Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uarp20

Financial Literacy Programming in Higher

Education: What’s There and What’s Missing

Terron Phillips & Christine Kiracofe

To cite this article: Terron Phillips & Christine Kiracofe (2023) Financial Literacy Programming
in Higher Education: What’s There and What’s Missing, Journal of Student Affairs Research and
Practice, 60:5, 702-715, DOI: 10.1080/19496591.2022.2074796

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/19496591.2022.2074796

Published online: 18 Jul 2022.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 406

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=uarp20
Phillips, T., & Kiracofe, C. (2023).
Financial Literacy Programming in Higher Education: What’s There and What’s Missing.
Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 60(5), 702–715.
ISSN: 1949-6591 (print)/1949-6605 (online)

Innovation in Practice Feature

Financial Literacy Programming in Higher

Education: What’s There and What’s
Missing
Terron Phillips , Purdue University
Christine Kiracofe , Purdue University

College student retention theorists have suggested that improving stu­

dents’ financial literacy may improve student retention and completion
rates. Before this important line of inquiry can be thoroughly examined, it
is first important to understand if and how major state universities in the
United States currently provide students with financial literacy education.
This qualitative study investigates the existence, content, delivery mod­
alities, and participation timing of financial literacy programs at major
state institutions throughout the United States.

The 2008 economic recession was characterized, in part, by poor, high-risk financial
investment decisions made by individuals, banks, and large corporations (Hemmelgarn &
Nicodeme, 2010; Luchtenberg & Vu, 2015). An ideological shift in responsibility for financial
welfare away from government regulation to individual and privatized regulation in the 1980s
empowered many U.S. American banks, private and corporate investors, and hopeful home­
owners to make major financial decisions. However, the absence of adequate financial counseling
and/or general financial literacy left many U.S. Americans susceptible to making uninformed and
haphazard financial decisions. Some financial scholars argue that much of the poor decision-
making which contributed to the economic collapse in the late 2000s resulted from an overall
insufficiently informed citizenry as related to financial investing and handling (Brau et al., 2019;
Harnisch, 2010; Hayes, 2012). In the thick of the 2008 recession, policymakers at the federal
level also recognized notable gaps in financial literacy and knowledge among everyday U.S.
Americans and, in response, took steps to expand financial educational opportunities in public
schools. While the majority of the financial literacy programs that emerged from this legislative
action resided in P–12 classrooms, U.S. American college and university leaders also understood
the importance of educating incoming, current, and graduating college students about financial
planning, handling, and security. As a result, colleges and universities began embedding financial
literacy programming in admissions processes, curricula, and/or student life/student success
programming.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Terron Phillips, 2807 Wyndham Way, West
Lafayette, IN 47906, USA. E-mail: phill350@purdue.edu

702doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/19496591.2022.2074796 http://journals.naspa.org/jsarp © 2022 NASPA JSARP 2023, 60(5)

 Financial Literacy in Higher Education

Financial literacy programs at the higher education level vary in content, delivery
modalities, and participation timing at institutions across the nation (Coalition of Higher
Education Assistance Organization Financial Literacy Task Force, 2014). In an era of
growing decentralization in higher education, limited policy share between colleges and
universities and minimal standardization in program design of any kind sometimes causes
institutions to “wing it” when developing new programs (St. John et al., 2018). This is
especially true in an area where theory development is minimal, like financial literacy. Surely,
designing and scaling policy or programming of any type according to institutional identity
(institution type, size, etc.) and resources is an effective method to increase the possibility of
program efficiency and success (Cooley, 2015). However, the terms “efficiency” and “success”
are, if at all, loosely defined when it comes to financial literacy programming in higher
education simply due to a lack of clearly defined, agreed-upon outcomes nationwide. It is
difficult to design a program of any kind and determine whether that program is effective
without agreed-upon outcomes and clear definitions of success (Banta & Palomba, 2015).
The literature on financial literacy in higher education lacks a complete understanding of
what colleges and universities in the country are currently doing to grow the financial
knowledge of their students in order to affect their attitudes toward finances and influence
their financial behaviors (Aydin & Selcuk, 2019). Only through knowing what programs
currently exist can higher education institutions (HEIs) then begin to develop a general
understanding of common practices in financial literacy programming and best determine
what could or should be considered as a successful financial literacy program. It is necessary
to approach financial literacy in higher education from the positivist lens and document
practices that “hold across different venues” and, once defined, identify their intended
individual outcomes (Lin, 1998). Once practices have been sufficiently explored, research
on the topic can then pivot toward more constructivist and critical approaches that seek to
understand how current financial literacy programs might be contextualized within and
between diverse perspectives and adjusted accordingly (Denzin, 2016; Lin, 1998).
Simply put, before this field can move forward it is first important to understand how
universities are currently operationalizing financial literacy education. This study attempts to
initiate conversations about financial literacy program design, implementation, and success in
higher education by first identifying the general content, delivery modalities, and types of
undergraduate student participation in financial literacy programs at some of the largest state
HEIs in the United States. This article addresses the following research questions: (a) What are
the commonalities and differences of undergraduate financial literacy programs offered at U.S.
American HEIs; and (b) how do financial literacy program leaders/representatives perceive the
importance of financial education for undergraduates?
Aydin and Selcuk’s (2019) framework—which describes financial literacy as an inter­
relationship between financial knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors—was applied to this study
and used to establish a working definition for “financial literacy” in a higher education
context. The literature describes how an unstable national economic climate in 2008 sparked
societal interest in improving financial literacy within the general population and the role of
U.S. American HEIs in that effort. This article concludes with a summary of the findings,
recommendations that can be applied immediately to further capitalize on financial literacy
programming in higher education, and implications for future research related to financial
literacy programming for diverse student populations.

