Financial capability training for social workers in Singapore: Towards more effective practice

Abstract

In most countries around the world, social workers assist financially vulnerable people, but they often do so with little or no training in finance. This article examines the development and pilot testing of a financial curriculum to be used in social work education and training in Singapore. Feedback from social workers informed development of the curriculum, which is practical and capability-based. The study covers two phases: first curriculum development, then pilot testing. Focus group methods are used to analyse the process and effectiveness of curriculum development and the initial training outcomes.

Introduction

Financial institutions, technology and markets are transforming people’s day-to-day lives in complex ways (Aalbers, 2019; Martin, 2002). In an age of financialisation, families manage their lives using more and different types of financial products (such as digital finance) (Panos and Wilson, 2020). They also take on more financial risks than in the past, including various types of debt and investments (Pellandini-Simányi, 2021). For people with low incomes, financial decisions are often challenging. They live with a slim margin for error, often use higher priced and riskier financial products and services and some financial options are predatory (Pellandini-Simányi, 2021). Against this financial landscape, managing household finances often requires complex calculations and decisions (Lusardi, 2012).

Social workers have an important role to play in overcoming these financial challenges. Social workers – who are skilled at building therapeutic alliances and helping clients break down tasks into manageable actions – are well-positioned to improve the financial well-being of vulnerable people (Despard and Chowa, 2013). In Singapore, social workers engage clients with arrears and problem debts, supporting them to take charge and obtain assistance with debt payment. Apart from addressing the financial aspects, social workers assess their clients’ ability to cope with the financial impact of the debt, but also the impact on their emotional well-being and familial relations. Subsequently, they provide direct assistance and/or refer them to other organisations (Lian, 2015). When clients have insufficient income, social workers support clients in securing employment and financial assistance to tide them over. This includes referring them to organisations that can provide training and job-matching (Ministry of Social and Family Development, n.d.).

Social workers helping people address their financial struggles is not a new idea. The roots are found in early social work practice (Stuart, 2016). Today, in the context of growing economic inequality and financial precariousness, financial issues again attract attention in social work in various countries (Ansong et al., 2020; Beyond Social Services, 2020; Huang et al., 2018; Li, 2020; Sherraden et al., 2017). Nonetheless, most social workers receive little or no exposure to financial concepts, research and practice in their education (Frey et al., 2017; Huang et al., 2021). The Social Service Institute, the key institution to train social service practitioners in Singapore, for example, does not as yet have a capability-based financial curriculum for social workers.

This article aims to understand how a financial capability curriculum was adapted and pilot tested to address financial vulnerability in low-income households and the roles of social workers in Singapore. We begin by discussing why and how Singaporean scholars and practitioners took up financial capability training.

Development of a financial capability curriculum in Singapore

Similar to many other countries (OECD/INFE, 2013), the Singapore government initiated financial education in recent decades (MoneySense, 2021). MoneySense training aims to help people manage their money more effectively and make sounder financial decisions. This initiative works with various government agencies to bring financial literacy programmes to schools, workplaces and other locations. The content centres on money management, insurance, investing and retirement. MoneySense is designed for the general Singaporean population, thus its topics – for example, loans, savings and retirement planning – might be comparatively less applicable to lower-income households than their middle-upper-income counterparts. The financial challenges experienced by lower-income households, such as sizable debt (Ng and Tan, 2021), extend beyond the provision of financial education and require intensive case management and intervention by social workers.

Focusing on financial vulnerability in Singaporean families could also address some gaps in social work education in Singapore, which is viewed as skewing towards interpersonal practice skills and not emphasising environmental factors in well-being. Scholars such as Vasoo (2019) have advocated moving beyond remedial approaches to adopting preventive and developmental perspectives that tackle complex social problems. As a social worker at a children’s home told a reporter, ‘Services help low-income families cope within their means instead of to build for the future . . . There is a significant gap’ (Rashith, 2019). This suggests a need for social work practice in Singapore to look beyond remedial work to embrace preventive and developmental approaches (Midgley, 1995).

