Evaluation Paper
Caitlyn Aenis Hanqiao Zhang Marc Artuz Ethan Freedman
04/28/2026
Submitted in partial fulfillment of Assignment 4: Final Evaluation Paper within the requirements for Columbia’s School for Social Work program and Prof. Monique Jethwani’s Program Evaluation in Social Services course.
Acknowledgements
In introducing the following work, we would like to begin by acknowledging the traditional, ancestral, and unceded territory on which we learn, work, and resource from at the Columbia University School of Social Work is land of the Lenape and Wappinger indigenous peoples. Let us commit ourselves to the struggle against the forces that have dispossessed the Lenape, Wappinger, and other indigenous people of their lands.
We would also like to acknowledge Professor Monique Jethwani and their facilitation of SOCWT6416. With Prof. Jethwani’s lectures, recommended readings, and additional thoughts, this piece took form. Moreover, Prof. Tiffany Younger and all stakeholders at Freedom Life Therapy & Liberation for Us. We would also like to acknowledge all of our peers in class who contributed to discussions and building ideas that related to the present topic. With these acknowledgements, we present our following work.
Executive Summary
ROOTED is a trauma-informed wealth advising program co-developed by Freedom Life Therapy and Liberation for Us to support low-wealth and Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) individuals in healing from financial trauma while building sustainable financial well-being. The program integrates trauma-informed care (TIC), somatic healing, Cognitive Behavioral Financial Therapy (CBFT), and transformative wealth frameworks rooted in reparative economics. Rooted was in its formative stages at the time this evaluation was conducted, and a rigorous process evaluation was essential.
The central research question: How do various stakeholders within Freedom Life Therapy and Liberation for the US, as well as the ROOTED program, define wealth and wealth advising? This question was motivated by a documented evidence and practice gap, as most TIC frameworks do not address the economic dimensions of trauma, somatic healing has not been applied within financial advising, and community-based models integrating CBFT with wealth justice frameworks for BIPOC communities remain scarce.
A single focus group was virtually conducted in March of 2026, with four stakeholders, each with expertise in baby bond programs, guaranteed income initiatives, financial therapy, or wealth equity policy. The session was audio recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using thematic analysis with codes developed inductively and refined through a team-based process. Two themes emerged: Wealth as Non-Material, capturing participants' consistent definition of wealth in terms of what financial security enables: agency, freedom, safety, dignity, hope, belonging; and Financial Literacy Gaps and the Case for Trauma Informed Advising captured a shared critique of existing financial literacy programs as structurally insufficient – placing the burden of change on individuals whose circumstances are shaped by exterior forces. Participants articulate a clear vision for an alternative: advising that is person-centered, trauma-informed, historically grounded, and tailored to each individual’s context.
These findings affirm ROOTED’s core theoretical premises and provide a strong conceptual foundation for program development, design, limitations, and recommendations for future evaluation.
I. Program Rationale, Description, and Theory
Program Rationale: Problem Statement and Statement of Need
Financial trauma, or the emotional and psychological harm arising from economic instability, debt, poverty, and systemic wealth deprivation, disproportionately affects low-wealth and Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) communities through historical and ongoing mechanisms of wealth extraction that include redlining, wage theft, and predatory lending (Stroh, 2020; Nur et al., 2022; Ross et al., 2022). Stroh (2020) identifies reinforcing feedback loops in which wealth confers political power that sustains policies and compounds racial wealth inequality across generations. Research documents that traumatic histories rooted in systemic racism and economic hardship significantly undermine the ability to make financial decisions, intensify financial anxieties, and perpetuate financial avoidance behaviors that include money avoidance, reduced financial transparency, and diminished financial agency in ways that persist into adulthood (Nur et al., 2022; Ross et al., 2022). Despite documented harms, most financial literacy and advising programs do not account for the psychological dimensions of financial hardship, and trauma-informed care frameworks rarely extend to address the economic dimensions of trauma (Menschner & Maul, 2016; Gale et al., 2019).
Theoretical Foundations
Trauma-Informed Care
Trauma-informed care (TIC) frameworks, defined through SAMHSA’s (2014) six core principles of safety, trustworthiness, peer support, collaboration, empowerment, and cultural and historical responsiveness, have been adopted across diverse settings as a foundational approach for serving populations affected by trauma. Empirical evidence supports TIC’s effectiveness, with Han et al (2021) systematically reviewing 32 quantitative studies to find that TIC interventions significantly reduce PTSD symptoms in approximately half of relevant studies and demonstrates broad positive effects on depression and anxiety outcomes. In tandem, Avery et al. (2020) documented generally positive outcomes across four TIC interventions in school systems from 2008 to 2019, while Berring et al. (2024) reviewed 157 studies across health, education, child welfare, and social service settings to find that TIC has expanded widely and is lacking consistency and standards for evaluation. Highlighting the need for more rigorous evaluation frameworks and moving beyond clinical settings, TIC principles have been applied in non-clinical workplaces (Greer, 2023), educational systems serving underserved communities (Majebi et al., 2024; Pemberton & Edeburn, 2021), faith community health contexts (Clements et al., 2021), communities and organizations with limited TIC training (Guiking & Jacob et al., 2021), and long-term care policy (O’Malley et al., 2022). Critically, Menschner and Maul (2016) and Bargeman et al. (2022) identify a persistent gap that most TIC frameworks do not address the economic dimensions of trauma, including wealth extraction, chronic financial insecurity, or systemic economic injustice. It is ROOTED’s mission to fill this gap.
Somatic Healing Approaches
Somatic healing approaches offer a complementary framework for addressing financial trauma. Van der Kolk (1994) establishes that trauma is encoded in somatic and neuroendocrine systems as conscious memory with a narrative that produces physiological dysregulation that resists conventional talk therapy interventions alone. Payne et al. (2015) extended this work by proposing Somatic Experiencing (SE) as a trauma therapy rooted in the body that utilizes interoceptive and proprioceptive awareness to regulate the autonomic nervous system. Empirical support for somatic approaches continues to grow with promising evidence across 16 studies for SE in reducing symptoms related to PTSD (Kuhfuß et al., 2021). Nicholson et al. (2025) recorded sustained well-being improvements from somatic self-care that was community-based, while Sorbara (2024) found that EMDR combined with somatic art therapy produced significant reductions in PTSD and burnout. Moreover, themes of reconnection, self-compassion, and holistic recovery in qualitative research on mind and body healing from trauma were identified (Nixon, 2024), while arguments supporting body psychotherapy being a holistic intervention for chronic trauma-resistant cognitive therapy approaches were raised (Sollmann, 2025). Crucially, somatic regulation is directly related to financial well-being, as Sugawara et al. (2020) found that interoceptive training significantly improved abilities to make rational financial decisions, and trauma-related patterns shape financial avoidance behaviors in ways that approaches focused on the body and mind can uniquely address (Nur et al., 2022; Ross et al., 2022). Despite this convergence, no established models apply somatic techniques within financial advising contexts (Kuhfuß et al., 2021).