JSARP 2023, 60(5) © 2022 NASPA http://journals.naspa.org/jsarp doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/19496591.2022.2074796 703

Financial Literacy in Higher Education

Literature Review
The literature on financial literacy programming in higher education is fairly limited but
growing. In fact, only recently have discussions around financial literacy programming on college
campuses become more prevalent. Forces like the economic crisis of 2008 as well as the ongoing
student debt crisis have refocused scholarly researchers and financial experts toward the devel­
opment of more attainable national knowledge related to financial literacy (Harnisch, 2010;
Hayes, 2012). Since the great recession of 2008, legislative measures have been taken to address
deficits in financial literacy within U.S. American society.
In 2008, the Financial Literacy Improvement Act (FLIA) was introduced as an amendment
to both the Elementary and Secondary Education and Higher Education Acts of 1965
(“Financial Literacy Improvement Act,” 2008). In response to the 2008 recession, the FLIA
offered federal grants to incentivize financial literacy programs in elementary, secondary, and
higher education settings. Many believed that doing so would lead to a more financially literate
general population, helping speed up economic recovery and proactively preventing consumer
mistakes which led to the crash in the first place (Harnisch, 2010; Hayes, 2012). However, the
development of programming centered around financial and economic education has predomi­
nantly focused on schooling at the elementary and secondary levels. Harnisch (2010) expressed
concerns about this approach, as the majority of primary and secondary students are not
financially independent or making serious, long-term financial decisions, negatively impacting
their retention and application of the information. Harnisch believed that state colleges and
universities have a unique opportunity to educate students on topics related to paying for college
and managing day-to-day and long-term finances.
Subsequent research supports Harnisch’s assertion that HEIs ought to provide financial education
opportunities to college students simply for the sake of their continued financial wellness and quality of
life (Popovich et al., 2020).Popovich and colleagues found that financial problems contribute to student
stress, lower participation in activities, post-graduation debt concerns, depression, anxiety, low aca­
demic performance, poor health, and poor degree persistence (Popovich et al., 2020). Researchers have
also found that first-year students experience higher levels of finance-related stress than sophomores
and above. Perceived net worth and higher amounts of student loan debt were also found to impact
finance-related stress levels of students (Britt et al., 2015). Britt et al. (2015) also found that financial
counseling of college-age students had a positive effect on improved subjective financial knowledge but
offered only limited improvements to objective financial knowledge.
Popovich et al. (2020) found that financial literacy programs improved financial knowledge of
younger community college students but did not have similar effects on financial attitudes. In
addressing their findings related to students’ attitudes toward their finances, Popovich et al.
surmised that attitudes toward finances change over a longer period of time, rather than immedi­
ately. During the Popovich et al. study, financial literacy programming was delivered to community
college students in 13 virtual modules over 4-day intervals, leaving little time for students to fully
digest the material for the sake of applying it toward their overall attitudes toward finances.
However, over time students’ attitudes toward their own finances improved as the material they
learned was incrementally applied to their day-to-day and “big picture” financial handlings.
As scholarship on financial literacy in higher education has grown, more recommenda­
tions for how to expand financial literacy options at the higher education level have developed.
In a 2014 financial literacy awareness white paper, the Coalition of Higher Education
Assistance Organizations (COHEAO) summarized contemporary perils of financial aid and

704doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/19496591.2022.2074796 http://journals.naspa.org/jsarp © 2022 NASPA JSARP 2023, 60(5)

 Financial Literacy in Higher Education

literacy in higher education and outlined effective financial literacy program delivery methods
including interactive online modules, classroom- based education, game-based education,
event-based education, and individual counseling (COHEO Financial Literacy Task Force,
2014). In 2018, the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act
(ERCA) amended the FLIA and directed the Financial Literacy and Education Commission
(FLEC) to establish best practices for institutions of higher education regarding methods of
teaching financial literacy and providing information to assist students with borrowing
decisions (Flaherty, 2019; U.S. Financial Literacy and Education Commission, 2019). In
response to the ERCA and the growing literature on the importance of financial literacy in
higher education, the FLEC outlined five best practice recommendations for delivery of
financial literacy programming in the higher education setting:

(1) provide clear, timely, and customized information to inform student borrowing; (2) effectively
engage students in financial literacy and education; (3) target different student populations by use of
national, institutional, and individual data; (4) communicate the importance of graduation and major
on repayment of student loans; and (5) prepare students to meet financial obligations upon gradua­
tion (U.S. Financial Literacy and Education Commission, 2019, p. 12.)

