Does Financial Wellness (Still) Need an ROI?

The ROI for financial wellness has always been elusive—but a new survey suggests that it might not matter.

Asked “Why are you creating or expanding your financial wellbeing program?”, respondents to Alight’s 17th edition of Hot Topics in Retirement & Financial Wellbeing said that not only was financial wellness their top priority, more than half (56%) said that the importance of financial wellbeing has increased at their organization over the last two years, and none said the focused has decreased. 

But—asked why they were creating or expanding their financial wellbeing program, the respondents largely ignored the traditional ROI metrics. The most common answer was nothing more concrete than to “enhance the overall employee experience (85%), and right behind that was the simple proposition that “we believe it is the right thing to do (84%). Even HR’s traditional favorite—“increase employee engagement”—at 72%—was well behind those arguably subjective gauges. 

“Engagement” isn’t exactly a new measure—but even that requires equating employee utilization with a return of value to the organization’s bottom line. It’s not that it doesn’t have value, but it’s darned hard to quantify. Indeed, some experts argue that we shouldn’t even try.

Goals Posts

Well down the list for these plan sponsors were common goals such as improved retirement statistics (e.g., improved adequacy, decreased leakage, higher participation rate), cited by fewer than half (49%), or the traditional “to increase attractiveness and/or differentiate ourselves as an employer,” which was identified by just 47%. The goals that many early advocates of financial wellness had touted—to “decrease employee time spent addressing financial issues (either on the job or through absenteeism)” was mentioned by just 43%, and as for “decreased medical costs”—a mere 14% indicated that was a rationale. Nor was it a matter of responding to worker interest—just 38% cited employees asking for these types of benefits as a factor.

Don’t get me wrong—it’s not as though there haven’t been attempts made to quantify the return on the time and monetary investment in these programs, certainly by the firms that promote these services—but getting to those results generally involves adopting not just the methodologies, but the calculus employed in assigning value to those results. 

Measure ‘Meants’

Despite the well-intentioned efforts of many, financial wellness remains one of those concepts that is still, largely anyway, (just) a concept—one with varied definitions, inconsistent applications, and disparate providers—and thus one that is notoriously frustrating to assign a dollar value[i] to—other than the cost of such programs, which when, done properly, we’re assured, costs money.

In fact, asked how they intended to measure the results of their financial wellbeing program, far and away the most common response—cited by 85%—was employee usage of benefits. As metrics go, it’s certainly an important one—because if the program isn’t being used, there can be no real impact. That said, the kinds of impact that have been more commonly associated with a quantifiable ROI—improvements in retirement statistics (55%), medical costs (e.g., health care, disability, workers compensation) (12%) and reductions in absenteeism (5%)—followed distantly. Even employee engagement—as noted earlier, a notoriously difficult aspect to quantify—was cited by only about half (52%) of plan sponsors—and 6% admitted that they did not intend to measure the results of their program.

Now, these survey results are drawn from a relatively small group of relatively large plan sponsors: 116 of them, albeit with a median employee base of 19,300 (average of 47,000). On the other hand, the patterns at evidence among larger employers have long been seen as a something of a precursor for what will eventually take hold “downmarket.” 

What remains to be seen is whether the apparent diminution of focus on traditional ROI measures among these plan sponsors suggests that those contributions to the bottom line were always illusory—or perhaps that they weren’t a necessary affirmation of the pursuit of financial wellness after all. 

- Nevin E. Adams, JD

---

[i] That said, a couple of years back (see Building a Bottom Line for Financial Wellness), I was able to cobble together a formula of sorts, that looked something like “Projected reduction in turnover times current turnover rate times the estimated cost of replacing a worker times the number of employees.” That said, while it’s a calculation with discernable variables, those are still fraught with “fill in the blank” assumptions. 

What’s Holding Back Financial Wellness?

Financial wellness – it remains a hot topic among advisors – but among plan sponsors?

For all the coverage that the subject engenders – and it’s considerable in this space – it’s not unusual to find awareness gaps among plan sponsors, with perspectives ranging from ignorance to ambivalence to downright skepticism.

About a year ago, the Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI) conducted a survey of 250 large employers. At the time, the report claimed that while many employers were interested in offering financial wellness programs to their employees, there didn’t appear to be a consensus on the approach.

So, what’s changed in in the past year? Well, as it turns out, not much.