Cognitive Behavioral Financial Therapy
Cognitive Behavioral Financial Therapy (CBFT) integrates cognitive behavioral strategies, including cognitive restructuring, behavioral activation, and structured problem solving, with financial counseling to address maladaptive money beliefs and behaviors (Nabeshima & Klontz, 2014). CBT has a robust evidence base across psychiatric conditions like depression, anxiety, and avoidance (Chand et al. 2023). Applied to financial contexts, CBFT yields meaningful results as group-based financial therapy reduced financial shame and guilt while improving budgeting skills and behavioral confidence (Shelton et al., 2019). Moreover, Nelson et al. (2015) demonstrated that financial therapy drawing on narrative and family systems approaches effectively surfaces emotional and belief based components of financial behavior, while Richardson et al. (2022) found a CBT intervention delivered via the internet that targets the link between financial difficulties and poor mental health produced statistically significant reductions in depression and anxiety alongside improved financial wellbeing (Richardson et al., 2022). However, Gale et al. (2019) identify a persistent limitation that most existing models fail to address systemic barriers to wealth, racial economic injustice, or the collective financial goals of BIPOC communities. This gap ROOTED seeks to address by integrating CBFT with wealth justice frameworks and TIC.
Program Description and Theory
ROOTED is a trauma-informed wealth advising program co-developed by Freedom Life Therapy, a healing-centered mental health practice grounded in financial wellness, and Liberation for Us, a research-centered consulting firm focused on wealth and health equity. Together, these organizations built ROOTED to support low-wealth individuals and communities in healing from wealth extraction and financial trauma, while cultivating sustainable financial well-being. ROOTED integrates SAMHSA’s (2014) TIC principles, somatic healing and embodiment practices (van der Kolk, 1994; Payne et al., 2015; Kuhfuß et al., 2021), Cognitive Behavioral Financial Therapy (Nabeshima & Klontz, 2014; Chand et al., 2023), and transformative wealth frameworks rooted in reparative economics and systems change (Stroh, 2020). The program also draws from Collective Economic Intergenerational Trauma (CEIT) as a framework for understanding the multi-generational impact of wealth extraction on BIPOC communities. At its core, ROOTED centered liberation and lived experience over frameworks that focus on deficit, something consistent with healing-centered engagement and trauma-informed principles (SAMHSA, 2014; Menchner & Maul, 2016; Nur et al., 2022).
The program envisions a six to ten-week curriculum for financial professionals, therapists, and community leaders working with individuals enrolled in baby bond or guaranteed income programs. Program components include a participant workbook with trauma-informed money practices and reflections, facilitator training and licensing, and pilot partnerships with evaluation support. Because ROOTED was in its formative stage at the time of this evaluation, a formal program logic model had not yet been established. This is characteristic of programs in early development for which a formative evaluation is foundational (SAMHSA, 2014). A working logic model inferred from the program’s stated goals and frameworks identified by stakeholders is provided in Appendix A. Inputs include organizational staff and resources from Freedom Life Therapy and Liberation for Us, program evaluators, and focus group participants with relevant expertise. Outputs include the facilitation of a structured focus group discussion, audio recording, transcription, and thematic analysis. Short-term outcomes encompass documented stakeholder definitions of wealth and wealth advising and the identification of conceptual alignment and divergence across perspectives. The medium-term outcomes include the development of a shared conceptual framework for ROOTED’s curriculum and theory of change, and the embedding of vocabulary informed by evidence for program design. In the long term, the evaluation is designed to contribute to the implementation of ROOTED, informed by stakeholders and grounded in consistent theory with the ultimate goal of enabling healing from financial trauma and sustainable financial wellbeing among low-wealth and BIPOC communities (Gale et al., 2019; Stroh, 2020; Ross et al., 2022).
II. Study Rationale, Evaluation Type, And Research Questions
Study Rationale
Before any curriculum could be responsibly designed or implemented, the people who build and deliver ROOTED needed to share a common and articulated understanding of the program’s foundational concepts: wealth and wealth advising. How stakeholders conceptualize these terms directly shapes the frameworks they bring to curriculum development, the values they embed in facilitator training, and the lens through which they engage with clients. Divergent or unarticulated definitions among program developers and practitioners could undermine program coherence, reduce fidelity to a unified theory of change, and comprise the cultural responsiveness that was central to ROOTED’s design (Menschner & Maul, 2016; Bering et al., 2024). Trauma-informed principles require that program design be a collaborative and transparent process, one where shared understanding is built among all contributors before it is transmitted to those being served (SAMHSA, 2014; Greer, 2023).
Significant gaps between evidence and practice further motivated this process evaluation. Most TIC frameworks did not address economic dimensions of trauma (Menschner & Maul, 2016; Bargeman et al., 2022), somatic approaches had not been applied within financial advising despite linking evidence of somatic regulation and financial behavior (Kuhfuß et al., 2021; Sugawara et al., 2020), and community-based models integrating CBFT with wealth justice and TIC principles remained scarce (Gale et al., 2019). Given this underdeveloped theoretical terrain, documenting how stakeholders with expertise in the program's target area and mission currently define wealth and wealth advising established a critical conceptual baseline that revealed both shared values and definitional tensions that needed to be resolved for the program to operate coherently (Stroh, 2020; Nur et al., 2022; Ross et al., 2022). This evaluation built that foundation before the program advanced towards implementation.
Evaluation Type
This evaluation was a formative evaluation, specifically a process evaluation, designed to examine the foundational conceptual processes underlying ROOTED’s development. Process evaluation focuses on how a program is being built and implemented, examining the processes, structures, and conceptual frameworks that shape program delivery. Stages prior to implementation necessitate examining how stakeholders with knowledge of the target domain of baby bonds, guaranteed income, financial therapy, and wealth equity defined the program's core constructs. SAMHSA (2014) identifies stakeholder alignment on values, language, and theory of change as a prerequisite for program coherence and fidelity. Without documenting how those with relevant expertise defined the various concepts the program was designed to address, it was not possible to assess whether the program’s design process could proceed with the shared understanding and internal consistency that trauma-informed practice requires (Berring et al., 2024; Menschner & Maul, 2016).
