financial knowledge Long-Term Impact None None

18 CURRENT RESEARCH Design Features & Program Delivery Enrollment Recruitment strategies; enrollment barriers; demographics of opt-in vs. opt-out enrollees Family Engagement Engagement with program, account & tech platform Incentives Incentives impact on savings & academic activities/outcomes Program Delivery/Operations Implementation challenges (e.g., tech platform); effective school partnerships; parental experience with program

19 CURRENT RESEARCH Savings Number of participants making deposits Amount & frequency of deposits Total deposits & account accumulation Factors that help families save & challenges to saving

20 CURRENT RESEARCH Other Topics Behavioral Interventions Impact of behavioral nudges/messaging on engagement; prize-linked savings (e.g., regret lottery) Rewards Cards Impact on account contributions and total account accumulation

21 Discussion & Resource Sharing

22 Discussion Questions Which findings (from current or past research) offer lessons for the field? What are their implications?

23 Discussion Questions What innovative methods or tools are people using, and what are their benefits?

24 Discussion Questions How do different methods (RCT, evaluations, qualitative work) suit different purposes?

25 Discussion Questions What are the best ways to share information within the field about ongoing research and evaluations?

26 Contact Information Shira Markoff Associate Director, Children s Savings Prosperity Now Rebecca Loya, Ph.D. Sr. Research Associate Institute on Assets and Social Policy beccaloya@brandeis.edu Jessica Santos, Ph.D. Director of Community- Engaged Research Institute on Assets and Social Policy jsantos@brandeis.edu

27 Break (15 mins) 10:50-11:05am

28 Research Priorities to Move the Field Forward MODERATOR: Ray Boshara Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis SPEAKERS: William Elliott Center on Assets, Education, and Inclusion at University of Michigan Colleen Quint Alfond Scholarship Foundation Michael Sherraden Center for Social Development at Washington University in St. Louis

29 CSA Research March 22, 2018 Dr. William Elliott, Professor, Director of the Center on Assets, Education, and Inclusion (AEDI)

30 CSA Effects on the Opportunity Pipeline Four stages of what may be called the opportunity pipeline: (1) early childhood; (2) school years (3) college years (4) post-college years. Policies focusing on all four stages are crucial to the construction of a solid ladder of equitable upward mobility in the robot age. Areas where CSAs have shown promise at influencing the opportunity pipeline: Early Childhood Social Emotional Development Parental Educational Expectations School Years Children s Educational Expectations Reading & Math Achievement College Years Improved enrollment/graduation Post-College Years Asset ownership Financial inclusion

31 What s Next Asset Effects Math/Reading - Are there different effects by level of engagement with account? Determining if it is families contributing or something about the type of people who contribute. We need more primary data collection/survey research Are effects the same for high-income and low-income families Are effects different where a college-going culture develops Developing quantitative scales to measure college-saver identity Replication - We need to put survey instruments into a repository for other researchers and programs to use/standardization Many programs are adding other components, what are necessary, which can be scaled, how do we disentangle CSA effects from the other components Meta analysis need additional RCTs

32 Savings Outcomes Family savings rates: Between 8% to 30% for opt-out CSA programs Between 40% to 46% for opt-in CSA programs Low-Income Harold Alfdon College Challenge (Opt-in data) 26% of families with annual incomes less than $25,000, 38% of families with incomes $25,000 to $49,999, 51% of families with incomes $50,000 to $74,999, 68% of families with incomes $75,000 to $149,999, and 76% of families with incomes $150,000 or more had contributed least once to their account (O Brien et al., 2017). Promise Indiana (Opt-In data) Using the child s eligibility for free/reduced lunch as a proxy for household economic status, 31% of poor families contributed at least once to the account. K2C San Francisco (Opt-Out data) Findings from K2C indicate that 15% of students in high-poverty schools made at least one contribution, compared to 20% of students in low-poverty schools (Elliott et al., 2017).