Once again EBRI surveyed large plan sponsors – this time in June 2019, the online survey of 248 full-time benefits decision-makers from companies with at least 500 employees (17% had more than 10,000). Last year’s survey canvassed employers with an “expressed interest in financial wellness initiatives” – and the 2019 version also notes that a “key criterion for participating in the survey was that employer respondents were screened to ensure that had some interest in offering financial wellness initiatives.”

Fertile ‘Grounds’?

And yet, even among a group that would seem to be fertile ground for these programs:

• Only about half report currently offering financial wellness initiatives (about the same as a year ago) – and though 20% say they are actively implementing and 29% interested in doing so – that’s also about the same as a year ago.
• Only one in four (23%) have created a score or metric. 
• Only a third (32%) have done a financial wellness needs assessment

Moreover, making a business case to management surged as a challenge for the programs, cited by 42% of respondents from 24% in last year’s survey. Little wonder since “Lack of Ability/Data to Quantify Value Added of the Initiatives” was cited as a top challenge by 41% of respondents, compared with 25% a year ago. And then there was “Lack of Staff Resources to Coordinate/Market Benefits” – cited by 43% of respondents, versus 27% in 2018.

Ultimately, there’s (still) apparently no real consensus around the definition of financial wellbeing; about a third defined it as (just) having access to assistance and resources that enable good financial decisions, about one in five (21%) defined it as (just) being equipped to achieve retirement security through planning and savings. Only 3 in 10 defined it as (actually) being comfortable or financially secure overall.

Of course, some of that (apparent) ambivalence might be explained by the reality that 29% of respondents describe their level of concern about employees’ financial well-being as “low” (another 49% say they have a “moderate” level of concern).

Or perhaps it’s the reality that while two-thirds (68%) of employers said that more than half of their employees were eligible for the financial wellness initiatives provided, only one-third (36%) of employers thought that a majority of their employees would actually make use of the benefits.

In fact, the top two challenges in offering financial wellness benefits were a lack of interest among employees (38%, compared with 43% a year ago), and complexity of the programs. This year the survey took that complexity question and found that while (just) 31% were concerned about the programs being complex for employees that utilize them – most of the concern had to do with complexity for the employer; just over a quarter (27%) cited complexity in implementing programs, and another quarter (25%) cited complexity in choosing the programs. Employers, it seems – even those with a propensity to consider these offerings – (still) find the (potential) complexity daunting.

Don’t get me wrong. The logic behind these programs is pretty straightforward; it’s about staving off bad financial health, which contributes to (and/or causes) a bevy of workplace woes: stress, which can lead to things like lower productivity; bad health and higher absenteeism; and even a greater inclination toward workplace theft, not to mention deferred retirements by workers who tend to be higher paid and have higher health care costs. It’s a here-and-now focus that speaks to the bottom line, even if the modest amount of academic research on the subject still struggles to make a quantifiable case.

But, at least in the EBRI survey results, it seems as though even the most engaged plan sponsors still don’t quite get it.
And until they do, they won’t.

- Nevin E. Adams, JD
 
See also: “What Plan Sponsors Want to Know About Financial Wellness,” “Building a Bottom Line on Financial Wellness,” and “8 Things to Know About the State of Financial Wellness.”

8 Things to Know About the State of Financial Wellness

For all the buzz around financial wellness, a new survey suggests there is a long way to go.

These days there’s not much argument against the premise behind pursuing financial wellness. The notion is that bad financial health contributes to (and/or causes) a bevy of workplace woes: stress, which can lead to things like lower productivity; bad health and higher absenteeism; and even a greater inclination toward workplace theft, not to mention deferred retirements by workers who tend to be higher paid and have higher health care costs.

But if there is little argument that financial wellness is a worthwhile goal for workers – and one worth supporting by employers – the recent Financial Wellbeing Employer Survey from the Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI) suggests that we have a ways to go.

Here are some key takeaways from that survey of 250 employers:

1. HR is leading the charge.

The most commonly cited primary champion for financial wellness was Human Resources (55%), followed (distantly) by a senior executive (21%). Human Resources was also cited as the most common secondary champion of these initiatives (26%). Fittingly, then, “communication from HR” was the most commonly cited means of encouraging employees to use financial wellness initiatives (39%), more than double the next highest (monetary incentives, at 19%).

