Absence of conflict of interest.
Citation
Highlights
- The study's objective was to examine the impact of an informational flyer on retirement contributions. This profile focuses on the individuals who were not contributing to the supplemental retirement savings plan. The authors investigated similar research questions for another sample, the profile can be found here.
- The study was a randomized controlled trial that assigned individuals to one of four treatment groups or a control group. The authors used data from the North Carolina Retirement System administrative records and statistical models to compare contribution changes observed pre- and post-intervention between treatment and control group members.
- The study did not find any significant differences in retirement contributions between treatment and control groups.
- This study receives a high evidence rating. This means we are confident that the estimated effects are attributable to the informational flyers, and not to other factors. However, the study did not find statistically significant effects.
Features of the Intervention
To increase contributions to the supplemental retirement savings plans, the authors created four different versions of an informative flyer about retirement savings strategies for older workers. The baseline flyer provided information emphasizing catch-up provisions and a direct link to open an account. The other flyers (longevity, liquidity, and GoalMaker) included the information from the baseline flyer with additional targeted information. The longevity flyer provided information targeted toward extended time spent in retirement, and the liquidity flyer provided information emphasizing the availability of supplemental plan withdrawals for older workers prior to retirement. The GoalMaker flyer provided information about the ease of personalizing investment decisions through a risk tailoring feature known as GoalMaker, which allows individuals to select a specific risk profile for their investments by answering a series of straightforward questions.
Features of the Study
The study was a randomized controlled trial that targeted active North Carolina state employees, ages 50 to 69, with no active or current retirement account in the Teachers' and State Employees Retirement System. The study authors randomly assigned the participants into one of four treatment groups (baseline, longevity, liquidity, or GoalMaker) or a control group. The control group received no flyer while the subsequent treatment groups received one of the four different flyers. The study sample included 8,006 active workers in North Carolina state agencies as of November 2014 who had no current account but had numerous opportunities to begin saving additional funds in their state government employer-sponsored supplemental saving plans. Over half of the sample was female (56%), with a median age of 57.5, a median salary of $41,614, and the median years of service was 12 years. The study authors used administrative data provided by the North Carolina Retirement System at three time points: baseline (October 31, 2014), short-term (December 31, 2014), and medium-term (August 15, 2015). The authors used statistical models to compare contribution changes observed pre- and post-intervention between individuals in the treatment and control groups.
Findings
Knowledge and skills for financial decision making
- The study found no significant differences in changes made to retirement contributions between individuals in the treatment and control groups.
Considerations for Interpreting the Findings
The authors acknowledge that workers at older ages may have other sources of retirement savings and therefore may not elect to invest in their employers’ supplemental savings plans.
Causal Evidence Rating
The quality of causal evidence presented in this report is high because it was based on a well-implemented randomized controlled trial. This means we are confident that any estimated effects would be attributable to the informational flyers and not to other factors. However, the study did not find statistically significant effects.