33 What s Next Studying Savings Comparing opt-in and opt-out outcomes Comparing different initial deposit amounts Testing effects of match and incentives on savings outcomes Can rewards card programs increase saving rates and amount saved Better understanding of the predictors of saving Understanding how different components (initial deposit, match, and incentives) of CSA can exacerbate inequality or reduce it Studies on how much people can accumulate if they save X dollars per month, if initial deposit was X, etc. Studies on how much CSAs can reduce wealth inequality

34 Research Tips for Program Contact researcher early in designing a program Consider RCT/Roll out program in stages if possible Get consent from families to share data (savings and school) Get MOUs with schools and financial institutions for sharing data Collect basic financial and demographic information at enrollment or shortly after Use software package to track and collect data such as Vista Share or other

35 What to Look For Harrold Alfond College Challenge Survey Study Brilliant Babies (RCT) Promise Indiana Rewards Card Study (RCT) Lansing Michigan Rewards Card Study (RCT) Promise Indiana Scholarship Study

36 Child Development Accounts: Toward Lifelong Asset Building for All Research and Progress of a Policy Innovation Michael Sherraden, PhD Brown Distinguished University Professor Director, Center for Social Development Washington University in St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, March 2018

37 Child Development Accounts: Starting Asset Building Early in Life

38 CDAs as Beginning of a Fully Inclusive and Lifelong Policy The primary goal is to use policy to enable everyone to build assets. Today, policy builds assets for the non-poor. Why not bring everyone in?

39 Part One Research and Lessons on CDA Policy Design

40 Experimental Policy Research Can a large, sustainable policy be put in place? Testing a scalable policy model

41 SEED OK is a Test in a Full Population SEED OK is a test in a full population, without selection uncommon in social research. SEED OK is a rigorous test of a policy structure. Not just a test of individual behaviors. (Why? Because much of saving and asset building is structured and subsidized, as in retirement plans.) Results can inform inclusive asset building policy. (Sherraden, 1991, 2014)

42 SEED OK Research Design First universal model of CDAs in U.S. Integrated into an existing policy (sustainable) Begun in 2007, with random sample of newborns Oversamples of African Americans, Latinos, and American Indians Random assignment to treatment group (n=1,358) and control group (n=1,346) Rigorous study design to test causal impacts Results generalize to the full population

43 SEED OK CDA and 529 Plans Building CDAs on a centralized 529 savings plan: Coordination of state agencies Automatic account opening Subsidies and incentives Efficiencies of scale, low costs Inclusion of small- and large-balance accounts Investment options and investment returns (Clancy, Orszag & Sherraden, 2004)

44 Evidence-Based CDA Design Features (Sherraden, Clancy, Beverly, 2018) Universal eligibility Automatic enrollment At-birth start Automatic initial deposit Automatic progressive subsidy Centralized savings plan Investment growth potential Targeted investment options Restricted withdrawals Means-tested public benefit exclusion

45 Policy Lesson: Universal Participation Without universal participation (full inclusion), those left out will be disproportionately the most disadvantaged children. Universal participation requires a policy system to bring everyone in. (Beverly, Kim, Sherraden, Nam, & Clancy, Children and Youth Services Review, 2015)

46 Policy Lesson: Full Inclusion Requires Automatic Opening of Accounts Full inclusion is not possible without automatic account opening and initial deposits. (Sherraden, et al., Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research, 2015)

47 Policy Lesson: Early Funding of CDAs If CDAs are funded early with a sizable deposit, children may accumulate meaningful levels of assets over time, even if families do not contribute. (Clancy, Beverly, Huang, & Sherraden, Social Service Review, 2018)

48 Policy Lesson: Limited Potential of Match A savings match has limited potential to incentivize saving among those who most need asset accumulation. Meaningful automatic deposits will be more effective. (Clancy, Beverly, Huang, & Sherraden, Social Service Review, 2018)

49 Policy Lesson: Wealth Accumulation In SEED OK, 1/3 of asset accumulation is due to investment growth. The $1,000 initial deposit increased by 70% in 11 years (despite financial crisis of ). (Clancy, Beverly, Huang, & Sherraden, Social Service Review, 2018)

50 Policy Lesson: CDAs Are Not All About Saving Behavior Savings behavior matters, but asset building initiatives that rely mostly on individual behavior will strongly favor advantaged children. (Beverly, Kim, Sherraden, Nam, & Clancy, Children and Youth Services Review, 2015)

51 Priorities for CDA Research: Policy Design Questions Is every child included? (if not, specify) Is funding progressive? (how so, how much?) Are CDAs opened as early in life as possible? (at birth is preferable) Are assets accumulating? (via initial deposit or other subsidies? investment return? total assets?)