2. The need tends to be gauged by traditional measures.

The most common approach reported in evaluating a need for financial wellness was examining existing employee benefit/retirement plan data such as deferral rates, average balances and loan frequency/amount. Nearly two-thirds of respondents (63%) had taken this step; a distant (48%) second was surveying workers.

Dead last? Creating a financial well-being score or metric (14%).

3. Motivations vary by employer size.

Midsized employers – those with 2,500 to 9,999 employees – were most likely to say they offer these initiatives to improve their workers’ overall satisfaction (67%).

However, the largest employers (>10,000 employees) were most likely to cite increased employee productivity (37%) – and being a differentiator from their competitors (27%).

Size also matters in availability; three-quarters of firms with 10,000 or more employees offered financial wellness initiatives at the time, compared with (just) 49% of smaller firms.

4. Measures of success are varied – and (still) somewhat subjective.

Improved overall worker satisfaction scored as the top measure of financial wellness initiatives (39%), (very) closely followed by reduced employee financial stress (38%). Worker satisfaction with the financial wellness initiatives and improved employee retention tied for third place (33% each).

However, “improved workforce management for retirement” – cited frequently as a key ROI attribute – was mentioned by a mere 10%.

5. Cost is a key consideration.

Cost was the top consideration (50%) cited by employers in determining whether to offer financial wellness benefits – though a close second was interest among employees (46%).

Little wonder that cost loomed large since more than two-thirds (68%) of respondents stated that current or prospective financial wellness initiatives are or would be employer-paid – a figure that increased to 85% among those with a high level of concern about the financial wellness of their workforce.

6. Most employers are not (yet) spending a lot.

While there was a wide range in cost cited for financial wellness initiatives (bear in mind, there was also a wide range in the definition of what constituted a financial wellness initiative), 43% reported the annual cost per employee of current financial wellness initiatives as $50 or less – and a full quarter (26%) did not know the cost.

On the other hand, the one in five firms that defined their financial wellness programs as “holistic” cited an average cost of more than $500 per employee.

7. But then, the programs’ scope is (still) pretty modest.

Only about 1 in 10 of those surveyed offer emergency savings vehicles or accounts, debt management services, or student loan repayment subsidies or consolidation/refinancing services.

Employee discount programs were the most common financial wellness benefit offered. These include cell phones, travel and entertainment; tuition reimbursement; and financial planning education, seminars and webinars.

8. We’ve only just begun.

Despite all the “buzz” around the topic, a majority of the employers surveyed characterized their programs as pilot programs (38%) or periodic or ad hoc programs (32%).

Even among employers with a high level of concern about the financial wellness of their workforce, only about a quarter (27%) characterized their financial wellness initiatives as “holistic.”

A long way to go, indeed.

- Nevin E. Adams, JD
 
See also: “What Plan Sponsors Want to Know About Financial Wellness” and “Building a Bottom Line on Financial Wellness.”

What Plan Sponsors Want to Know About Financial Wellness

Several years back the concept of “wellness” crept into benefits planning. More recently, HR’s affinity for that wellness concept has been expanded upon by the concept of financial wellness. But as appealing as the notion is, a number of key questions linger.

With regard to wellness generally, the notion was simple: Rather than just treating the symptoms of poor health with insurance-funded trips to the doctor (or the hospital) after the damage was done, we’d get ahead of things by emphasizing healthy habit steps (smoking cessation, weight loss, etc.) programs that would reduce doctor bills (and insurance premiums).

As regards financial wellness, the notion is that bad financial health contributes to (and/or causes) a bevy of woes: stress, which can lead to things like lower productivity, bad health and higher absenteeism, and even a greater inclination toward workplace theft, not to mention deferred retirements by workers who tend to be higher salaried and who have higher health care costs.

But if the rationale is straightforward enough, and the interest somewhere between intrigued and highly committed, plan sponsors still have some questions that merit addressing.

What do you mean by ‘financial wellness’?

“Financial wellness” is a term widely bandied about these days, and by many different firms (and advisors). Unfortunately, it is a concept that is being applied somewhat inconsistently. I’ve heard stories of folks who affix it to practices that are little more than glorified enrollment meetings, to the simple inclusion of an “outcomes” analysis to the retirement plan report, to a full-blown series of workplace seminars on topics ranging from budgeting to estate planning.

So, the first question that needs to be answered is “What do you mean by financial wellness?”