In 2017, scholars at the National University of Singapore (NUS) Next Age Institute proposed the development of a training curriculum to equip social workers with knowledge and skills in assisting vulnerable low-income households with financial matters. The initiative, National University of Singapore (NUS) Next Age Institute is a collaboration with U.S.-based Washington University in St. Louis. The mission is to enhance people’s economic security and build capabilities for active engagement across the life course that leads to stable, engaged and productive lives (National University of Singapore, n.d). Singapore scholars contacted colleagues who had developed a financial capability curriculum for vulnerable families (Sherraden et al., 2018).

Financial capability theory

The curriculum aims to improve the financial well-being of vulnerable families by integrating financial capability practice into social work education. Based on a uniquely social work definition, it builds on capability theory which posits that capability is the real opportunity that people have regarding the life they lead (Sen, 1987: 36). Financial capability is a concept that combines a person’s ability to act (financial knowledge and skills) with their opportunity to act (inclusion) in ways that improve financial functioning and financial well-being (Sherraden, 2013, Sherraden et al. 2022). It complements the person-in-environment perspective in social work that one’s behaviour is shaped by, and influences, the larger social, economic and political contexts (Kondrat, 2013). The financial capability training was based on contributions by dozens of scholars and practitioners and was informed by 30 years of research on financial capability and asset building (Callahan et al., 2019; Sherraden, 1991; Sherraden et al., 2018).

Why Singapore?

Given the unique geographic, political and demographic characteristics of Singapore, the financial capability curriculum required extensive adaptation. A multi-ethnic and multi-lingual society, Singapore has a resident population of nearly 4 million people including 75 percent of Chinese origin, 14 percent Malay origin and 9 percent Indian origin (Department of Statistics Singapore, 2021). Singapore is also one of the wealthiest economies in the world (Brandmeir et al., 2018). The standard of living has increased fivefold to sixfold since the 1960s (Chan, 2015). The overall homeownership rate is 90 percent, and is 80 percent even among households in the lowest 20 percent by income (Quah, 2016).

Despite widespread household wealth, the challenge of income inequality is acute in Singapore, which ranks eighth in income inequality among 48 countries with very high levels of human development (United Nations Development Programme [UNDP], 2019). Given this wide income inequality, there is an urgent need to examine the financial challenges among low-income households and take actions towards capability.

Singapore’s liberal welfare system – emphasising human capabilities for the nation’s growth and development – is fertile ground for a financial curriculum in social work. Social workers in Singapore are registered under the Social Work Accreditation and Advisory Board, which oversees professional standards and continuing education. In 2020, there were 2084 accredited social workers and social service practitioners in Singapore. Social workers engage with a vulnerable and diverse clientele, including families, children and youth, persons with special needs, and older adults (Social Work Accreditation and Advisory Board, 2020).

Phases of curriculum development in Singapore

The Financial Capability initiative was rolled out in two phases. In Phase 1, the Singapore team formed an advisory committee to assess the relative advantage (or disadvantage) and compatibility of the new curriculum (Rogers, 2003). Also, during Phase 1, the team conducted a number of focus group (FG) discussions with social work practitioners on their reactions to and recommendations for a financial capability curriculum. The team invited representatives from government, statutory boards and social service agencies, including the Ministry of Social and Family Development, the Singapore Association of Social Workers, the National Council of Social Service, the Institute for Financial Literacy, and other core social service organisations to provide inputs on training gaps and in contextualising the curriculum to local settings. Relying on an existing financial capability curriculum, research on financial capability practice, FGs with practitioners, as well as practice knowledge and experience of the Singaporean curriculum designers, the team created a Singapore financial capability curriculum.

In Phase 2, the team conducted pilot training of the curriculum (Goy, 2017). The Singapore team recruited and prepared 18 people from the National Council of Social Service, Singapore Association of Social Workers, Ministry of Social and Family Development, National University of Singapore, and Institute for Financial Literacy to teach the curriculum. A total of 92 trainees completed the pilot training with each trainee achieving 32.5 training hours in 2018–2019. The majority of trainees (45%) were experienced social workers with more than 5 years of work experience, while 32 percent had 2–5 years of experience, and 23 percent had less than 2 years of experience. Nearly all 92 trainees worked with financially vulnerable clients, including 78 percent who worked with families, children and older adults in need. Others worked in healthcare (18%) and in government (4%). Slightly more than half reported that they had not previously received financial literacy training.