52 Policy Platform Questions: Toward Sustainability and Growth Are CDA accounts on a sustainable platform, with long-term commitment, efficiency, and low fees? Is there a way to cross-subsidize to support low value accounts? (making them sustainable) What is the evidence of growth of the platform to reach larger populations? What is the evidence of replication elsewhere? In sum, on what platform(s) are CDAs being built as a large-scale and long-term policy?

53 Not Policy vs. Community: Let Us Avoid a False Debate A focus on a sustainable CDA policy platform is in no way at odds with a focus on local engagement and positive contributions. Both of these are highly desirable indeed, both are necessary and we have excellent examples of both occurring together, e.g., in Maine and Indiana.

54 Part Two Research and Lessons on CDA Outcomes for Children and Families

55 Testing for Impacts: Financial and Social Development Outcomes Research on child and family outcomes is fundamental in developing a rationale for the CDA policy. Financial outcomes are an essential focus especially account holding and asset accumulation. Social development outcomes can be equally as important, and sometimes are more convincing to policy makers.

56 CDA Account Holding and Total Assets in SEED OK (as of 2015) Treatment n=1358 Control n=1346 Percentage with any OK 529 account** 99.9% 3.3% Average $ across all OK 529 accounts** $1,851 $323 Earnings in OK 529 accounts** $569 $109 ** p<.01

57 Positive Asset Outcomes for Disadvantaged Children The CDA by design virtually eliminates differences by socioeconomic status (both class and race) in ownership of 529 accounts and assets. Automatic features of the CDA have greater positive effects among disadvantaged children. (Beverly et al., CYSR 2015; Nam et al., JPAM 2013; Wikoff et al., Social Science Research 2015)

58 More than Money: CDAs Lead to Positive Social Development Outcomes Theoretical underpinnings of asset-based policy include non-financial outcomes. For the SEED OK experiment, hypotheses include greater future orientation and improved child development. (Sherraden, 1991; Sherraden and Clancy, 2005)

59 Impact of SEED OK on Maternal Depressive Symptoms The CDA reduces maternal depressive symptoms. This pattern holds in multivariate analysis and for several disadvantaged subgroups. (Huang, Sherraden & Purnell, Social Science & Medicine 2014)

60 Impact of SEED OK on Child Social-Emotional Development In SEED OK, disadvantaged children have better social-emotional development in treatment group, regardless of whether parents have saved. The effect of the SEED OK CDA is similar in size (.20 to.25) to an estimate of the effect of the Head Start program on early social-emotional development. (Huang, Sherraden, Kim & Clancy, JAMA Pediatrics, 2014)

61 Looking Ahead: Key CDA Impact Questions We have learned a lot about CDA impacts, but key questions remain, including: What is the CDA impact on educational engagement and success? What is the impact on criminal justice involvement? What is the impact on health and mental health? Longer term, what are the impacts on income, family formation, home ownership, and civic engagement?

62 Part Three Beyond the USA: CDAs in Other Countries

63 Policy Diffusion: International Examples of CDAs Singapore s Baby Bonus and CDAs since 2000 United Kingdom s Child Trust Fund, CDAs in Uganda with HIV Orphans Korea s Child Development Accounts CDAs in several U.S. states and cities Universal CDAs began in Israel in January 2017 Policy tests in Taiwan, Hong Kong, and mainland China CDA Policy meetings in Azerbaijan in Dec 2017

64 President in Ghana Has Called for Opening Accounts for Everyone

65 CDA Policy Discussion in Azerbaijan

66 International Symposium on CDAs Singapore, December 2017

67 Long-term Goal: Asset Building for Every Child on the Planet If evidence remains positive, the guiding vision is, some day, a CDA for every child on the planet... During the 21 st century, social policies are likely to become more global... CDAs could be among the first.