Research Question
The central research question guiding this evaluation was: How do various stakeholders within Freedom Life Therapy and Liberation for Us, as well as the ROOTED program, define wealth and wealth advising? This question was essential for several reasons, as the concepts of wealth and wealth advising are often deeply rooted in dominant definitions embedded in systems that have historically excluded BIPOC communities from mechanisms of wealth accumulation, and any program built on unexamined assumptions about these concepts risks perpetuating rather than disrupting those exclusions. Moreover, documenting stakeholder definitions surfaced the diverse disciplinary, cultural, and theoretical perspectives that practitioners bring to their work and are contextualized within clinical training, financial advising, community advocacy, or lived experiences necessitating integration into programming (Nabeshima & Klontz, 2014; Nelson et al., 2015). Lastly, this question asked stakeholders to reflect on how they believed clients and community members defined wealth, providing a perspective informed by practitioners that complement the program's eventual community-centered approach (SAMHSA, 2014; Menschner & Maul, 2016)
III. Methodology
Sample
The sample for this evaluation consisted of four participants with professional expertise in baby bonds programs, guaranteed income initiatives, financial therapy, and wealth equity policy. Participants were recruited because of their direct experience working with low-wealth and BIPOC communities at the intersection of financial access, asset building, and systemic change. Participant 1 was a program director at a guaranteed income and accelerated baby bonds organization in the Southeast, running one of the largest guaranteed income programs in the region and a pilot baby bonds program structured as a randomized control trial. Participant 2 was a financial therapist running a private practice in Connecticut focused on helping clients understand the emotional and behavioral dimensions of money and break intergenerational patterns. Participant 3 was a policy director at a child poverty and wealth equity organization in California with nearly a decade of experience in anti-poverty. Participant 4 was a policy attorney who helped design and establish the California state baby bonds program and subsequently worked on predatory lending prevention. The co-developer of ROOTED and the evaluation’s organizational partner joined the session briefly. The final sample of four was smaller than the originally planned range of 5 - 7 participants. Scheduling constraints and availability among invited stakeholders accounted for the reduced participation. All participants provided verbal consent to audio recording prior to the start of the session.
Recruitment
Participants were recruited through purposive sampling, drawing on the professional networks of the ROOTED development team and its organizational partner at Liberation for Us. The organizational partner identified and invited stakeholders with direct expertise in baby bond programs, guaranteed income initiatives, and trauma-informed wealth building as appropriate participants, given their professional proximity to ROOTED’s target population and program goals. Invitations communicated the focus group’s purpose, the voluntary nature of participation, and the de-identified, confidential nature of all data. This approach was consistent with SAMHSA’s (2014) principles of safety and collaboration, which emphasize that participation should be communicated as a non-evaluative collaborative opportunity. Because this evaluation focused on stakeholder expertise rather than client experience, recruitment did not require outreach to the program’s eventual client population. An informed consent form outlining participant rights was made available prior to the focus group (Appendix B), and verbal consent was obtained from all participants at the start of the session.
Data Collection Process and Setting
Data was collected via a single focus group session conducted over Zoom in March 2026, lasting approximately 60 minutes. The session was facilitated by Marc Artuz, a member of the evaluation team. It opened with participant introductions and a brief overview of the study’s purpose, followed by three structured discussion questions. Prior to beginning substantive discussion, all participants were assigned anonymous numbers to facilitate accurate transcription while protecting individual identity. The facilitator asked participants to state their assigned number before each response. With the organizational partner briefly present and explicit verbal consent of all participants, the session was audio recorded via Zoom. The recording was subsequently transcribed to produce the primary data for analysis. All recordings were stored securely and deleted following transcription. Transcripts were de-identified and stored in encrypted, password-protected files accessible only to the evaluation team, in accordance with the Belmont Principles of Respect for Persons and Beneficence (Bargeman et al., 2022).
Measurement
The chief variables of this study were stakeholder definitions of wealth and wealth advising, operationalized broadly and inductively. Rather than imposing predefined definitions, the evaluation instructed invited stakeholders to articulate and draw from their own understanding of these concepts. The primary evaluation instrument was a semi-structured focus group discussion guide developed by the evaluation team (Appendix C). Three substantive questions structured the discussion: (1 How stakeholders defined wealth based on what they observed in professional work; 2) what financial literacy programs were currently in place and whether they met the needs of the populations served; 3) what a human-centered, culturally responsive, and trauma-informed wealth advising program for baby bonds recipients would look like, including key indicators of success. Follow-up questions were used throughout to invite participants to elaborate and connect their responses.
Data Analysis Plan
Data were analyzed using thematic analysis, a qualitative method for identifying, analyzing, and reporting patterns of meaning across a dataset (Berring et al., 2024; SAMHSA, 2014). The transcribed focus group data were reviewed multiple times by the evaluation team to develop familiarity with the content. Open coding was applied to identify discrete units of meaning in forms of statements, exchanges, or moments in the transcript that captured participant perspectives on wealth, financial literacy, and wealth advising. Individual codes were developed inductively and grounded in the language of participants themselves. To strengthen coding consistency and rigor, codes were refined across multiple readings and through a team-based coding process. The evaluation team established an initial set of codes from close reading of the transcript, and collaboratively reviewed and consolidated these into a final codebook. Final themes were considered complete when they were internally coherent, meaningfully distinct from one another, and sufficiently supported by evidence from multiple participants across the transcript. Because this evaluation involved a small exploratory focus group, the goal of analysis was to capture the range of perspectives and frameworks that stakeholders brought to the core constructs of rooted.
IV. Results
Thematic analysis of the focus group transcript produced two overarching themes. Wealth as Non-Material, and Financial Literacy Gaps and the Case for Trauma-Informed Advising. Each theme encompasses a set of specific codes that together capture the substance, nuance, and convergence of participant perspectives. Quotes are drawn directly from the anonymized transcript and attributed by participant number.
Theme 1: Wealth as Non-Material
Across all four participants, the definition of wealth that emerged was explicitly non-material. Rather than defining wealth in terms of assets minus liabilities, Participant 1 described conventional financial framing as definitions of wealth in terms of what it enables in forms of conditions, capacities, and the belonging it makes possible. This theme is organized around six subcodes identified through the analysis.
Wealth Beyond Money:
The most foundational code in this theme captured participants’ explicit rejection of a narrow and asset-based definition of wealth. Participant 1 articulated this directly: “it’s beyond like the dollars and cents that assets minus liabilities… it’s more about what wealth enables.” This orientation reflected each participant's professional immersion in communities for whom financial security had never been mapped onto conventional narratives of wealth building. Wealth in this framing was relational and functional, and pointed towards life conditions rather than a balance sheet.