Research questions

To create a useful curriculum, the team built research into the initiative to learn more about the specific financial challenges facing low-income Singaporeans, and the role of social workers in addressing these challenges. Specifically, the research explored:

• How professional social workers think about the financial circumstances of their low-income clients, including how they manage their finances

• Types of interventions that social workers think would support clients’ financial well-being

• What professional social workers should know about working with client finances

Once the curriculum for financial capability in Singapore was generated, the team sought feedback from social workers who participated in a pilot testing of the curriculum. Such a test provided useful information about improving the curriculum. Specific questions included:

• What are initial learning outcomes of financial capability training?

• What are trainee reactions to financial capability training?

Methods

Given the exploratory nature of the research (Swedberg, 2020), we used FGs to investigate how a curriculum could train social workers to respond to clients’ financial challenges, and after training, to learn from trainees about the curriculum’s success in addressing these challenges (Krueger and Casey, 2000). FGs were designed to encourage candid discussion that would led to detailed understanding of social workers’ perspectives and experiences. The research team included two social work faculty members with extensive experience in social services and a master’s level researcher. The study was guided by human subject research ethics and required written consent from all study participants. The National University of Singapore Institutional Review Board granted human subjects approval in March 2017 for Phase 1 FGs and in April 2019 for Phase 2 FGs.

Phase 1: FG discussions on curriculum development

Eight FGs, with an average of seven participants each, were held in Phase 1 to inform curriculum development. We used a purposive non-probability sampling strategy to recruit practising social workers who work with financially vulnerable clients in a variety of settings. However, to ensure that they were social workers and had enough experience to inform the study, all of them had (1) a degree, graduate diploma or master’s in social work and (2) at least 2 years of practice in the social or health sector. The response rate was high: of the 92 letters of invitations sent to social services agencies, 54 social workers from 31 organisations – including family and children services, services for people with disability, aged care services and healthcare agencies – agreed to participate.

Instrument and data collection

FGs followed an open question format with various prompts, and covered four main topics: (1) participants’ scope of work and clientele, (2) the principal financial and monetary concerns of their clients, (3) factors they believe contribute to clients’ financial challenges, (4) their suggestions for topics a curriculum should cover and (5) their assessment of a proposed curriculum outline. A social work practitioner with research expertise facilitated the FGs, and a member of the research team observed and took notes. The FGs, which averaged 90–120 minutes, were held in a geographically central location. They were audio-recorded with participants’ informed consent.

Analysis

Analysis began after the first FG, identifying methodological and content questions and possible themes. We used open coding without a priori categories. By the time we had conducted eight FGs, we had (more than) reached saturation on key themes (Guest et al., 2017). Two of the three authors read all the transcribed FGs multiple times. They also independently coded the interviews using open coding, to avoid limiting the analysis to presupposed concepts (Gibbs, 2007). Once analysts achieved interrater reliability on the main codes, they identified the themes related to the four research questions.

Phase 2: FG discussions with social workers from the pilot training

We held four additional FGs after pilot training to elicit in-depth understanding of the strengths and limitations of the curriculum, and trainees’ suggestions for enhancements. Each FG had an average of four participants (total n = 17). The FG questions examined the relevance of the financial content for local (Singapore) practice, effectiveness of training delivery and suggestions on enhancements of the curriculum and training delivery. The same data analysis procedures were followed as in earlier FGs.

Results

Phase 1: FG discussions on curriculum development

Three robust themes emerged that reflect both the challenges and potential benefits of including financial concerns in social work practice: (1) Social workers are busy ‘fighting fires’ that limit their ability to address underlying financial problems, (2) social workers often feel unprepared to address clients’ underlying financial issues and (3) financial practice with clients could empower both clients and social workers.

Regarding the first theme, fighting fires, social workers reported that clients’ presenting problems demand immediate attention before social workers can focus on underlying financial challenges. In addition, low-income clients often cope with strained family relationships, incarceration, caregiving responsibilities, divorce, family violence, mental illness and other challenges. Participants talked about how these problems complicate efforts to solve underlying financial problems, such as unemployment, problem debt and inadequate resources. For example, Christine, from family services, said that helping clients find employment is difficult because of competing caregiving responsibilities:

We see families with many members having health concerns. They can’t go out to work and even if there is an abled person who may want to go out and work, he or she needs to be at home because of caregiving.