For the first recommendation—provide clear, timely, and customized information to inform
student borrowing—the FLEC mainly focused on institutional practices for educating students
about the financial aid awarding and packaging process, as well as how institutions should com­
municate financial aid packages to students and their families. The FLEC recommendations
included: (a) “presenting an itemized and sub-total cost of attendance” (i.e. breaking down the
“sticker price” of attendance before any aid is applied); (b) “differentiating aid offers by type” (i.e.
scholarship, grant, or loan); (c) “highlighting critical details and distinctions by aid type” (i.e.
explaining the differences between scholarships, grants, and loans); (d) “calculating the cost after
grants and scholarships are applied;” (e) “omitting Parent plus loans from the student’s loan
package;” and (f) “providing actionable next steps” (i.e. how to accept/deny a financial aid package,
signing a student loan promissory note, completing loan entrance counseling, and paying the
semester bill; U.S. Financial Literacy and Education Commission, 2019, pp. 14–15). The second
and third FLEC recommendations—effectively engaging students in financial literacy and educa­
tion and targeting different student populations through the use of national, institutional, and
individual data—focus on practices for enrolled students, encouraging HEIs to require that students
engage in effective financial literacy coursework or curricula. Additionally, the FLEC recommended
that the financial literacy courses offered be cognizant of students’ identities such as socioeconomic
status, age at enrollment (traditional or non-traditional), generational status (first generation or
continuing generation), and race (U.S. Financial Literacy and Education Commission, 2019). The
fourth and fifth FLEC recommendations—communicating the importance of graduation and
major on repayment of student loans and preparing students to meet financial obligations upon
graduation—focus on post-enrollment or post-graduation outcomes.
In line with recommendations made by the FLEC as well as the COHEAO, many HEIs
have moved toward offering some form of finance programming to enrolling and enrolled
students. However, few institutions mandate student participation aside from federally mandated
student loan counseling. Further, the content, timing, and delivery of financial literacy programs
in HEIs vary dramatically. Some institutions have even chosen to outsource their programs to
financial planning agencies and organizations (Popovich et al., 2020). In order to measure the
success of financial literacy programming in higher education, there must be a more complete

JSARP 2023, 60(5) © 2022 NASPA http://journals.naspa.org/jsarp doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/19496591.2022.2074796 705

Financial Literacy in Higher Education

understanding of what is offered, how it is offered, who it is offered to, and whether or not the
programming is achieving the intended outcomes.

Conceptual Framework
Assessing financial literacy programs in HEIs necessitates identification of a study- appro­
priate definition of the term “financial literacy” and its significance to higher education. Ahead of
the 2008 economic recession, government officials attuned to the market trends toward economic
collapse assisted in launching a nationwide financial literacy improvement program without first
agreeing on a collective definition of financial literacy (Remund, 2010). While general definitions
like Thapa and Nepal’s (2015) all-encompassing “[k]nowledge and skills relating to personal
financing” (p. 51) exist, additional more in-depth frameworks exist for defining, understanding,
and evaluating financial literacy. In an explicative study, Remund (2010) collected over one
hundred definitions of financial literacy, primarily from sources in the United States. In
a thematic analysis, Remund found that there are several conceptual and operational definitions
of financial literacy. Conceptual definitions deal primarily with “concrete terms” while opera­
tional definitions translate the concrete terms to “measurable criteria” (Remund, 2010, p. 279).
Conceptual definitions fall into five thematic categories: knowledge of financial concepts, ability
to communicate about financial concepts, aptitude in managing personal finances, skill in making
appropriate financial decisions, and confidence to plan effectively for future financial needs.
Operational definitions fall into four thematic categories: budgeting, saving, borrowing, and
investing (Remund, 2010).
Zait and Bertea (2014) echoed Remund’s categorical division of conceptual and operational
definitions of financial literacy and offer a further recommendation for systematically evaluating
an individual’s financial literacy using five dimensions: financial knowledge, financial commu­
nication ability, ability to use financial knowledge for decision making, financial behavior, and
financial confidence. Within each dimension, Zait and Bertea noted assessment should occur in
four financial areas: budgeting, savings, credits, and investments.
Aydin and Selcuk (2019) offered a definition and framework that can easily be applied to
higher education and serves as the conceptual framework for this study. By describing financial
literacy as the interrelationship between financial knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors, Aydin and
Selcuk acknowledged that financial knowledge influences individuals’ attitudes toward their
financial circumstances. Further, both knowledge and attitudes significantly impact an indivi­
dual’s financial behavior. The same principles can be applied to college students. A student’s
financial knowledge influences attitudes toward finances, and together, both impact college
students’ financial behaviors (i.e. timely tuition payments, college financial planning, etc.).
This framework allows the researchers to analyze survey respondents’ answers in the context of
potential impact on students’ financial learning, attitudes, and behaviors, potentially generating
clear and concise learning and behavioral outcomes that can be used to measure a program’s
effectiveness.