What difference will it make?

The answer to the first question will, of course, have a great deal of bearing on this one. Naturally, the more modest the scope and scale, the less impact, but a lot depends on what issues the program attempts to address, not to mention the demographics (and overall financial well-being) of the workforce to which it is being applied.

Still, even if a comprehensive impact assessment can’t be completed without the collaboration of the plan sponsor, it’s important to be able to at least quantify an estimate of the potential impact(s), whether it be increased participation, improved deferral rates, or even just higher satisfaction with the program(s).

How long will it take/last?

Common sense suggests that financial wellness is a process, not an event, and one that, run well, may well run for some time following its introduction. Nonetheless, plan sponsors will, if not at the outset, at some point during the program, have some interest in knowing just how long until they can expect to see results.

How much will it cost?

Obviously, there will be a relationship between the nature and scope of the program and its cost. Anecdotally, there seems to be a fair amount of skepticism among plan sponsors – particularly on the HR side – of the cost-effectiveness of these programs. It is therefore worthy remembering that there is an “I” in ROI, and that plan sponsors will be interested in knowing what it is (or might be).

Who pays for it?

Once again, while the answer may well depend on the program envisioned, to the extent this represents new expenditures, how it will be paid for may well impact the scope and/or timing. Plan sponsors may be able to consider covering it out of general funds, but, depending on the nature of the program components, it might also be appropriate to consider tapping into health plan budgets, communications, or even retirement plan assets.

How will you measure success (or lack thereof)?

The good news is that ROI is increasingly the lead selling point in presenting these programs, and the “return” will almost certainly include some quantification, some combination of measurable deliverables. Of course, some of the deliverables of a financial wellness program are less quantifiable, but even in those situations, worker surveys can provide insights.

The bottom line is that a shared understanding and appreciation of the desired outcomes will go a long way toward achieving not only financial wellness – but customer relation wellness as well.

- Nevin E. Adams, JD

4 Reasons Why Plan Sponsors Should Care About Outcomes

It’s obvious why participants have a vested interest (literally) in the retirement income — the outcome, really — of their retirement savings plans. Here are four reasons why plan sponsors should care about outcomes.

You want your employees to appreciate your benefit plan(s).

If you’re responsible for benefit plans in your organization, you have a very real interest in how your workforce (and management team) view those benefits. Plan sponsors have long used participation rate as the plan success metric — after all, what better measure of success in plan design, education and communication than the objective data as to how many employees have chosen to participate.

But in a time when a growing number of plans have adopted automatic enrollment — well, while credit is certainly due plan sponsors who have taken that step, the resulting bump in participation rates owe more to the inertia of human behavior than innovative plan design.

There is, however, little question that the better your plan performs on an individual basis — positive growth in account balances, a resulting more robust projection of retirement income — the better workers will feel about the benefit plans that helped provide that result.

You don’t want your employees worrying about their finances at work.

Any number of workplace surveys bear out the impact that external concerns — particularly external financial concerns — have on morale and productivity at work (see “Finance Distractions Take Toll on Productivity, Benefit Satisfaction”) and “Study Finds Link Between Financial and Physical Wellness.”) Those concerns don’t even touch on the vulnerability to theft and/or misuse of organizational resources that can tempt financially vulnerable workers.

A robust retirement savings balance at work isn’t a cure for all financial ills, of course, but it can be a source of solace, as well as a resource in time of true financial need.

You want your employees to retire on time.

Workers who think they can’t afford to retire are likely to try and extend their working career — potentially complicating succession planning and your ability to attract (and/or retain) new talent. Data from benefits consultant Mercer notes that each delay in retirement can block 5+ jobs, and that if 4% of your population is retirement eligible and half of those people choose to delay retirement, 10% of your employee population would experience promotion blockage.

As an employer, those trends can also result in higher labor costs, and safety and productive concerns (see “Plan Sponsors Waking up to Costs of Older Workers who Can’t Retire.”)

You want your plan to ‘work.’

There are employers who only offer a workplace retirement plan because everybody else does, who are willing to just “set it and forget it,” who, hearing that workers aren’t taking advantage of the benefit they worked so hard to set up, shrug and say “it’s up to them.”

But that’s not you. Is it?

- Nevin E. Adams, JD

Note: You can find some interesting perspectives on various aspects of plan and participant outcomes at our Participant Outcomes resource page.