Some clients have other physical or mental conditions that affect their ability to work and have a stable income. As a result, the instability in their lives can be overwhelming. John, practising in children services, said,

It could be either physical or some mental health condition which actually impacts their ability to work and as a result, they’re actually struggling financially also. Or even though some of them may be earning some income, but it may not be stable.

Solving daily financial problems is time-consuming and can be complicated by clients’ cognitive and other disabilities. For example, Janice, practising in the community healthcare sector, explained that organising financial assistance for clients can be arduous:

Older persons want to manage their own matters. But the coordination becomes more and more taxing and challenging . . . It is tedious sometimes even to apply for financial assistance, they have to get ready all documents including pay slips from their children who may be overseas or not close to them.

Clients understandably focus on immediate and distressing problems. As observed by Carrie, from the community healthcare sector, ‘Some of them would say “I just live one day at a time, because we don’t know what is going to happen the next day”’.

When clients incur large debts, social workers find it especially difficult to help. For example, some participants described clients who resorted to borrowing from undesirable financial sources, leading to accumulated debts that were impossible to manage. Andy from family services thought, ‘Maybe those who are highly in debt would, say, borrow from one legal moneylender to pay the other one’. Paul, also from family services, observed that some clients cannot ‘manage the household expenses and then they take unsecured loans. Yes, then [they] snowball to, I think, [Sing$]10,000, 20,000 – or even more. And with their income, they’re unable to [repay]’.

Participants identified socio-environmental factors and system failures that lead to financial troubles. In some situations, they reported that clients incur large medical bills that are not covered by insurance. Amanda, from the disability sector, observed that some medical expenses are ‘not covered by insurance or CPF [Central Provident Fund] or MediSave [the national medical savings scheme]. They have quite a large sum of medical bills that they need to settle as well’.

Often, the complexity and gravity of clients’ situations require involvement at family, agency, community and/or policy intervention level. Addressing systemic issues, however, requires time, skills and autonomy that social workers may not always have. As a result, such issues take a back seat to solving clients’ more immediate problems. Mary, from family services, shared how such structural problems can take a toll on clients’ financial and social well-being:

Sometimes there are barriers to assistance because [clients] . . . don’t qualify for straightforward ComCare assistance like SSO [Social Service Office that handles public financial assistance] or childcare or student care, and they need to bear the burden of paying most of the things.

Participants also recognised the importance of moving beyond ‘firefighting’ and were keen to learn more about taking on a longer-term approach in working with low-income clients, focusing on asset building.

As shared by Ella, from the children disability sector, ‘help us to work with clients for their long term planning . . . plan for their retirement . . . for their future’.

This sentiment was also echoed by Maggie, from the community services sector, when she explained that social workers

basically focus on how to help families in the short-term. I felt that I don’t know how to help financially needy people in the long term. What are my goals? Besides giving assistance, how do I want to help them? So I think we probably need to move towards how to grow them and how to have positive changes.

As Jenny, from the community services sector, summed it up, social workers ‘are in firefighting mode’. They have their hands full tackling immediate issues and crises and have limited capacity to deal with the root causes of financial challenges.

The second theme – social workers do not feel fully prepared to address clients’ underlying financial issues – reflects their limited knowledge of the financial landscape (financial products and services), especially those that are relevant to low-income clients’ lives. They struggle to keep up with the fast-paced changes in the economy and social policy schemes. To solve clients’ underlying financial problems, they said that it would be helpful to have more basic financial knowledge, financial management and financial counselling skills to solve clients’ underlying financial problems.

Some participants said they are unfamiliar with certain types of financial resources including eligibility criteria. Joycelyn, from the community healthcare sector, observed, ‘There are so many new resources every time, updating by the government – so sometimes, we might only know an old one’. Benny from children services puzzled about ‘. . . things like banking services. Some of us – we are also quite confused – at what age can they [children and youth] open an account?’ Rachel, from family services, added that social workers also must know more about relevant policies:

The workers need to be equipped with all the finance knowledge like interest rates, financial products, investment products, and even housing policy and CPF (Central Provident Fund) . . . I think many social workers are not interested or are not trained in these.