Method
Recruitment
Data about existing financial literacy programming was sought from higher education
administrators involved with financial literacy programs at the two largest nonprofit, four-year
colleges and/or universities in each of the 50 states (n = 99). These institutions were purposefully
selected due to similarities in academic and student life programming, organizational structure,

706doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/19496591.2022.2074796 http://journals.naspa.org/jsarp © 2022 NASPA JSARP 2023, 60(5)

 Financial Literacy in Higher Education

and institutional resources. The sample allowed the researchers to identify and compare pro­
grammatic commonalities and differences among peer institutions across a broad geographical
spectrum. Originally, the researchers included “senior management level” as a qualifier in the
search for participants’ position at their institution of employment, but due to ambiguity in roles
and management levels across institutions, this qualification was omitted. A program “represen­
tative” included: (a) anyone, at any level with an official job title associated with a financial
literacy or wellness program at the institution (i.e. financial wellness coach or director of financial
wellness programs); or (b) official job duties can reasonably be associated with financial support
and student wellness programming (e.g assistant director of financial aid, dean of students). The
resulting search criteria allowed researchers to survey individuals sufficiently familiar with
financial literacy programming at their HEIs so that accurate data about the programming
could be collected and compared.
The U.S News & World Report college search engine was used to compile a list of
institutions meeting the search criteria. The state of Wyoming is home to only one institution
that met the qualifications for this study. Thus, only one HEI from Wyoming was contacted for
participation in the study. Each of the 99 institutions’ official websites were searched using the
following terms: financial literacy, financial wellness, student success, student wellness, student
life, student resources, and dean of students. This search was conducted to best determine
university employees that would be best suited to address questions about any financial literacy
program utilized by their institution. Once appropriate individuals were identified via the search
criteria outlined above, the following information was collected for each program representative:
name, job title, position, home department/division, and e-mail address. Although the majority
of searches resulted in successfully locating an office or individual directly connected to an
institution-wide financial literacy program available to students, some searches resulted in either
being directed to an automated response system or to a representative in undergraduate admis­
sions, enrollment management, or the office of the dean of students. In such instances, follow-up
e-mails were sent to the direct e-mails of office representatives (i.e. admissions counselors) or the
official office e-mail addresses (i.e admissions@institution.edu) asking to be directed to an
institutional representative best positioned to respond to the survey.

Data Collection
Each participant was emailed an invitation to respond to a short, 10-minute survey created
using Qualtrics. The survey consisted of a “consent to participate” form as well as 6 questions and
1 sub-question pertaining to the existence, general content, delivery modalities, and measured
student participation of financial literacy programming offered at their institution (see Appendix
for survey questions).
Questions on the survey were a mix of “yes/no” (3 questions), unlimited selection—more
than 1 answer allowed—multiple choice (3 questions), and one open-ended, short answer sub-
question (1 question). Each “yes/no” question also offered either an option to select “I don’t
know” or “to an extent” and provide an explanation. A total of four reminder e-mails were sent to
the survey mailing list, yielding a 32% response rate (32/99).

Data Analysis
Responses to the survey were grouped according to the region in which each institution was
located, allowing for a regional analysis of responses in addition to a general population analysis.
Regional groupings, determined by geographic proximity of respondents’ institutions, were

JSARP 2023, 60(5) © 2022 NASPA http://journals.naspa.org/jsarp doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/19496591.2022.2074796 707

Financial Literacy in Higher Education

organized as follows: the Great Plains (Colorado, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota,
South Dakota, Oklahoma, Texas, and Wyoming); the Midwest (Illinois, Indiana, Iowa,
Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, and Wisconsin); the Northwest (Alaska, Idaho,
Oregon, Utah, and Washington); the Northeast (Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland,
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and
Vermont); the Southeast (Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia); and
the Southwest (Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada, and New Mexico). There was at least
one respondent from each geographical region with the exception of the southwest region of the
United States.
Each response to a “yes/no” question was tallied to determine how many respondents out of
32 selected “yes,” “no,” or “to an extent/I don’t know” (i.e. each question had the possibility of 32
total selections). Each response to an unlimited multiple-selection question was tallied to
determine how many respondents out of 32 selected each option (i.e. each option had
a possibility of 32 selections). Data collected from the open-ended, short answer sub-question
was analyzed using thematic coding, revealing 8 major categories of topics covered in the
financial literacy programs offered by respondents’ institutions.

Findings
The results of this study are best reported in three phases: (a) whether respondents’
institutions offer financial literacy programming and if respondents consider it to be valuable
to students; (b) whether students are required to engage in programming and, if so during which
stage of enrollment; and (c) the content and delivery modality of programming.

Existence and Value

Of the 32 institutional representatives that responded, all but two, 93.7% (n = 30), indicated
their institution offered some form of financial literacy programming (courses, seminars, pre­
sentations, counseling, in-person or online modules, etc.) to enrolled undergraduate students.
A representative from one (1) institution located in the Great Plains region of the country
indicated their institution did not offer any form of financial literacy programming. Another
representative (n = 1) located in the same region indicated they were not aware if their institution
offered any form of financial literacy programming.
When respondents were asked whether they believed there to be value in providing financial
literacy programming to students, 87.5% (n = 28) responded “yes.” While none of the respon­
dents answered “no” to this question, two (2) answered “to an extent” without any explanation,
and two (2) respondents chose not to answer the question. Interestingly, both representatives
from Great Plains institutions that did not answer “yes” to offering financial literacy program­
ming indicated they believed there is value in providing such programming to students.
Regionally disaggregated, the institutional representatives that believed there to be marginal
value (“to an extent”) to offering programming were located in the Midwest (n = 1) and the
Great Plains (n = 1). The representatives of the institutions that chose not to answer the question
were located in the Midwest (n = 1) and the Northeast (n = 1).

708doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/19496591.2022.2074796 http://journals.naspa.org/jsarp © 2022 NASPA JSARP 2023, 60(5)

 Financial Literacy in Higher Education

Requirements and Timing

When asked whether students are required to participate in any form of financial literacy
programming, responses varied. Only 15.6% (n = 5) of respondents indicated that students are
required to participate in financial literacy programming, while 40.6% indicated students are not
required to participate. 31.3% (n = 10) of respondents indicated that their institution requires
students to participate in financial literacy programming “to an extent,” either requiring some
form of first-year engagement (n = 5) or required participation for “special populations” accord­
ing to academic major, generational status, or scholarship program (n = 4). The remaining
institutional representatives (n = 4) chose not to answer the question. All regions except for the
Northeast and Northwest reported at least one (1) institution that required student participation
(Great Plains = 2; Midwest = 2; Southeast = 1), and all regions reported one or more institution­
(s) that did not require student participation (Great Plains = 2; Midwest = 3; Northeast = 3;
Northwest = 1; Southeast = 4).
Respondents were asked to answer an unlimited, multiple-selection question pertaining to
when students typically participate in financial literacy programming at their institution.
Respondents were asked to select all that apply from the following options: pre-enrollment,
first year, sophomore year, junior year, senior year, or other. Based on the responses, financial
literacy programming is mostly offered at the beginning and end of a student’s enrolled
experience, with 68.8% (n = 22) of respondents sharing that programming is offered during
a student’s first year and 62.5% (n = 20) sharing that programming is offered during a student’s
senior year. Other timing selections included 40.6% (n = 13) during pre-enrollment, 43.8%
(n = 14) during sophomore year, 37.5% (n = 12) during junior year, and 21.9% (n = 7) selected
“other.” The respondents that selected “other” listed “graduate” (n = 4) and “open enrollment”
(n = 2) as alternative periods of delivery. One (1) respondent indicated they did not know when
students typically engage in programming.

Content and Delivery Modalities

Respondents were asked to answer an unlimited, multiple-selection question pertaining to
the delivery modalities through which their institution’s financial literacy programming is
offered. Respondents were asked to select all that apply from the following options: 1-on-1
counseling sessions, group presentations, in-person courses/classroom format, virtual module(s)/
task(s), and other. Responses to this question were relatively balanced with 75% (n = 24) offering
1-on-1 counseling, 84.4% (n = 27) offering group presentations, 68.7% (n = 22) offering in-
person instruction in classroom format, and 62.5% (n = 20) offering programming through
virtual module(s)/task(s). Respondents that answered “other” (n = 4) described offering program­
ming through interactive financial events, social media or blogs, or classroom presentations upon
instructor’s request. One (1) institutional representative shared that their offerings were halted
due to the impact of the novel Corona virus.
Another unlimited, multiple-selection question asked respondents to select all options
provided that accurately described the general content of their institution’s financial literacy
programming. Respondents were asked to select all topics covered in their institution’s financial
literacy programming that apply from the following options.
FAFSA and other pre-college counseling, loan/debt repayment, information related to
wealth and income, retirement and employee benefits, and other. While the majority of respon­
dents reported that their institution focused their content on FAFSA and pre- college counseling
(71.9% [n = 23]) and loan/debt repayment (84.4% [n = 27]), some also focused content on wealth

JSARP 2023, 60(5) © 2022 NASPA http://journals.naspa.org/jsarp doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/19496591.2022.2074796 709

Financial Literacy in Higher Education

and income (56.2% [n = 18]) and retirement and employee benefits (40.6% [n = 13]).
Respondents that answered “other” (n = 10) listed a number of additional topics covered in
their institutions’ programs including: credit management/scores and reports; budgeting; salary
negotiation; identity theft prevention; car and home buying; studying abroad; eating on a budget;
preparing for graduation; and banking.

What Should Be Covered

As a sub-question to the previous question regarding whether respondents believed financial
literacy programming to be valuable to students, respondents were asked to share what content
they believed should be included in financial literacy programming. Through thematic coding, 8
major categories emerged from respondents’ answers. For the purposes of this study, to be
considered as a “major category,” more than 30% of respondents must have listed a topic related
to the theme/category. The 8 major categories that emerged were: (a) Budgeting; (b) Credit; (c)
Student Loans; (d) General Financial Planning; (e) Saving Money; (f) Debt; (g) Financial
Theory/Philosophy; and (h) Personal Loans.
The category labeled as “budgeting” included topics related to personal finance and creating
and using a budget. An overwhelming 84.4% (n = 27) of respondents listed topics that fit into the
“budgeting” category. Additionally, 68.7% (n = 22) listed topics that fit into the “credit” category;
these included topics related to building and protecting credit, credit counseling, credit scores,
and credit cards. Topics that fit into the “student loans” category were identified by 56.2%
(n = 18) of respondents, and topics that fit in into the “general financial planning” category
(paying for college, money during college, moving off campus) were listed by 40.6% (n = 13) of
respondents. Topics that fit into the “saving money” and “debt” categories were identified by
34.4% (n = 11) of respondents each. Topics that fit into the “personal loans” category (general
repayment and loan forgiveness, as well as understanding compound interest) were identified by
31.2% (n = 10) of respondents.
One interesting category that emerged from 34.4% (n = 11) of respondents’ answers included
topics that the researchers characterize as “financial theories and philosophies.” This category
included themes that addressed perception, understanding, and various ways (lenses, perhaps) to
conceptualize finances. Topics identified by respondents include, but are not limited to: habits
and philosophies of millionaires; student employment; time planning; importance of graduating;
“evaluating income and wages versus budgeting”; “income projection”; “renting v. buying
a house”; “financial impact of career/major choice”; and “communicating about money/diversity.”

