Uncovering Barriers to Participation in Family Self-Sufficiency and Financial Stability and Savings Programs

Learn more about how we used barrier analysis to understand what prevents more people from enrolling in and completing Family Self-Sufficiency and Financial Stability and Savings programs.

September 14, 2026

The Setting

An east-coast asset-building nonprofit that runs equity-building coaching programs to end asset poverty and narrow the racial and gender gap was seeking insight to improve participation rates.

While their Family Self-Sufficiency and Financial Stability and Savings Programs were already beating the national average participation rates, the organization wanted to do better, and needed help understanding why more people didn’t participate.

This non-profit engaged a leading creative agency to develop strategic messaging to help encourage participation. That agency turned to Market Street to understand what prevents more people from enrolling and completing the programs. The goal was to use this information to develop messaging that would resonate with people at various stages of program engagement.

Our Approach

Given the clients’ goals, MSR utilized a modified version of our Barrier Analysis, a methodology that excels at identifying why people don’t act. In this particular study, we explored differences in attitudes, motivators, or barriers between people who participate in and complete the programs and those who don’t.

To accomplish this, MSR conducted a series of in-depth interviews followed by a large-scale study of adults who had experiences with housing authorities in Boston, Cambridge, and Philadelphia who partner with the nonprofit.

Throughout the research, questions focused on understanding specific behavioral determinants, enabling a comparison of those determinants by group during analysis.

 Findings were synthesized across three distinct audience segments: 

  • Starters: Those who had heard of the program, started enrollment, or enrolled but did not start coaching sessions (“non doers”) 

  • Participants: Those who started coaching sessions but did not complete the program (“partial-doers”) 

  • Completers: Those who completed the coaching program in full (“doers”) 

Key Findings

The barrier analysis revealed 3 key barriers to program initiation and completion:  

  • Lack of understanding: Many respondents did not understand the programs very well, which significantly decreased engagement. Lack of understanding of the programs persisted throughout respondent experiences and appears to be the foundational barrier to initiation and completion.   
     
  • Action efficacy: Not only did respondents need a clearer understanding of the programs and their benefits, but they also needed reasons to believe that the programs would deliver on what they promised. And they needed to believe that they were missing out on program benefits if they failed to participate.  
     
  • Self-efficacy: Once they understood and believed in the programs, respondents needed to have confidence in their ability to complete them.  The “starters” or “non-doers” lacked confidence in their ability to keep up with program requirements or to reach their financial goals soon. 

Impact

In the end, lack of understanding was the biggest barrier to program engagement, and it magnified other barriers, including those related to action efficacy and self-efficacy. When individuals did not understand the program very well, they may not have seen the full value in participating and had less confidence in their ability to complete the program.  

This also stands in the way of individuals recommending the programs to their friends and family. Our research showed that hearing about the positive experiences of others would be an impactful reason to believe in the effectiveness of the programs. But, among the individuals who said they were not likely to recommend the programs, over half shared they would be more likely to recommend the program if they had more information on how it works and what it looks like to participate. 

Given this reality, our recommendation was to develop unified, branded messaging to help amplify and clarify the programs to participants. This meant making the requirements clear and easy to understand; clearly explaining the value of the programs (in addition to savings); giving respondents reasons to believe, especially through firsthand testimonials, that the programs would deliver on its claims; and encouraging and supporting respondents so they believe in their own ability to complete to program, starting at the inquiring/enrolling stage.  


At Market Street Research, we support clients through the process of patient journey mapping. If you’re interested in learning more about your patient population and their unmet needs, contact us for a consultation today.

Recent Posts

Conference Season 2026

September 8, 2026

Over the last six months, our team has been busy presenting and promoting our refined Barrier Analysis methodology.

Curing Patients is Not Enough

August 20, 2026

Simply doing the work of curing a patient is not enough to win their admiration, let alone their loyalty. And high-quality care means something very different to patients than it does to hospital leadership. Read this insight to learn how to deliver quality care and make an impact.

What’s In a Name?

July 30, 2026

Based on our decades of experience helping clients make informed naming decisions, we've identified 6 key factors to keep in mind when considering a new name. Read this insight to learn more.

Consumer Priorities in the Age of Digital Banking

July 6, 2026

Over the last few years, Market Street Research has conducted a dozen different financial studies with consumers to pinpoint needs and perspectives around banking. Learn more about what we've found in this insight.

Partner With Us.

Want to feel good about your research?
Reach out today.

Learn More