Financial literacy and frontline workers: what 5,600 employees told us about EWA, savings, and money habits

We were skeptics.

When you've spent years arguing that access is the answer, "financial literacy" can start to sound like a phrase designed for pamphlets: well-intentioned, mildly condescending, and easy to ignore when rent is due on Friday.

So we ran the research to find out: in a world where workers already have the right financial tools, does knowing the definition of inflation actually change anything?

The answer surprised us. Here's what 5,600 American frontline workers told us.

Key findings at a glance

• 71% of frontline workers can't correctly answer two basic questions about interest and inflation
• Financially literate workers pay 16% less in earned wage access (EWA)* fees — $2.54 per $100 accessed, versus $2.95 for non-literate workers
• Literate workers practice twice as many positive financial habits as non-literate workers (median two vs. one)
• Only 1.3% of workers hold the $400 emergency buffer considered the minimum threshold for financial shock absorption
• Women in our study scored lower on financial literacy and earned less than men — yet they were 33% more likely to have a savings account (16% vs. 12%) and held 27% higher balances ($123 vs. $97)

Download the full report →

What is financial literacy?

Financial literacy is often confused with financial education. They're not the same thing.

The OECD defines financial literacy as "a combination of financial awareness, knowledge, skills, attitudes and behaviours necessary to make sound financial decisions and ultimately achieve individual financial wellbeing." Financial education is the process you use to get there.

Put simply: education is what you deliver. Literacy is what people walk away with. Running a good education program isn't the goal, moving the needle on knowledge and behavior is.

How we measured financial literacy

We measured financial literacy using two of the "Big Three" questions developed by economists Annamaria Lusardi (Stanford) and Olivia S. Mitchell (Wharton), the most widely used measure of financial literacy in academic research.

Want to test yourself?

1. You have $100 in a savings account earning 2% interest per year. After five years, how much would you have if you left the money to grow?
2. The interest rate on your savings account is 1% per year and inflation is 2% per year. After one year, can you buy more, less, or the same with the money in your account?

We use these two, on interest and inflation, because they reflect the decisions our members make every day. The third question, on investment diversification, is a better fit for populations with consistent exposure to equity markets. For frontline workers managing volatile schedules and tight margins, it introduces noise rather than signal.

Workers who answered both questions correctly were marked as financially literate. Those who answered one or zero were marked as non-literate. (Answers at the bottom of this post.)

Finding 1: Literate workers practice twice as many positive money habits

Daily habits make up your days, your weeks, and your life. We measured six minimum viable financial behaviors using the OECD/INFE framework:

1. Make a plan to manage income and expenses
2. Keep a note of spending
3. Keep money for bills separate
4. Make a note of upcoming bills
5. Use a banking app to track outgoings
6. Arrange automatic payments

Workers marked as literate practiced double the number of positive habits compared to non-literate workers (median two vs. one). The result is highly statistically significant.

The biggest gaps were in the most systematic, technology-enabled habits: arranging automatic payments, using a banking app to track outgoings, and noting upcoming bills.

This connects directly back to EWA fees. As habit count goes up, EWA fees go down. Workers practicing four or more positive habits paid $2.21 per $100 — versus $2.75 for workers with no habits at all. The skill of automating and planning seems to translate into more strategic, cost-efficient financial decisions.

We're not claiming causation here, but the correlation is strong enough to act on.

Finding 2: Financially literate workers pay 16% less in EWA fees

EWA is a workplace benefit that lets workers access wages they've already earned before payday. It was built on a simple idea: your money is your money. Why wait for payday when you've already done the work?

We analyzed 28 days of EWA usage for our 5,600 respondents. Both literate and non-literate workers accessed roughly the same total amount of pay. Both used instant transfers at almost identical rates — which rules out urgency as the explanation for the fee gap.

The difference came from frequency.

Workers marked as literate transferred larger amounts, less often. Non-literate workers transferred smaller amounts, more often, and paid a premium for it.

For every $100 of pay accessed:

• Literate workers paid $2.54 in fees
• Non-literate workers paid $2.95 in fees

That's a 16% gap, and it widens with income. For above-average earners, the literacy fee gap reaches 38%. For below-average earners, it's 11%. Literacy makes more of a practical difference when you have more income to work with, when the ability to make choices isn't already constrained.