Discussion
The great recession of 2008 underscored a societal need to improve financial literacy within
the general populous, and many government officials thought it appropriate to turn to primary,
secondary, and post-secondary educational settings to begin providing financial education ser­
vices (“Financial Literacy Improvement Act,” 2008; Hayes, 2012). Although most legislative
action incentivizing financial literacy programs was directed at K–12 educational programs,
financial literacy scholars believe that colleges and universities are uniquely positioned to be
most effective in improving widespread financial literacy. Scholars argue that the financial
knowledge attained through financial literacy programs is often more useful to college-aged
and older individuals. Even absent the 2008 recession, colleges and universities have become
increasingly aware of the impact financial wellness has on students’ wellbeing and success during
and post-enrollment (Braxton et al., 2007; Harnisch, 2010; Phillips & Lambert Snodgrass, 2021;

710doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/19496591.2022.2074796 http://journals.naspa.org/jsarp © 2022 NASPA JSARP 2023, 60(5)

 Financial Literacy in Higher Education

Popovich et al., 2020). A societal need to improve financial literacy as well as a need to improve
financial wellness of college students have placed HEIs near the center of financial literacy
progress in the last 20 years. In order to effectively expand financial literacy, continued assess­
ment and improvement of financial literacy programs delivered by HEIs is necessary. However,
to progress toward what can and should be, it is essential to first know what currently exists. The
findings from this study assist in advancing conversations around enhancing financial literacy
programs in higher education. Based on the findings, the authors offer two major observations
that could help establish a foundation for if and how financial literacy programs in HEIs are
designed, implemented, and assessed moving forward. The first finding that discussed in this
section is that financial literacy experts (survey respondents) believe that programming matters
and that content related to students’ finances during and post-college-enrollment is highly
valuable. The second observation acknowledges that the majority of HEI financial literacy
programs are offered to students on an optional basis. We suggest that financial literacy
opportunities should be extended to students on a more mandatory basis.
The vast majority of respondents believed that there is value in financial literacy program­
ming for students. Although respondents were not asked to explain their perceived value of
financial literacy programming, Aydin and Selcuk’s (2019) theory might help provide some
insight. Aydin and Seluck theorized that financial knowledge influences attitudes toward
finances, and both together impact financial behaviors. Based on this theory, it can be hypothe­
sized that increasing student financial literacy at HEIs might positively impact students’ financial
behavior both during and following enrollment. If future research confirms this hypothesis,
practitioners at institutions that offer financial literacy programming might expect students to
be more successful in navigating the often tumultuous currents that are financial aid processes,
student loan management, and tuition and fee payments toward degree completion. Studies have
linked students’ financial wellness to their likelihood of success, noting that the psychological
strain associated with poor financial wellness can be extremely distracting and captivate students’
intellectual bandwidth that might otherwise be expended in academic or social engagements on
campus (Britt et al., 2015; Popovich et al., 2020).
The value of financial literacy programs extends well beyond students’ college years. This
belief is affirmed by the content currently covered in most of the surveyed programs as well as the
content that respondents believe should be covered. Currently, many programs cover topics that
are most relevant to post-graduation such as loan/debt repayment (84.4% of programs), content
on wealth and income (56.2% of programs), and retirement and employee benefits (40.6% of
programs). Further, respondents expressed a general belief that financial education related to
budgeting, credit, general financial planning, and saving money should be topics covered by all
financial literacy programs.
It is clear that financial literacy professionals’ view of their work aligns with Aydin and
Selcuk’s (2019) theoretical interrelationship between financial knowledge, attitudes, and beha­
viors. The findings of this study support the notion that financial literacy is not only necessary for
success in student life, but life in general. This point is affirmed by the finding that many of the
programs in this study favor participation during students’ final years of enrollment—presumably
aiming to prepare students for their financial life through college and beyond. Additionally, the
category, “financial theory/philosophy” that emerged as a theme for what should be covered
further echoes this notion. Respondents appear to believe that financial literacy programming
should help students urther conceptualize their financial handlings, continuously, in a broader
societal arena and simultaneously from a personal interpretive lens.

JSARP 2023, 60(5) © 2022 NASPA http://journals.naspa.org/jsarp doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/19496591.2022.2074796 711

Financial Literacy in Higher Education

Higher education, since its origin, has been widely viewed as a vehicle for societal advancement
through the cultivation and proliferation of knowledge (Hendrickson et al., 2013). Concurrent with
and interconnected to this responsibility, colleges and universities also serve as transformational
powerhouses for young adults to develop skills and talents that will allow them to actively participate
in a democratic society (Hendrickson et al., 2013). Further, studies have shown that individuals with
higher levels of financial literacy and higher socioeconomic status are more likely to be happier and
active in society (Manstead, 2018; Stone et al., 2007). Applying Aydin and Selcuk’s (2019) theory,
educating college seniors on topics related to budgeting, credit, debt, and personal loans will likely
lead to improved post-graduate financial behaviors in each of these categories, thus maximizing
participation in society and leading to a more fulfilling life. An opportunity, then, to improve the
impact of financial literacy programming is to expand it to be a curricular or programmatic require­
ment. Over 70% of respondents in this study answered that there is either no required participation or
limited required participation for students. If the value of financial literacy programming is widely
agreed upon, as this study suggests, it would be valuable to ensure a majority of college students
participate in some form of financial literacy programming during their college years.