Wealth As Safety and Security:
Multiple participants described wealth primarily in terms of safety, stability, and the capacity to not be displaced. Participant 2, a financial therapist, defined it in precisely these terms: “I will say safety, it’s about safety, and security and feeling free.” Participant 1 extended this, noting that among the young people in their program, homeownership was sought because “it can provide stability for them and their family, because they have all experienced eviction before.” The desire for safety and security emerged as a direct response to lived exposure to housing instability and economic uncertainty.
Wealth as Agency and Freedom:
Related to safety was participants’ framing of wealth as the precondition for agency and freedom, or the ability to make choices, take risks, and pursue aspirations on one’s own terms. Participant 1 articulated this explicitly, as “This is about agency, how wealth enables agency. Folks are able to make the choices that they want to, about their career or other aspirations… I have a cushion to fall back on, so now I can take that risk and maybe become an entrepreneur.” Participant 4 added a dimension of self-determination, noting that for many young people in their program, being trusted to direct resources represented “the first time that they get to have a little bit of money and direct it on their own.” Financial security was understood as the material foundation of authoring one’s own life and the capacity to choose who one wants to be in the world.
Wealth as Dignity, Trust, and Worth:
Several participants linked wealth to dignity, worthiness, and the experience of being seen as deserving of investment. Participant 3 described this most directly as “the inability to hope and dream and feel like it is achievable not because you have to hustle to attain it, but because you are seen as worthy and there's dignity in being seen as worthy as a child, as a human being.” Participant 4 echoed this in describing the response of foster youth to the baby bonds program, saying “they really, really appreciated that trust and that they were being invested in for just for them, that they were worthy of a state investment.” Wealth carried a relational and political dimension, marking recognition by institutions and communities that individuals deserve to be trusted and resourced.
Wealth as Hopes and Dreams:
Participants also described wealth as the material enabling hopes, dreams, and long-term aspirations. Participant 4 offered a vivid illustration with a youth participant who had described wanting to visit family in El Salvador and to enroll in X-ray school. The baby bond offered her a pathway to both, and the combination of “financial security isn’t just about survival. It's about, like, your heart needs, too.” This framing is positioned as instrumental (a means to ends), and existentially as the condition that makes it possible to have and pursue a meaningful life shaped by one’s own values and aspirations, including connection with family and community.
Wealth as Ownership and Belonging
Participants described wealth in terms of ownership and belonging, the felt sense of having a place from which one cannot be displaced. Participant 2 captured this memorably in describing why clients wanted to own a home, saying “not really understanding, like, even what a house and all this stuf brings, but they want to buy it because it gives more so knowledge of like no one could kick me out of this space. This is mine. I belong here.” Belonging is an emotional experience, and a material and legal condition produced by ownership and security. It is inseparable from the broader experience of wealth as a relational good.
Theme 2: Financial Literacy Gaps and the Case for Trauma-Informed Advising
The second theme captured a convergent and pointed critique of existing financial literacy programs, together with a shared articulation of what an effective alternative would require. All four participants had direct professional experience observing the intersection of financial hardship, asset-building programs, and community needs. Each contributed to a multi-layered critique organized around four codes.
Deficit Based Literacy Critique:
Participants across all professional backgrounds converged on a critique of traditional financial literacy programs as fundamentally misaligned with the populations they claim to serve. Participant 1 articulated a structural problem directly, saying “they try to change individual behavior and are often deficit-based, brewing that the reason why folks are in poverty is because they’re not budgeting enough.” This framing misidentifies the causes of poverty, and places the burden of change on individuals whose circumstances are shaped by structural forces far beyond personal behavior. Participant 4 bluntly said, “you can’t budget your way out of insuf icient resources.” Standard financial literacy programs are insufficient because they begin with the notion that behavior change is the primary lever for financial transformation.
Trauma Structured Harm and Mistrust:
Building on the deficit critique, participants named the deeper forces that traditional programs fail to address as trauma, structural harm, and institutional mistrust. Participant 2, speaking from her clinical training, reframed financial difficulties explicitly as rooted in trauma. “There’s something there that has happened. Poverty is trauma. Poverty can be traumatic… That hasn’t been addressed, that your client or your person is still holding because they don’t probably even realize that it has af ected them.” She identified the “missing link” as the relational dimension for understanding the history that shaped a person's relationship with money and naming institutional “mistrust in banks… mistrust in the government” as a compounding barrier. Participant 3 extended this to structural and historical analysis, calling for programs that recognize “oppression and racial capitalism” and affirm that financial hardship is a product of systems designed against communities of color that make “the ability to call out the structure, the system is so crucial.”
Person Centered and Trauma Informed:
Participants articulated a clear vision for what would constitute an effective alternative. Financial education and advising that is person-centred, trauma-informed, and tailored to the actual circumstances of each individual. Described in terms of what was missing from advising models, “the financial education and the financial advising can’t be boilerplate of the shelf, take a course online that’s designed for everybody. It’s really got to be unique to your particular circumstances, including the trauma, including what your aspirations are.” It was also important to bridge a trauma-informed practitioner into the program design itself when designing financial education components in California, as “one of the consultants that I made sure got hired, is someone who does trauma-informed financial – she calls it financial therapy, actually.” This combination of the relational, clinical, and structural was consistently described as what was absent from and urgently needed in existing programming.
Gaps, Barriers, and Resources:
This code captured the systemic grapes and barriers that effective wealth advising must navigate. Including a lack of coordination among government programs, the risk that using one resource could disqualify recipients from another, and the structural inaccessibility of professional financial support, participant 4 described navigating challenges as “financial education has to… be aware of the other resources that can be leveraged by the individual and know how these programs are sometimes set up in a way that they can cancel each other out.” Participant 2 named the cost of professional support as a barrier, saying“the problem is, it’s like people need to get paid for their time… people out there who want to help, but people also have to get paid.” These structural barriers of program fragmentation, resource scarcity, and the cost of expertise were identified as systematic constraints that a genuinely person-centered wealth advising program would need to actively account for in its design and delivery model.
V. Discussion and Implications:
Summary and Interpretation of Findings:
The findings from this process evaluation provide a substantive conceptual foundation for ROOTED’s development and affirm the program's core theoretical frameworks. The two themes that emerged, Wealth as non-material and the inadequacy of deficit-based financial literacy, are deeply aligned with the body of literature that motivated this evaluation. Participants’ consistent definition of wealth as agency, safety, freedom, dignity, hope, and belonging, rather than assets or income, directly reflect the transformation of wealth frameworks and engagement principles centered in healing at ROOTED’s foundation (Stroh, 2020; Nur et al., 2022; SAMHSA, 2014). The notion that these definitions emerged organically across four participants from distinct professional contexts suggests genuine and convergent conceptual clarity and a shared framework grounded in direct witness of navigating financial adversity.