"Bills are due before payday. I did not want to incur late fees." — Stream member

The implication for product design is direct: when workers get guidance at the point of decision, help understanding how much to take, and when, more efficient behaviors can be learned and repeated.

Finding 3: When it comes to saving, access matters more than knowledge

We expected financial literacy to predict savings behavior. It barely registered. Income predicted savings. Gender predicted savings. A single automated decision, made once and never revisited, predicted savings. The knowledge score? Nearly irrelevant to whether an account was opened.

And then came the result we didn't see coming.

Why women save more, even with lower financial literacy

Women in our study scored lower on financial literacy than men. They earned less ($2,713 vs. $2,806 median monthly income). By every conventional measure — income, knowledge, structural access to wealth — they should be the least likely group to be building savings.

Instead:

• Women were 33% more likely to have a savings account than men (16% vs. 12%)
• Women's accounts held 27% higher average balances ($123 vs. $97)

Nationally, the savings gap runs hard in the other direction. American women hold an average of $105,499 in savings; men hold nearly double, at $195,156 (Newsweek, February 2025).

So why did our data flip?

Because Stream's Save account was designed for a worker the financial system has historically locked out. Hourly earners. Variable-income workers. Primary caregivers. People for whom one unexpected bill can undo months of careful management. People who might bring home $800 one week and $350 the next from the exact same job.

A lot of those workers are women. They're more likely to work part-time or hourly schedules to accommodate caregiving. They stay home when a child is sick. They carry the invisible weight of household administration. They absorb the financial disruption that variable scheduling creates.

So we built a savings** account that meets them where they are. It connects to the hours they work. It can be opened from a phone at 2 a.m. during a feeding session. It works as often as the worker does.

The result: a 14% signup rate with no employer investment required.

You cannot educate your way into a savings habit if the product was not designed for your life. Once workers are in, literacy shapes how seriously they engage. But it doesn't get them through the door.

Access does.

What this means for employers and benefits leaders

Supporting millions of different workers means accepting there's no universal fix. Income, financial literacy, and access to financial tools all matter. Here's where to start:

Understand the role of income. Literacy matters, but it can't do all the heavy lifting. Sufficient pay is foundational — built from hourly rate, hours offered, and consistency.

Automate the right decisions. Auto-enrollment, pre-selected providers, and smart defaults reduce the number of decisions workers have to make under pressure.

Offer inclusive benefits. Tools designed for workers at varying stages of their lives outperform education programs aimed at where employers think their people are.

Pair education with action. Literacy won't land without a tool to use it on. Offer them together. Articles on a benefits page won't cut through; embedded tips and short learning opportunities at the point of decision will.

What this means for financial providers

Put the lesson where the decision is. Micro-education belongs on the transfer screen and the savings prompt — not buried in an articles tab nobody opens.

Make the healthy path the default. The opt-out, not the opt-in. For saving: automate through payroll, or link to repeatable behaviors. For budgeting: use available data to set up a default plan rather than asking people to build one from scratch.

What we're building at Stream

This study is a reflection, not a finish line. Here's what's in development:

• Frictionless savings. Redesigning the U.S. Save experience so it takes more effort to choose not to save than to save
• W-4 tax optimization. Helping workers adjust withholdings so more income reaches each paycheck rather than arriving as a refund later
• Benefits discovery. Surfacing tax credits, healthcare, and housing support workers may already qualify for
• Contextual AI guidance. Using real financial data to surface the right action at the right moment
• Embedded education at the point of decision. Specifically targeted at workers practicing fewer habits or using tools less efficiently

The bottom line

Literacy moves the needle. Non-literate workers paid a 16% premium in EWA fees for the same $100 of pay. Literate workers practiced twice as many positive financial habits. In an environment where access is already solved, knowledge amplifies what people can do.

But access has to come first.

In the area where we most expected literacy to matter — saving — it barely showed up. Income predicted savings. Gender predicted savings. A single automated decision predicted savings. The knowledge score didn't.

We started skeptical that literacy was the answer. We're ending more convinced than ever that access is the foundation, and literacy is what you build on top of it.

The sequence matters.

Design for the person the system forgot. The one who earns less, scores lower on the test, and — given half a chance — saves more than anyone expected.

Everything else follows.

Want the full data? Download Lessons in Financial Literacy — our complete report on what 5,600 frontline workers told us about money, habits, and what really moves the needle. Get the report →