Conclusion
Higher education institutions adhere to a societal responsibility to prepare skilled and knowl­
edgeable citizens to participate in society; financial literacy is a major element of this preparation.
Similarly, legislative leaders believe that a more financially literate general populous is less vulnerable
to economic collapses the likes of 2008 (Harnisch, 2010; Hayes, 2012). The findings of this study
indicate that financial literacy programs are frequently offered on U.S. American college campuses
and are an invaluable resource to students, institutions and U.S. American society in improving
financial literacy. Further, programs vary in content, modality, and timing of student participation.
There are two areas of future research that could build upon the findings of this study.
Firstly, it would be valuable for researchers to look for any relationship between student financial
literacy and positive metrics associated with graduation rates, student well-being, etc. The
present study has confirmed that (a) financial literacy is occurring at many major state HEIs,
and that (b) professionals see significant value in the provision of financial literacy education to
students. Future research could confirm or reject professionals’ beliefs that financial literacy yields
significant benefits to college students and/or the institutions themselves.
Secondly, absent from the research on financial literacy programming in higher education is
an assessment of culturally responsive program content. The demographics of students attending
college in the United States today are not the same as when many financial literacy programming
was developed. Recent data shows traditionally minoritized student groups will soon make up
the majority of college-aged students (Gawe, 2018). As student demographics and needs change,
so must financial literacy programming by HEIs. This trend challenges higher education
practitioners at every level to consider how they can adjust their campuses to be more prepared
to serve a complexly diverse student body (Gawe, 2018). Future research should study financial
literacy programs’ ability to deliver and communicate content in a culturally responsive way that
allows for contextualization and application for students from multiple and/or intersecting
identities.

Disclosure Statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

712doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/19496591.2022.2074796 http://journals.naspa.org/jsarp © 2022 NASPA JSARP 2023, 60(5)

 Financial Literacy in Higher Education

ORCID
Terron Phillips http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8329-2832
Christine Kiracofe http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3811-0227

References
Aydin, A. E., & Selcuk, E. A. (2019). An investigation of financial literacy, money ethics and time preferences among college
students: A structural equation model. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 37(3), 880–900. https://doi.org/10.1108/
IJBM-05-2018-0120
Banta, T. W., & Palomba, C. A. (2015). Assessment essentials: Planning, implementing, and improving assessment in higher
education (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Brau, J. C., Holmes, A. L., & Israelsen, C. L. (2019). Financial literacy among college students: An empirical analysis. Journal
of Financial Education, 45(2), 179–205. https://www.jstor.org/stable/486328
Braxton, J. M., Brier, E. M., & Steele, S. L. (2007). Shaping retention from research to practice. Journal of College Student
Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 9(3), 377–399. https://doi.org/10.2190/CS.9.3.g
Britt, S. L., Canale, A., Fernatt, F., Stutz, K., & Tibbetts, R. (2015). Financial stress and financial counseling: Helping college
students. Journal of Financial Counseling and Planning, 26(2), 172–186. https://doi.org/10.1891/1052-3073.26.2.172
Coalition of Higher Education Assistance Organization Financial Literacy Task Force. (2014). COHEAO financial literacy
awareness white paper: Financial literacy in higher education: The most successful models and methods for gaining
traction. Coalition of Higher Education Assistance Organizations. http://www.coheao.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/
03/2014-COHEAO-Financial-Literacy-Whitepaper.pdf
Cooley, A. (2015). Funding U.S. higher education: Policy making theories reviewed. Journal of Higher Education Policy and
Management, 37(6), 673–681. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2015.1102819
Denzin, N. K. (2016). Critical qualitative inquiry. Qualitative Inquiry, 23(1), 8-16. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800416681864
Financial Literacy Improvement Act, 20 U.S.C § 2671. (2008). https://www.congress.gov/bill/110th-congress/senate-bill/2671
Flaherty, C. (2019). Mandatory financial literacy courses? Inside Higher ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2019/
06/27/mandatory-financial-literacy-courses
Gawe, N. D. (2018). Demographics and the demand for higher education. John Hopkins University Press.
Harnisch, T. L. (2010). Boosting financial literacy in America: A role for state colleges And universities. Perspectives, 2010
(Fall). https://www.aascu.org/policy/publications/perspectives/financialliteracy.pdf
Hayes, D. (2012). Higher education and financial literacy – A new paradigm. Diversity Issues in Education, 29(5), 8–9. http://
bsc.chadwyck.com/search/displayIibpFulltext.do?fromPage=search&SearchEngine=Opentext&area=
iibp&QueryName=iibp&id=1010053395&date2&resultNum=3&numResults=341&queryId=./session/1618415429_
14043&journalID=07420277
Hemmelgarn, T., & Nicodeme, G. (2010). The 2008 financial crisis and taxation policy. SSRN. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/
papers.cfm?abstract_id=1546973
Hendrickson, R. M., Lane, J. E., Harris, J. T., & Dorman, R. H. (2013). Academic leadership and governance of higher
education: A guide for trustees, leaders, and aspiring leaders of two and four-year institutions. Stylus.
Lin, A. C. (1998). Bridging positivist and interpretivist approaches to qualitative methods. Policy Studies Journal, 26(1),
162–180. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.1998.tb01931.x
Luchtenberg, K. F., & Vu, Q. V. (2015). The 2008 financial crisis: Stock market contagion and its determinants. Research in
International Business and Finance, 33, 178–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ribaf.2014.09.007
Manstead, A. S. (2018). The psychology of social class: How socioeconomic status impacts thought, feelings, and behaviour.
British Journal of Social Psychology, 57(2), 267–291. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12251
Phillips, T. J., & Lambert Snodgrass, L. (2021). Examining individualism in college student retention theory and practice:
Transitioning from student integration to institutional adjustment. Journal of College Orientation, Transition, and
Retention, 28(1). https://doi.org/10.24926/jcotr.v28i1.3607
Popovich, J. J., Loibl, C., Zirkle, C., & Whittington, M. S. (2020). Community college students’ response to a financial literacy
intervention: An exploratory study. International Review of Economic Education, 34, 100182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
iree.2020.100182
Remund, D. L. (2010). Financial literacy explicated: The case for a clearer definition in an increasingly complex economy. The
Journal of Consumer Affairs, 44(2), 276–295. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6606.2010.01169.x
St. John, E. P., Daun-Barnett, N., & Moronski-chapman, K. M. (Eds.). (2018). Public policy and higher education: Reframing
strategies for preparation, access, and college success. Routledge.
Stone, D., Wier, B., & Bryant, S. M. (2007). Does financial literacy contribute to happiness? The CPA Journal, 77(9), 9–10.
https://search.proquest.com/docview/212225576?pq-origsite=gscholar&fromopenview=true
Thapa, B. S., & Nepal, S. R. (2015). Financial literacy in Nepal: A survey analysis for college students. NRB Economic Review.
https://assetPdf.scinapse.io/prod/2280286155/2280286155.pdf
U.S. Financial Literacy and Education Commission. (2019). Best practices for financial literacy and education at institutions of
higher education. https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/Best-Practices-for-Financial-Literacy-and-Education-at-
Institutions-of-Higher-Education2019.pdf
Zait, A., & Bertea, P. E. (2014). Financial literacy: Conceptual definition and proposed approach for a measurement
instrument. The Journal of Accounting and Management, 4(3), 37-42. http://journals.univdanubius.ro/index.php/jam/
article/view/2712