Current financial literacy programmes are inadequate to equip social workers for effective practice with financially vulnerable clients, according to some participants. Mala, from family services, observed,

The financial literacy training we see around is very middle class. They are all about investment, but our clients don’t have the money to invest. So we need to look at possible strategies for clients to start saving, start investing in education and reap benefits in the long run. We need to see the possibilities, then we know how to coach.

As Mala suggested, social workers need financial knowledge and skills that are specifically helpful for their clients, especially ways to help them become financially secure over the long term.

Participants said their lack of basic financial management skills, especially in managing credit and debt, impedes their ability to help clients navigate the use of financial products and services. They expressed keen interest in learning more. For example, Steven, from family services, pointed out that he would like more ‘training on debt management because most of the clients are facing some form of debts’. Benny, from children’s services, added it would be helpful to know more about how to help clients settle debts: ‘We see clients struggling to pay off [debts] . . . but what alternatives do they have?’

Participants also said that social workers need effective financial coaching and counselling skills, especially ways to help clients take a longer-term view of their financial situation.

Rachel, from community health services, explained that having a longer-term view is not just about building assets but also managing them in later life, as there are clients ‘who have money in the bank but [are] mentally incapacitated so they cannot manage’.

In addition, Claire, from family services, reflected on the importance of empathising and yet nudging clients towards positive change:

I’m thinking a balance of empathizing with [clients’] situations and how we then also bring them forward [in making changes]? . . . How do we move them from their comfort zone? How do we do it tactfully without pulling down their egos? You know, not putting them down.

Finally, the third theme – that financial practice has the potential to empower clients and social workers – could help practitioners engage in meaningful conversations about household finances. As Ann, from family services, asked: ‘How do we use the income and expenses form in a session itself to talk about the family values?’ As she implies, conversations about finances and money management are sensitive in nature. Participants across all eight FGs agreed. Although financial knowledge and skills are important, they underscored the importance of knowing how to have financial conversations with clients and motivate them to think about their future.

Penny, who works in healthcare, thinks social workers should know how to ‘empower the patients’ to work out multiple financial problems. She hopes that the curriculum would contribute to a shift in thinking about clients as recipients of help to people with strengths and abilities to resolve their problems.

Participants clarified that conversations about assets could also be about reframing the perspective that clients are assets themselves and ‘experts of their situations’ who can be ‘built upon’, affirming the strengths perspective and empowering clients to make positive and sustainable life changes. For example, Helen, from family services, suggested that ‘we [social workers] change our perspectives to see them [clients] as assets rather than liabilities’. Emma, from community services, added: the ‘definition of assets need not be financial but also about social capital, people and relationships’.

An interesting finding that surfaced from a few senior social workers was the hope that the curriculum would ‘excite’ entry-level social workers, especially fresh graduates, about their ability to help clients with their finances.

Phase 2: FG discussions with social workers from the pilot training

After the pilot training, participants reported that certain topics were useful, especially debt management, bankruptcy, budgeting, and housing and homeownership. For example, Priscilla, from the healthcare sector, said learning about budgeting helped to alleviate clients’ anxiety about financial uncertainties and enabled them to make informed decisions. Another social worker from family services, Zoe, said that learning about debt management and bankruptcy helped build her confidence in preparing clients to deal with potential negative consequences of debt.

The trainees said they gained greater awareness about financial products and services and public assistance schemes. Trainees were more confident about having deeper conversations with clients about financial matters, which would permit them to move beyond firefighting. For example, Jonathan, from family services, said his focus in practice shifted from putting ‘out the fire’ and resolving current financial issues to ‘developmental’ or ‘preventive’ work.

Participants said they learnt that there is no quick fix for financial issues. With greater awareness and deeper insights about clients’ financial issues, they reported feeling better prepared to offer financial-related information and help clients begin the change process. For example, Chloe, from the disability sector, said that the curriculum ‘made me more curious . . . and [to] do forward planning’. Instead of focusing solely on the client, she said her focus broadened to include the financial well-being of caregivers: ‘Like how is he doing with his finances? . . . How are his spending habits? His employment? What are his employment benefits? His CPF?’