68 Part Four The Large Policy Vision: Lifelong Asset Building for Everyone

69 CDA as Beginning of Large Social Innovation: Asset Building for All CDA policy innovation is underway: Defined and demonstrated Doable and effective Efficient and sustainable Positive changes among participants Broad political support... Continue to scale up, aim for national CDAs and lifelong asset building.

70 Vision of Inclusive Asset-Based Policy Policy concept is: Universal: everyone building assets Progressive: greater subsidies for the poor Lifelong: begin as early as birth Key design features: Automatic and easily delivered, like water to homes: Can asset building become a public good? For social development, especially education, experience, training, homes, enterprise (Sherraden, 1991, 2014)

71 Key Steps to Large-Scale Innovation in Asset Building Policy 1. View all defined contribution policies as a single policy system. 2. Note who is included and who is not, then bring everyone in. 3. Begin at birth. 4. Use public subsidies to build assets for the whole population.

72 Toward Lifelong Asset Building for All Native American participant in the American Dream Demonstration, with house purchased with her IDA funds.

73 Research Priorities to Move the Field Forward A Practioner s Perspective Colleen J. Quint President & CEO Alfond Scholarship Foundation

74 A Practitioner s View If Michael s view is of the long term And Willie is speaking to the intermediate I m focusing on the here and now The Harold Alfond College Challenge birth into 529 omnibus account Universal, automatic, statewide $40 million invested for 80,000 Maine children

75 Question #1 What do we know about influence/effects of CSA design features, including research on program design features that appear to influence outputs/outcomes?

76 Universal Eligibility Automatic Enrollment At-Birth Start Automatic Initial Deposit Automatic Progressive Subsidy Centralized Savings Plan Investment Growth Potential Targeted Investment Options Restricted Withdrawals Means-Tested Public Benefit Exclusion 10 Design Features Taking Child Development Accounts to Scale: 10 Key Policy Design Elements by Sherraden, Clancy and Beverly (2018)

77 Design the College Challenge What have we learned and strategically HACC Started as opt-in moved to universal Had about a 40% take-rate when opt-in Knew wanted 529/investment from outset $500 seed at birth for personal + strategic reasons Key Program elements (part of our design ) Continue to encourage Family Savings Marry the Message with the Money Parents response to seeing child s name on Alfond Grant Update that shows current value of the $500 invested for their child Additional information and resources via websites Increased focus Engagement (especially with a low-touch model)

78 Board focus on Family Savings Happy with reach of program, but would like to see more open/contribute Family Savings is a major area of focus, especially for the Board What do we know? 44.7% of all families have opened NextGen accounts (35,410 accounts) 35.9% of opt-in and 25.1% universal families have opened accounts 54% of all families with accounts have made contributions 42% of opt-in families and 59% of universal families with accounts have made contributions Family contributions: $62,184,097 Foundation contributions $45,164,626

79 What does the research tell us about savings? Research looking at other, similar CSA programs shows contribution rates of between 8 30% in universal models and 40-46% for opt-in programs In the Harold Alfond College Challenge, 57% of those [opt-in families] who opened a NextGen College Investing Plan account have household incomes less than $75,000. For context, remember that in 2010, close to half (47%) of families with a 529 account reported annual incomes over $150,000 (College Board, 2015). Moreover, while the percentage of HACC families making contributions increases with income level, a fairly high percentage of low-income families, relative to national 529 participation, are making contributions in CSAs. Among HACC [opt-in] families 26% of families with annual incomes less than $25,000 38% of families with incomes $25,000 to $49,999 51% of families with incomes $50,000 to $74,999 68% of families with incomes $75,000 to $149,999, and 76% of families with incomes $150,000 or more made at least one contribution to their account. From a forthcoming paper Lessons Learned from Saving in Children s Savings Account Programs: Rewards Cards and Facilitating Saving among Low-Income Families by Dr. William Elliott

80 What else do we want and need to know about our Progress? Would also like to know if we are on track! Oldest kids in 3 rd and 4 th grade Are they more likely to graduate and continue on to college?! Ultimate measure of success: they use the Alfond Grant Currently 61% of Maine HS seniors continue their education the following fall What is an appropriate goal 70%, 75%, 80%? What uptick should we see/do we need to see along the way to know we are on track? Boost in attendance? Boost in reading/math scores? Decrease in dropout rate? Is it appropriate for us to expect these changes?!?!