The critique of traditional financial literacy programs that participants articulated is well supported in the empirical literature. Nur et al. (2022) document the patterns participants described with traumatic histories rooted in systemic racism and economic hardships that produce financial behaviors of avoidance persisting into adulthood and not amenable to behavioral correction alone. With Ross et al. (2022) finding adverse childhood experiences shape money beliefs and financial transparency in ways that require relational and emotional informed intervention, the observation that poverty is trauma is consistent with a growing body of evidence linking financial hardship to physiological stress responses, cognitive impairment under scarcity, and the intergenerational transmission of financial anxiety (Nur et al., 2022; Ross et al., 2022). That financial literacy programs remain. ROOTED is theoretically orientated around how financial literacy programs remain predominantly deficit-based and individually focused.
Participants’ vision for person-centered, trauma-informed, and contextually tailored wealth advising resonates with CBFT principles that attend to the beliefs and emotional components of financial behavior (Nabeshima & Klontz, 2014; Nelson et al., 2015), as well as TIC frameworks that emphasize safety, trust, and cultural responsiveness as prerequisites for meaningful engagement (SAMHSA, 2014; Menschner & Maul, 2016). The emphasis on understanding the full ecosystem of resources and constraints echoes Gale et al.’s (2019) argument that effective financial therapy must attend to systemic and individual barriers and behaviors.
Implications for ROOTED program:
These findings carry several direct implications for ROOTED’s development. ROOTED’s conceptual orientation centering wealth as agency, safety, and liberation was validated as resonant with the professional observations of those working most directly with baby bonds recipients and low-wealth
communities. The program's language and frameworks should explicitly name dimensions of safety, agency, dignity, belonging, hope, and freedom. These are operative definitions of wealth that community proximal practitioners use consistently.
ROOTED’s integrated model of TIC principles, somatic healing, and CBFT addresses the gap
participants identified as missing from existing programs. The argument that poverty is trauma, and that
financial hardship must be approached through a relational, emotionally informed, and structurally aware
lens, provides a strong rationale for each of the program’s theoretical pillars. Future curriculum design
should make this rationale explicit so facilitators can articulate to participants and funding partners why
it's necessary.
Participant emphasis on contextual knowledge, like understanding the full ecosystem of benefits
and constraints that affect program participants, suggests that ROOTED’s facilitator training should
include robust preparation on navigating intersecting public benefits and asset-building programs.
Financial advising in this context is relational and navigational, and facilitators must understand how
financial decisions made within one program can affect eligibility in another.
The observation from participants about the cost of expert support as a structural barrier to an
important program design consideration informs that ROOTED must build its revenue model and
partnership structures in ways that do not reproduce the access to inequities it is designed to address.
Whether sliding scale, institutional partnerships, or integration with publicly funded programs, ensuring
prioritization of trauma-informed financial support accessible to those who need it is a priority.
Finally, a vision centering community and family understanding of success, including
nonfinancial outcomes like family, connection, community belonging, and freedom from exceptionalism
narratives, suggests that ROOTED’s outcomes framework should extend beyond conventional financial
metrics. Future evaluation designs should include psychosocial outcome measures alongside financial
ones, capturing the full range of the program's intended impact.
VI. Challenges Encountered, Lessons Learned, and Future Evaluation Recommendations
Challenges Encountered:
Several professional, ethical, and methodological challenges were encountered. From the
intended sample, the evaluation was originally designed to engage internal stakeholders of Freedom Life
Therapy and Liberation for the US most directly involved in ROOTED development. The focus group
was conducted with four stakeholders whose expertise lay in baby bond programs, guaranteed income
initiatives, and wealth equity policy. While these participants brought highly relevant knowledge
regarding ROOTED’s target population and program context, they were a small number of core
professionals whose definition of wealth and wealth advising were originally intended to form
ROOTED’s conceptual foundation. A related challenge was a reduction in sample size, as the intended
focus group size of five to seven participants was not achieved. While the group generated a substantive
discussion, a larger sample may have produced greater diversity in perspectives. Scheduling constraints
were also reasons for reduced participation. The dual role of the evaluation team, students completing
academic requirements and evaluators working with a real organization, also created ongoing tension
between academic timelines and the operational realities of partner organizations (Berring et al., 2024;
SAMHSA, 2014).
Ethical Considerations:
Discussions about wealth, financial systems, and marginalized communities touched on personal
experiences and institutional betrayals that some participants found emotionally resonant. The facilitator
navigated this with cultural humility and attentiveness to participant affect, consistent with
trauma-informed practice (SAMHSA, 2014; Greer, 2023). Participants were reminded that they are not
required to respond to any question that felt uncomfortable and could withdraw at any time.
Confidentiality within the group setting was requested of all participants at the start. De-identification
protocols were applied throughout the process.
Limitations:
This study has several limitations situated around limits to generalizability due to small purposive
sampling and deviations from intended sample means. A single focus group session also limits the depth
that longitudinal or multi-session designs would enable with follow-up practices. Because the session was
facilitated by a member of the evaluation team, there is some risk of social desirability effects.
Recommendations for Future Research and Practice
Based on these findings and limitations, recommendations emerge. Follow-up process evaluation
engaging internal stakeholders of Freedom Life Therapy and Liberation for Us is strongly recommended.
Future focus groups should be facilitated by a trained external facilitator to reduce facilitation effects and
ensure equal comfort across participants. Once the rooted curriculum is developed and piloted, a
mixed-methods outcomes evaluation is recommended that captures both financial outcomes (savings,
asset accumulation, debt reduction) and psychosocial outcomes (agency, financial anxiety, sense of
belonging). Gale et al. (2019) emphasize that effective, equitable programming requires practitioners to
examine the assumptions embedded in professional definitions of wealth. This evaluation created exactly
that opportunity, and its findings should be integrated into the ROOTED program design and facilitator
training.
