The research team has recently published an initial report on one strand of our research: the experiences of the first cohorts of post-secondary students who used funds from their CalKIDS accounts.

In this report we highlight the perceived impact of the CalKIDS accounts on multiple parts of the post-secondary experience of students, such as continuing education and addressing short-term financial needs.

We also stress the importance of finding out about CalKIDS accounts early, as we found a positive relationship between the average impact that having a CalKIDS account had on students’ decisions to continue their education with the amount of time that the students had a CalKIDS account before graduating high school.Additionally, we underscore the importance of K-12 partnerships in helping young people learn about their CalKIDS accounts, as 43% of study participants reported that they first learned about CalKIDS through their high school.

This research was presented at the California Early Wealth Account System (CEWAS) Summit with Catalina Cifuentes of the Riverside County Office of Education (RCOE), who added onto our research by exploring ways in which RCOE has successfully helped students and families learn about and claim CalKIDS accounts.

In additional research activities, Dr. Mark Hansen, Faculty Director at the UCLA CalKIDS Institute, and Nayiri Nahabedian, Executive Director of the UCLA CalKIDS Institute, recently collaborated with the ScholarShare Investment Board and the California Child Savings Account Coalition to write and publish the California Early Wealth Accounts System (CEWAS) Plan.

The CEWAS Plan suggests a path to strengthen and build on early wealth-building, including the CalKIDS Program, in California. Previously, Mark Hansen and Nayiri Nahabedian also collaborated with Libby Schaaf, providing support for her report: Advancing CalKIDS: Findings & Recommendations for the Nation’s Largest College Savings Account Program.

Ongoing and future research of the UCLA CalKIDS Institute includes a case study of a county office of education with some of the highest rates of CalKIDS accounts claimed in the state of California, to understand best practices for schools to help students claim their accounts. We also are engaging in a scoping literature review of work done on child savings accounts.

The Submission Process

All submissions follow a two-step process:

1. Initial Summary: Submit a 700–800-word summary outlining your core research question or thesis, the framework for your analysis, and its relevance to children’s savings or financial capability.
2. Full Manuscript: Following a review of your summary, our team may invite you to submit a full manuscript for formal review and potential publication.

To begin, please send your summary to uclacalkids@ucla.edu. You will receive a response within approximately three weeks.

Selecting Your Submission Track

We recognize that impactful research takes many forms. Please select the track that best fits the “voice” and structure of your work. APA 7th is our preferred formatting guideline. 

• Track A: Empirical Research & Data-Driven Studies Best for: Original studies using quantitative or qualitative data to test hypotheses or evaluate programs.
• Track B: Policy, Theory, & Discussion Papers Best for: White papers, policy critiques, and conceptual pieces. This track offers a flexible framework designed to support narrative-driven analysis and strategic thought leadership.

Track A: Template for Empirical Research Submissions

1. Title Page (1 page)

Author(s), affiliation(s)

Contact information (for corresponding authors)

Date

Optional: Acknowledgments

2. Abstract and Keywords (or Executive Summary) (0.5–1.5 pages)

3. Introduction (2–3 pages)

• Study/Project background
• Problem statement (explain why it matters)
• Literature positioning (what part of the literature is relevant to your topic)

4. Research Questions (1-1.5 pages) 

• Research questions and hypotheses (for quantitative studies)

5. Review of Literature (2-3 pages)

• Key theories or history of research related to the topic
• Gaps in literature: Emphasize what we still don’t know

6. Conceptual Framework (Optional but encouraged) (1–2 pages)

• Things that will be studied and the logical framework of the study
• How will the study address the gaps in literature
• Key variables and high level definition

7. Methodology (3–5 pages)

• Research design
• Methods
  • Data sources
  • Sample description
  • Operational definition of variables

8. Results / Findings (4–6 pages)

• Directly provide answers to research questions

9. Discussion (2–3 pages)

10. Policy & Practice Implications (1–3 pages) 

11. Conclusion (1 page)

• Recap key findings
• Broader significance
• Future research directions

12. References 

13. Appendices (optional)

(Scroll down for Track B)

Track B: Flexible Framework for White Papers & Discussion Pieces

The following structure is a recommended guide. We encourage authors to adapt these sections to best serve the logical flow of their specific argument or policy analysis.

1. Title Page (1 page)

• Author(s), affiliation(s), and contact information.

2. Executive Summary (1 page)

• A high-level snapshot of the problem, your central thesis, and your key takeaways.

3. The Landscape: Introduction & Context (2–4 pages)

• Rather than a standard “lit review,” use this space to set the stage. What is the current state of the policy or theory? Why is a new perspective needed right now?

4. The Core Thesis (1 page)

• Clearly state the central claim or the primary questions your paper explores. This serves as the “anchor” for the rest of your discussion.

5. Analysis & Argument Development (Length Varies: 6–10 pages)

• This section is yours to shape. You may organize it by thematic pillars, historical stages, or specific policy levers.
• The goal is a systematic exploration of your topic, using existing evidence, case studies, or theoretical reasoning to build a persuasive case.

6. Strategic Outlook: Policy & Practice Implications (2–4 pages)

• Translate your analysis into action. What should stakeholders, agencies, or practitioners do differently based on your findings? We value specific, forward-thinking recommendations.

7. Synthesis & Conclusion (1–2 pages)

• Briefly recap the significance of your argument and suggest where the conversation should go next.

8. References