The reflective discussion and experiential learning activities challenged social workers to reflect on their personal values and beliefs about money management as well as their perceptions of low-income individuals and families. Through these activities, many said they gained deeper insights into the underlying reasons (e.g. cultural, religious, personal values) for people’s financial decisions.

For instance, trainees said they gained appreciation for the impact of the ‘bandwidth tax’ (Mullainathan and Shafir, 2013) that many clients face, which can serve as a barrier to making good financial decisions. They said they are more sensitive and respectful in their conversations with clients about finances. They feel relieved of their own expectations about the ‘right values’ or the need to ‘change’ clients who are not ready to make certain financial decisions. For example, Winnie, from family services, said that this approach empowers clients to make their own informed financial decisions:

We learned from the course that because clients are entrenched in their situations, they tend to make bad decisions due to their coping mechanisms. We need to understand them and give the space . . . This module allows us to have a deeper understanding of the clients.

Gabriel, from children services, also observed that the pilot training gave him greater insight into his clients’ circumstances:

[It] offered us the opportunity to talk about the lived realities of the clients . . . So, I think it really left a strong impression on me because I was reminded of conversations of how families we work with are experts of their situations, and how there are many who are able to help themselves out of poverty, and how [we should] get them to share these experiences with others.

Gabriel continued, making the point that these insights helped him envision other approaches: ‘It got me to think about community building and empowering the families to help others in need’.

However, trainees recognised that there is no quick fix to breaking the poverty cycle and undertaking asset-building interventions with low-income clients. As trainees put it, these are not things ‘that they are able to do next month or even one year later’, and ‘social workers might not see the results so soon’. However, they believed that the training encouraged them to be more intentional than before training in integrating asset-building into their practice.

For instance, Fiona, from family services, said the training ‘suddenly woke me up’. ‘We [social workers] don’t care about it [asset building policies/schemes] then, but now we have more information. We look at it and think twice . . . it is our opportunity to share with clients the knowledge that we received’.

Max, from family services, reflected that

after going through the course, it is a reminder that it is not just about financial sufficiency, there is something else that we want to build upon . . . help clients build towards the future, instead of just getting services to achieve financial sufficiency and then stop there.

In general, it was the more experienced social workers who stressed the importance of advocating for change at the higher management or systemic levels, especially in the areas of employment and/or financial assistance schemes and policies.

Some trainees, however, raised concerns – mirroring similar concerns in the first FGs – that their practice does not permit the time to work with clients on long-term financial capability issues. For example, those working in acute healthcare settings said they have very limited interaction time with patients to work on financial issues. Even so, they think there is potential for innovations that could benefit patients with financial needs.

Discussion and implications

Overall, both sets of FG participants said that finances present major challenges for their clients regardless of the type of service setting. That is, household finances are a problem across different client populations, including families with children who have disabilities, older adults in community settings, survivors of intimate partner violence, patients in hospital and others. In fact, there was some interest in including more about household finances in social work practice because it might generate enthusiasm among social workers about the potential for improving people’s lives.

Nonetheless, participants also reported that they and their clients are absorbed by the crises at hand. They are so busy fighting fires, that they have little opportunity to address underlying financial problems. Their limited financial knowledge and skills also make it more difficult for them to respond to underlying financial problems. The working approach is to address the immediate problems by sourcing for financial assistance to alleviate hardships. The road towards financial stability seems difficult as social workers struggle with knowledge on how to empower clients to take a longer-term perspective to better their financial well-being. Participants appeared to be saying that they think it is important to address these financial issues. Given the demands of their work, their own lack of financial sophistication and the profound challenges of financial vulnerability, however, they need support to be able to do so successfully.

This conundrum – the tension between the importance of financial capability and the difficulty of addressing it – came up repeatedly. It suggests three ways that the curriculum must ease the tension for practitioners. First, practitioners could receive financial capability training while in university. None of the FG participants had learnt financial capability basics in their education for social work. Practising social workers have limited time for continuing education, and a knowledge base would reduce the pressure on them once they are employed.