VII. References:
Avery, J. C., Morris, H., Galvin, E., Misso, M., Savaglio, M., & Skouteris, H. (2020). Systematic
review of school-wide trauma-informed approaches. Journal of Child & Adolescent Trauma,
14(3), 381–397. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40653-020-00321-1
Bargeman, M., Abelson, J., Mulvale, G., Niec, A., Theuer, A., & Moll, S. (2022). Understanding the
conceptualization and operationalization of trauma-informed care within and across systems: A
critical interpretive synthesis. The Milbank Quarterly, 100(3), 785–853.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0009.12579
Berring, L. L., Holm, T., Hansen, J. P., Delcomyn, C. L., Søndergaard, R., & Hvidhjelm, J. (2024).
Implementing trauma-informed care—settings, definitions, interventions, measures, and
implementation across settings: A scoping review. Healthcare, 12(9), 1–26.
https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare12090908
Chand, S. P., Kuckel, D. P., & Huecker, M. R. (2023). Cognitive behavior therapy (CBT). In
StatPearls. National Library of Medicine. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK470241/
Clements, A. D., Cyphers, N. A., Whittaker, D. L., Hamilton, B., & McCarty, B. (2021). Using
trauma informed principles in health communication: Improving faith/science/clinical
collaboration to address addiction. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 781484.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.781484
Gale, J., Ross, D. B., Thomas, M. G., Jr., & Boe, J. (2019). Considerations, benefits, and cautions:
Integrating systems theory with financial therapy. Contemporary Family Therapy, 42(1), 84–94.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10591-019-09518-5
Greer, J. A. (2023). Introducing trauma-informed care principles in the workplace. Discover Psychology,
3(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s44202-023-00094-2
Guiking, K., & Jacob, A. (2022). Exploring church staff knowledge of trauma and trauma-informed care.
Social Work & Christianity, 49(3), 241–255. https://www.proquest.com/docview/2746554755
Han, H.-R., Miller, H. N., Nkimbeng, M., Budhathoki, C., Mikhael, T., Rivers, E., Gray, J., Trimble, K.,
Chow, S., & Wilson, P. (2021). Trauma informed interventions: A systematic review. PloS One,
16(6), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0252747
Kuhfuß, M., Maldei, T., Hetmanek, A., & Baumann, N. (2021). Somatic experiencing—effectiveness and
key factors of a body-oriented trauma therapy: A scoping literature review. European Journal of
Psychotraumatology, 12(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/20008198.2021.1929023
Majebi, N. L., Adelodun, M. O., & Anyanwu, E. C. (2024). Integrating trauma-informed practices in U.S.
educational systems: Addressing behavioral challenges in underserved communities.
Comprehensive Research and Reviews in Science and Technology, 2(1), 70–79.
https://doi.org/10.57219/crrst.2024.2.1.0033
Menschner, C., & Maul, A. (2016). Key ingredients for successful trauma-informed care implementation.
Center for Health Care Strategies.
https://www.fredla.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Trauma-informed-care-implementation-1.pdf
Nabeshima, G., & Klontz, B. T. (2014). Cognitive-behavioral financial therapy. In B. T. Klontz, S. L.
Britt, & K. L. Archuleta (Eds.), Financial therapy: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 143–159).
Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-08269-1_9
Nelson, R. J., Smith, T. E., Shelton, V. M., & Richards, K. V. (2015). Three interventions for financial
therapy: Fostering an examination of financial behaviors and beliefs. Journal of Financial
Therapy, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.4148/1944-9771.1058
Nicholson, W. C., Sapp, M., Karas, E. M., Duva, I. M., & Grabbe, L. (2025). The body can balance the
score: Using a somatic self-care intervention to support well-being and promote healing.
Healthcare, 13(11), 1258. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare13111258
Nixon, M. A. (2024). Exploring women's experiences of healing from sexual trauma through engagement
in mind–body practices: A systematic review. Counselling and Psychotherapy Research, 24(3).
https://doi.org/10.1002/capr.12747
Nur, W., Dueck-Read, J., & Buckland, J. (2022). Leaning against the wind: The ongoing impacts of
trauma on financial well-being and decision making. Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.
https://policyalternatives.ca/sites/default/files/uploads/publications/Manitoba%20Office/2022/09/
Impacts-of-trauma-on-financial-well-being.pdf
O'Malley, K. A., Sullivan, J. L., Mills, W., Driver, J., & Moye, J. (2022). Trauma-informed care in
long-term care settings: From policy to practice. The Gerontologist, 63(5), gnac072.
https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnac072
Payne, P., Levine, P. A., & Crane-Godreau, M. A. (2015). Somatic experiencing: Using interoception and
proprioception as core elements of trauma therapy. Frontiers in Psychology, 6(93), 1–18.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00093
Pemberton, J. V., & Edeburn, E. K. (2021). Becoming a trauma-informed educational community with
underserved students of color: What educators need to know. Curriculum and Teaching Dialogue,
23(1), 181–196.
https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/becoming-trauma-informed-educational-community
/docview/2576701394/se-2
Richardson, T., Enrique, A., Earley, C., Adegoke, A., Hiscock, D., & Richards, D. (2022). The
acceptability and initial effectiveness of "Space From Money Worries": An online cognitive
behavioral therapy intervention to tackle the link between financial difficulties and poor mental
health. Frontiers in Public Health, 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2022.739381
Ross, D. B., Coambs, E., & Johnson, E. (2022). Trauma of the past: The impact of adverse childhood
experiences on adult attachment, money beliefs and behaviors, and financial transparency.
Journal of Financial Therapy, 13(1). https://doi.org/10.4148/1944-9771.1280
Shelton, V. M., Smith, T. E., & Panisch, L. S. (2019). Financial therapy with groups: A case of the
five-step model. Journal of Financial Counseling and Planning, 30(1), 18–26.
https://doi.org/10.1891/1052-3073.30.1.18
Sollmann, U. (2025). Body psychotherapy in somatic symptom disorder. International Journal of Body,
Mind and Culture, 12(1), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.61838/ijbmc.v12i1.904
Sorbara, A. (2024). An integrative somatic art therapy approach: EMDR & body-based practices for
traumatic stress [Doctoral dissertation, Dominican University of California].
https://doi.org/10.33015/dominican.edu/2024.AT.PHD.01
Stroh, D. P. (2020). Overcoming the systemic challenges of wealth inequality in the U.S. The Foundation
Review, 12(4). https://doi.org/10.9707/1944-5660.1541
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2014). SAMHSA's concept of trauma and
guidance for a trauma-informed approach.
https://store.samhsa.gov/product/SAMHSA-s-Concept-of-Trauma-and-Guidance-for-a-Trauma-In
formed-Approach/SMA14-4884
Sugawara, A., Terasawa, Y., Katsunuma, R., & Sekiguchi, A. (2020). Effects of interoceptive training on
decision making, anxiety, and somatic symptoms. Biopsychosocial Medicine, 14.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13030-020-00179-7
van der Kolk, B. A. (1994). The body keeps the score: Memory and the evolving psychobiology of
posttraumatic stress. Harvard Review of Psychiatry, 1(5), 253–265.
https://doi.org/10.3109/10673229409017088
VIII: Appendix
Appendix A: Program Logic Model:
The logic model below reflects the ROOTED Process Evaluation as informed by the program’s
foundational framework and organizational goals. Because ROOTED is in its formative stage, this logic
model is inferred from the agency’s mission, values, and the current evaluation’s focus on stakeholder
conceptualizations of wealth and wealth advising. It is designed to illuminate the pathway from evaluation
inputs to long-term program vision.