81 And what do we need to know about Operations? Paying attention to operational costs! Technology to decrease resources needed for administration (efficiency, e-delivery, etc) What s most effective at boosting open and response rates for e- communications? What do we know about the most effective ways to incentivize families to update contact information?

82 Question #2 What are the gaps in knowledge about this topic?

83 Knowledge Gaps How do we know if we are on track What are those interim measures and what outcomes should we expect to see if we are, in fact, making a difference? What is reasonable for us to expect to see?! How can we most effectively encourage Family Engagement (opening/ contributing as well as other behaviors to support collegebound identity)? We track outcomes but do we track inputs? If we need parents to sign a form, what are the most effective strategies at getting them to sign the form?! How can we decrease costs to be sustainable?

84 Question #3 What are our priorities for additional research?

85 Research Priorities Interim Measures Defining success (and managing expectations) Family engagement What s most effective? How can technology boost outcomes? Does size of seed matter How much is enough to support identity-based motivation, family savings, student academic outcomes? Is there a magic combination of size of seed + family engagement that brings better outcomes? What design features (or combination of features) most impact outcomes?

86 Lunch (45 mins) 12:15-1:00pm

87 Research Priorities from the Policymaker and Funder Perspective MODERATOR: Carl Rist Prosperity Now SPEAKERS: Joe Antolín Asset Funders Network Lisa Churchville Rhode Island Treasurer s Office José Cisneros Treasurer of the City and County of San Francisco

88 Program Models K2C & CollegeBoundbaby Kindergarten to College (San Francisco) CollegeBoundbaby (Rhode Island) Program Manager SF Office of Financial Empowerment, SF Treasurer s Office State of Rhode Island Office of the General Treasurer, Seth Magaziner Eligible Population Enrollment Account Vehicle Accounts opened for all kindergarteners in SF public schools, plus new students in grades 1-6 Automatic (Opt-out) Savings account Pooled savings acct. with Citi, owned by City/County of SF, with subaccounts for each child All children born to a mother who is a resident of the state of Rhode Island; all children adopted by parents who are residents of the state Opt-in on hospital birth worksheet or an enrollment form within one year of birth/adoption Grant deposited into omnibus CollegeBound Saver 529 account held in the plan for the cohort (calendar year of birth/adoption) and invested in the appropriate glidepath Initial Deposit $50 $100 Additional Incentives Save Now: $10 for 1st deposit made in 60 days of account opening Save Regularly: $10 any month at least $10 saved up to 6x in 1st yr. Online registration: $20 for first-time online account registration to view balance Mother s Day: Incentive $50 for opening a CollegeBound account VistaShare Registration: $50 for opening a CollegeBound account and registering with VistaShare to have accounts linked Investigating incentives for educational milestone

89 Small Group Discussion: Research Priorities GROUP 1: LONG-TERM IMPACT FACILITATORS (CONNOLLY CENTER): Monica Copeland Prosperity Now Amanda Feinstein Oakland Promise GROUP 2: INTERIM PROGRESS FACILITATORS (NEW ENGLAND ROOM): Amanda Jones-Layman Promise Indiana Patrick Hain National League of Cities GROUP 3: DESIGN FEATURES FACILITATORS (NEW ENGLAND ROOM): Nick Maynard Commonwealth Gosia Tomaszewska Boston Saves

90 Report Out and Next Steps Facilitated by Frank DeGiovanni Independent Consultant, Formerly of the Ford Foundation

91 Day One Closing Remarks Charlie Desmond Inversant