JSARP 2023, 60(5) © 2022 NASPA http://journals.naspa.org/jsarp doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/19496591.2022.2074796 713

Financial Literacy in Higher Education

Appendix Financial Literacy Programming Survey Questions

Question 1:
Please provide the full name of the college or university of which you are an employee (e.g., State
University and Agriculture & Mechanical College - Statesville). Note: Your institution will be
categorized only by the region of the country in which it is located for publication purposes.
Question 2:
Does your institution, currently or pre-COVID, offer financial literacy programming of any
form (courses/seminars, presentations, counseling, in-person or virtual modules, etc.) to under­
graduate students enrolled at your institution?
● Yes
● No
● I do not know
Question 3:
Please select, from the options below, the general content covered in your institution’s financial
literacy programming. (Please select all that apply)
● FAFSA (Free Application for Federal Student Aid) Filing and other pre-college counseling
● Loan repayment/Debt management education and/or counseling
● Wealth and income management education and/or counseling
● Retirement and/or Employee Benefits education and/or counseling
● Other
Question 4:
Are undergraduate students enrolled at your institution required to participate in any form of the
financial literacy programming described in the previous question?
● Yes
● No
● I do not know
● To an extent (Please explain)
Question 5:
When do students typically participate in financial literacy programming at your institution? (Please
select all that apply)
● Pre-enrollment (admitted or officially committed, graduating high school senior. Has not
began fall classes)
● First year
● Sophomore year
● Junior year
● Senior year
● Other

714doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/19496591.2022.2074796 http://journals.naspa.org/jsarp © 2022 NASPA JSARP 2023, 60(5)

 Financial Literacy in Higher Education

Question 6:
What modalities of delivery does your institution use for financial literacy programming? (Please
select all that apply).
● One-on-one counseling session(s)
● Group presentations
● In-person courses/classroom format
● Virtual Module(s)/task(s)
● In-person courses/classroom format
● Other
Question 7:
Do you believe that there is value in colleges and universities providing financial literacy
programming to their students?
● Yes
● To an extent
● No
Display This Question: If Do you believe that there is value in colleges and universities providing
financial literacy prog . . . = Yes or Do you believe that there is value in colleges and universities
providing financial literacy prog . . . = To an extent
Question 7a:
Please briefly list topics you believe college-level financial literacy programming should contain.
Question 8:
Would you be interested participating in a brief phone interview with our research team in the
future to further discuss the content of your institution’s financial literacy programming?
● No
● Yes, please contact me at this e-mail address:
End of Block: Questions

JSARP 2023, 60(5) © 2022 NASPA http://journals.naspa.org/jsarp doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/19496591.2022.2074796 715