(2006) for analysis that shows that the treatment and control groups were observably statistically
similar at the time of the baseline.
Next, we trained a team of marketers hired by the partnering bank to go to the homes and/or
businesses of the clients in the commitment-treatment group, to stress the importance of savings
to them - a process which included eliciting the clients’ motivations for savings and emphasizing
to the client that even small amounts of saving make a difference - and then to offer them the
SEED product. We were concerned, however, that this special (and unusual) face-to-face visit
might in and of itself inspire higher savings. To address this concern, we created a second
treatment, the “marketing” treatment. We used the same exact script for both the commitment-
treatment group and the marketing-treatment group, up to the point when the client was offered
the SEED savings account. For instance, members of both groups were asked to set specific
savings goals for themselves, write those savings goals into a specific “encouragement” savings
certificate, and talk with the marketers about how to reach those goals. However, members of the
marketing-treatment group were neither offered nor allowed to open the SEED account. Bank
staff were trained to refuse SEED accounts to members of the marketing-treatment and control
groups, and to offer a “lottery” explanation: clients were chosen at random through a lottery for a
special trial period of the product, after which time it would be available for all bank clients.
Green Bank reported that this happened on fewer than ten occurrences.10
After one year, we conducted a follow-up survey on each of the participants. The tracking
rate was high: 92% of those in the baseline were tracked and agreed to a second survey. Those in
the treatment group were equally likely to complete a follow-up survey as those in the marketing
or control group. This survey contained three sections: (1) inventory of assets, in order to
measure whether the impact on savings represented a net increase in savings or merely a crowd-
10In only one instance an individual in the control group opened a SEED account. This individual is a
family member of the owners of the bank and hence was erroneously included in the sample frame. Due to
the family relationship, the individual was dropped from all analysis.