Second, the curriculum could be made less complex and easier to use. Simple tools could streamline practitioners’ ability to assess clients’ financial condition. Other tools could make connections between various areas of social work practice and common financial problems. Such tools could identify specific questions that connect typical presenting problems with financial concerns. For example, do families with young children tap into the Child Development Account to maximise the benefits of matched top-up by the government so that they could use the account to pay for their children’ education and healthcare needs? Tools also could be used to assist clients to create household income statements and balance sheets. These, and other tools, could enable clients to make informed financial decisions. Tools could also help social workers have financial discussions with their clients. Experiential learning techniques could prepare social workers to understand clients’ financial constraints and ways of having respectful conversations with clients on sensitive financial topics.

Phase 2 FG participants pointed out that the curriculum should demonstrate that improving clients’ financial situation could improve clients’ overall well-being, and that not addressing financial issues could inhibit progress on other fronts (including the presenting problem). As Gabriel pointed out, with greater appreciation for the toll that financial problems take on clients, social workers may be able to ‘envision’ ways to help their clients. For instance, social workers could identify clients at risk of financial issues and work with them to prevent the deterioration of the situation to a crisis state.

A related theme from the FGs is the potential for a curriculum to empower social workers and their clients. When trainees in the pilot learnt more about how to help clients improve their financial situations, they reported being more optimistic about possible outcomes. For example, they believed that debt negotiation skills empowered their clients. Trainees reported gaining a more realistic and deeper understanding of their clients, and more confidence in their ability to empower clients and engage in prevention work.

In some cases, participants said they lacked full awareness of existing policies, such as Singapore’s asset building policy structure for all citizens (Loke and Sherraden, 2019). Such policies can support even the most vulnerable clients in practical ways. Financial problems – such as income insufficiency, lack of housing or inadequate education and healthcare – reflect societal inequalities and lack of social protections. Therefore, they require systemic and structural solutions. Not all social workers believe they have these skills, the time or the autonomy to engage in this way. When policies do not exist or are weak, the curriculum should address how social workers can work alongside other organisations and in coalitions to encourage systemic change.

The research findings provide valuable ideas for development of a financial capability curriculum. Relevant topics include developing financial goals, short- and long-term savings, loans, managing problem debts, household budgeting, home ownership and retirement planning, with content contextualised locally for use by social workers in practice. The curriculum can also be adapted for use in social work education at university.

Research limitations and future work

This study examines the experiences of a diverse group of social workers, but they do not represent all social workers in Singapore. Future research should examine the curriculum’s application in other social welfare settings. The study’s focus is on individual social workers, and as such, does not explore how human service organisations integrate financial issues and practice into their mission and goals. Furthermore, this study does not examine whether the innovation will endure and become integrated into standard social work practice. We do not know if public and private funders will embrace activities designed to address clients’ underlying financial problems. Finally, this study does not (as yet) examine impacts of financial capability practice for clients. New qualitative and quantitative research should fill these gaps going forward, especially examining the outcomes of financial capability training for practitioners, how clients perceive financial capability practice, and whether and how clients’ financial well-being improves over the short term and long term.

Conclusion

Financial capability training and asset building are relatively new to modern social work. This study indicates that social workers understand the relevance of, are willing to address their clients’ financial troubles, and believe they have gained tools to improve financial capability and help them build assets. However, the study also finds that bringing financial capability into practice requires more than learning financial management concepts. It also requires thinking about how financial capability can be integrated into practice in ways that do not overwhelm either the clients or practitioners. Moreover, many of the financial challenges facing low-income families cannot be solved at the individual and household levels. Some issues will require advocacy and development at the community, organisational and policy levels. Future work on financial capability curricula should enable practitioners to understand when they can directly assist clients and when they should engage in system change.

The social work profession is dedicated to enhancing the lives of individuals through appropriate services, and the promotion of social planning and action (Social Work Accreditation and Advisory Board, 2020). This work is premised on the value and dignity of all human beings, and seeks especially to improve the well-being of people who are in poverty, are vulnerable and/or experiencing oppression. This includes their financial well-being.