Inputs Activities /
Outputs
Short Term
Outcomes
Medium Term
Outcomes
Long Term
Outcomes
- Freedom Life
Therapy and
Liberation for Us
staff
- Program
Evaluators
- Stakeholders:
Therapists,
Coaches, Program
Developers
- Focus Group
Protocol
- Audio
Recording &
Transcription
Tools
- Secure Data
Storage
- Focus group
sessions with 5 - 7
stakeholders (45 -
60 minutes)
- Facilitation of
structured
discussion on
wealth and wealth
advising
- Audio recording
and transcription
- Thematic
analysis of
stakeholder
responses
- Documented
stakeholder
definitions of
wealth and
advising
- Identification of
conceptual
alignment and
divergence among
stakeholders
- Organizational
clarity on core
terminology and
program values
- Shared
conceptual
framework for
ROOTED’s
curriculum and
theory of change
- Evidence
informed
vocabulary and
definitions
embedded in
program design
- Alignment
among
practitioners,
developers, and
advisors on
program
foundations
- Implementation
of ROOTED
grounded in a
consistent,
stakeholder
informed
theoretical
framework
- Healing from
Financial trauma
among low-wealth
and BIPOC
communities
- Sustainable
financial
well-being
supported by a
coherent and
culturally
grounded program
Notes: This logic model is based on ROOTED’s organizational goals and the proposed process evaluation
design. A formal program logic model will be developed following the completion of this evaluation and
the integration of frameworks and priorities identified by stakeholders.
Appendix B: Informed Consent Form:
Informed Consent to Participate in Research
Study Title: How Stakeholders Define Wealth and Wealth Advising: A Process Evaluation for ROOTED
Principle Investigators: Caitlyn Aenis (cma2243@columbia.edu), Hanqiao Zhang
(hz3029@columbia.edu), Marc Artuz (maa2406@columbia.edu), Ethan Freedman
Focus Group Leader: Tiffany Younger
Sponsoring Organization: Freedom Life Therapy and Liberation for Us
Purpose of the Study:
You are being invited to participate in a research study. The purpose of this study is to explore how
organizational stakeholders affiliated with Freedom Life Therapy and Liberation for Us define wealth and
wealth advising. Your participation will help ensure that ROOTED is built on a shared, clearly articulated
conceptual foundation that reflects the values and expertise of the practitioners and developers who will
bring it to life.
Who Will Be Participating:
The study includes a focus group of 5-7 stakeholders, including therapists, coaches, program developers,
and organizational staff who are directly involved in the development or planned delivery of the
ROOTED program. Clients of the organization are not included in this evaluation process.
What Will Be Asked of You:
If you agree to participate, you will take part in a focus group discussion lasting a maximum of 45 - 60
minutes. The focus group will be held in person or via secure video call, depending on participant
availability. With your permission, the session will be recorded via audio or transcribed for accurate
transcription and reflection of generated discourse. If you prefer not to be recorded, the facilitator will
take written notes. There are no right or wrong answers; this is an open and exploratory discussion about
how you understand wealth and wealth advising.
How You Were Chosen:
You were identified by organizational leadership as a stakeholder who is actively involved in the
development or planned delivery of ROOTED. Approximately 5-7 stakeholders will be invited to
participate in this focus group.
Possible Risks or Discomforts:
Because this discussion addresses topics related to wealth, financial systems, and marginalized
communities, some participants may find certain questions or perspectives emotionally resonant or
professionally challenging. You are not required to respond to any question or topic that feels
uncomfortable, and you may withdraw from the discussion at any time. Because focus groups involve
shared discussion, you will be privy to other participants’ perspectives. Participants are asked to honor the
confidentiality of the group by not sharing identifiable details of others’ contributions outside of the
session.
Possible Benefits:
Your participation contributes directly to the development of a program designed to support communities
you serve. You may also find the discussion personally or professionally valuable as an opportunity to
reflect on and articulate your own frameworks around wealth and wealth advising.
Confidentiality:
All information shared during the focus group will be kept confidential to the extent possible. Audio
recordings will be deleted following transcription. Transcripts will be de-identified and stored in
encrypted, password-protected files, accessible only to the evaluation team. No identifying information
will be included in any reports or presentations.
Voluntary Participation and Consequences of Stopping:
Your participation is completely voluntary. You may decline to participate, skip any question, or withdraw
from the focus group at any point in time without any consequences to your employment, organizational
standing, or relationship with Freedom Life Therapy or Liberation for Us. There are no costs associated
with participation, and no payment or incentives are offered.
Contact Information:
If you have questions about this study, please contact: Tiffany Younger (tny2001@columbia.edu) or
(Caitlyn Aenis (cma2243@columbia.edu), Hanqiao Zhang (hz3029@columbia.edu), Marc Artuz
(maa2406@columbia.edu), or Ethan Freedman (ehf2124@columbia.edu)). If you have concerns about
your rights as a research participant, please contact Tiffany Younger (tny2001@columbia.edu).
By signing below, you indicate that you have read and understood this form, that you have had the
opportunity to ask questions, and that you voluntarily agree to participate in the study.
Participant Name (print):
Participant Signature:_ Date: _
Researcher Signature:_ Date:_
Appendix C: REVISED ROOTED Stakeholder Focus Group Protocol (as Implemented)
Welcome and Purpose
"Today we are conducting this focus group to evaluate the need for a trauma-informed wealth
advising curriculum for low-wealth communities that are enrolled in any guaranteed capital program. We
are very interested in your professional expertise and want to learn more about what you've encountered
while working in this particular area. Before we begin, I would like to confirm that it is okay for me to
record your responses via audio for transcription purposes. Your identities will remain anonymous once
transcribed. I am going to assign each of you a number; please state your number before you give a
response. Does everyone give consent to the recording of this session?"
Discussion Questions:
Question 1: As experts and advocates who work within and alongside baby bonds programs, how
would you define wealth based on what you see in your work?
