We have ample data demonstrating the impact of our savings and loan program on the lives of the people we serve. But how do we know if everyone in the community is seeing improvement, including both members and nonmembers? An independent research team from Elon University spent two years studying our program in Lamwo District, Northern Uganda, comparing members to nonmembers, and their findings help answer that very question.

How the Study Was Designed

Dr. Stephen DeLoach and his research team at Elon University used a controlled-access-to-treatment design to measure Seed Effect’s impact. The concept is straightforward: more people wanted to join the program than could be served at once. So groups were given staggered start dates. Those who started in 2022 were assigned to the treatment group. Those who started in 2023 became the comparison group. Both groups had already chosen to participate, which means the study accounts for the motivation factor that weakens many impact studies.

This design allowed rigorous measurement without withholding services. The natural phasing of the program created a window for careful comparison.

The study followed 213 treatment group members and 150 comparison group members across Lamwo District, a region where 60% of participants are refugees and only 16-27% have completed primary school. 

What the Researchers Found

As the researchers compared Seed Effect members to the group of individuals who had not yet joined a savings group, they found that after just one savings cycle, the differences were statistically significant in three areas: financial access, emergency resilience, and early asset building. 

Financial Access

Seed Effect provided many participants with their first access to formal savings and credit. Compared to non-members:

• Members were 41 percentage points more likely to report having a safe place to save. Nearly 100% of members reported access to secure savings, compared to roughly half of non-members.
• Members were 65 percentage points more likely to borrow, giving most their first-ever access to credit.
• Members saved an additional $30 and borrowed an additional $56 compared to the comparison group.

Emergency Resilience

Before joining, families facing medical bills or school fees often had to sell their livestock or other assets, setting themselves back financially whenever a crisis hit. After one year in the program, compared to non-members:

• Members were 22 percentage points less likely to sell assets to pay for medical care, opting instead to use income and savings.
• Members were 26 percentage points less likely to sell assets to pay school fees.
• Members were 28 percentage points less likely to report unsteady income.

These numbers represent families who no longer have to choose between a sick child and their economic future.

Early Asset Building

Compared to non-members, members were 25 percentage points more likely to own a solar panel after one cycle, a significant investment at roughly $100.

Beyond the formal comparison, the research team also observed members who had been in the program for two years. While this wasn’t part of the controlled comparison, they saw sharp increases in household wealth and livestock, suggesting members are using their annual savings payouts to invest in assets that build long-term income, such as livestock and household assets.

Context That Makes These Results Even More Striking

Two factors during the study period made it harder to capture the program’s full impact. Because of this, the numbers above likely understate the true effect.

First, roughly 30% of the comparison group joined other savings programs during the waiting year. Because they were partially “treated,” the measured difference between groups is likely smaller than the program’s actual effect.

Second, the UN cut refugee food rations by approximately one-third in July 2023. As 60% of the treatment group were refugees, this made a significant impact. The fact that members still showed meaningful, statistically significant gains in the face of that shock speaks to the program’s strength as a financial safety net.

The Full Picture: A Three-Cycle Model

The Lamwo study captured only the first of Seed Effect’s three program cycles. Cycle 1 focuses on building a savings foundation and a financial safety net. In Cycle 2, members receive business training through The Chalmers Center’s Plan for a Better Business curriculum and agricultural training in partnership with Equipping Farmers International. 

Seed Effect’s January 2026 evaluation of this training, which included 698 respondents across 8 field offices, showed:

• 37% of participants established a new business after completing the training
• 86% of those businesses survived past six months
• 67% of business owners reported increased earnings
• 58% used their savings group funds as start-up capital, connecting the financial foundation of Cycle 1 to business creation in Cycle 2

This demonstrates that Cycle 1 builds the foundation, and in Cycle 2, that foundation expands into businesses, income growth, and lasting economic change. And the knowledge doesn’t stop with the individual: 512 PBB participants shared what they learned with over 2,300 additional community members.

By the end of Cycle 3, groups are operating independently without ongoing direct program support.