Question 2: Based on what we know on baby bonds through scholarly research and academia,
there is a constant discussion around the significance of financial literacy. What kinds of financial
literacy programs are currently in place, if any, and are these programs meeting the needs of the
populations you serve? If not, how are these programs failing to meet those needs?
Question 3: In your professional expertise, what would a human-centered, culturally responsive,
trauma-informed wealth advising program look like for baby bonds recipients? What are some
key indicators that it has been successful?
Closing
"Thank you so much for this rich conversation. Your perspectives are foundational to building
ROOTED in a way that is coherent, culturally grounded, and genuinely responds to the communities you
serve. We will follow up to share our findings and discuss the next steps."
Appendix D: ORIGINAL: Focus Group Evaluation Instrument
ROOTED Stakeholder Focus Group Protocol:
Process Evaluation: Stakeholder Definitions of Wealth and Wealth Advising
Welcome and Purpose
“Thank you all for taking the time to join us today. My name is (Facilitator Name), and I am part of the
evaluation team working with Freedom Life Therapy and Liberation for Us. We are conducting a process
evaluation to understand how those of you who are building and delivering ROOTED define two
foundational concepts: wealth and wealth advising. Today, we are looking for genuine perspectives that
offer insight into the complexity and tensions that arise when it comes to wealth and wealth advising. This
conversation will last no more than 60 minutes. With your consent, we will audio record for accurate
transcription; all responses will be de-identified so participants remain anonymous. Please also be mindful
of honoring the confidentiality of this group. What is shared here stays here. Does anyone have any
questions before we begin?”
Section 1: Defining Wealth:
- In your own words please define what wealth is to you.
a. When you think about what it means to be wealthy, what picture comes to your mind?
b. What shapes your definition of wealth?
c. What aspects of wealth are most important for you to name?
- Do you build wealth?
a. If yes: What kind of wealth do you build?
b. If no: Why not?
c. What are some major barriers you face in building the wealth that you want, if any?
Section 2: Defining Wealth Advising:
- In your own words please define what you believe wealth advising is.
a. What does wealth advising look like for you?
i. What does wealth advising entail?
b. How does wealth advising stand out from other financial literacy, coaching, or counseling
programs?
- If you had to facilitate a trauma-informed wealth advising program what would that look like?
i. What would you want clients to walk away with in a program like that?
b. What do you think clients need most from a trauma-informed wealth advising program
based on what you have heard and observed in your work?
- How could mental health interventions, somatic practices, and healing-centered approaches be
incorporated into wealth advising?
a. What challenges and/or benefits could arise from this?
b. What skills, values, and/or knowledge would be needed to deliver a wealth advising
program as such?
Section 3: Client and Community Perspectives:
- Based on your work experience, what best summarizes how clients and community members
define wealth?
i. What does wealth advising look like for them?
b. What stands out the most when clients and community members discuss their concepts
and definitions of wealth?
c. Where do you see the biggest gap between how practitioners define wealth and how
clients do?
i. What could be done to bridge this gap?
- Based on your work experience, how do you understand wealth to be defined in the communities
ROOTED is designed to serve: specifically low-wealth and BIPOC adults?
a. What are some barriers that low-wealth and BIPOC adult communities may be facing
when it comes to building wealth? [Structural, historical, cultural, etc…]
Section 4: Program Foundations
- What are some common definitions and understandings of wealth and wealth advising that can
serve as a foundation for ROOTED?
a. Where do you see alignment, and where do you see differences?
- Is there anything about wealth or wealth advising that should be understood and you feel is
essential for ROOTED to get right?
a. Was there anything in our discussion that you want to revisit, that we may have
overlooked, or did not include in our questions that you would like to bring up now?
Closing:
“Thank you so much for this rich conversation. Your perspectives are foundational to building ROOTED
in a way that is coherent, culturally grounded, and genuinely responds to the communities you serve. We
will follow up to share our findings and discuss the next steps.”
Appendix E: Thematic Analysis Codebook
The codebook below represents the final set of themes and codes developed through the
team-based thematic analysis of the focus group transcript. Codes were developed inductively through
close reading of the transcript and refined collaboratively across multiple passes. Code definitions reflect
the conceptual content captured under each code, and representative examples are drawn directly from
participant language.
Theme Code Definition Example Quote
Theme 1:
Wealth as
Non-Mater
ial
WealthBeyondMoney Explicit rejection of asset/income-based
definitions; wealth framed in terms of what it
enables beyond dollars and cents.
"it's beyond like the dollars and cents that
assets minus liabilities… it's more about
what wealth enables." — P1
WealthAsSafetySecurity Wealth defined as the condition of safety,
stability, and protection from displacement.
"I will say safety, it's about safety and
security and feeling free." — P2
WealthAsAgencyFreedom Wealth as the material precondition for
self-determination, choice, and the ability to
take risks.
"This is about agency… I have a cushion to
fall back on, so now I can take that risk and
maybe become an entrepreneur." — P1
WealthAsDignityTrustWorth Wealth linked to dignity and the
relational/institutional recognition that one is
worthy of investment.
"the ability to hope and dream… because
you are seen as worthy." — P3
WealthAsHopesDreams Wealth as the enabling condition for
aspirations, long-term goals, and connection
with community and family.
"financial security isn't just about survival.
It's about, like, your heart needs to." — P4
WealthAsOwnershipBelongin
g
Wealth as ownership and belonging—the felt
and legal security of having a place that cannot
be taken away.
"no one could kick me out of this space.
This is mine. I belong here." — P2
Theme 2:
Financial
Literacy
Gaps &
Trauma-In
formed
Advising
DeficitBasedLiteracyCritique Traditional financial literacy programs
characterized as deficit-based, individually
focused, and misaligned with structural causes
of poverty.
"they try to change individual behavior…
you can't budget your way out of
insufficient resources." — P1, P4
TraumaStructuralHarmAndMi
strust
Financial hardship reframed as rooted in
trauma, structural racism, and institutional
mistrust that programs fail to address.
"Poverty is trauma… mistrust in banks,
mistrust in the government." — P2
PersonCenteredTraumaInform
ed
Vision for advising that is individualized,
trauma-informed, clinically grounded, and
tailored to each person's circumstances.
"the financial advising can't be boiler
plate… it's really got to be unique to your
particular circumstances." — P4
GapsBarriersResources Systemic barriers to effective advising:
program fragmentation, benefit cliffs, and the
cost of professional financial support.
"the financial education has to be aware of
the other resources… programs set up in a
way that they can cancel each other out." —
P4