Guaranteed Income Works

Missed housing and utility payments fell over the course of the pilot, and 84% of participants said they could afford more or better child care.

Recipients reported significantly more household income and less concern about utility payments after one year of the cash transfers compared to the control group, despite external pressures such as inflation, rising housing costs, and reductions in the safety net.

Recipients were 22% less likely than the control group to worry about eviction or foreclosure and 13% less likely to worry about a utility shutoff. They were 9.5 points less likely to say they couldn't afford enough food.

After nine months, recipients were significantly less likely to take on new debt in order to pay for regular expenses.

More than twice as many I.M.P.A.C.T. participants were able to cover an emergency expense compared to people in the control group, and nearly 30% fewer I.M.P.A.C.T. participants than control group members reported that they were going into debt.

Recipients of guaranteed income were significantly more likely to be employed across every time point evaluated, and data demonstrated stability of full-time employment among recipients.

Alabama's pilot for single mothers resulted in fewer work issues related to childcare, such as tardiness or absences, thereby helping these working moms keep their jobs.

Participants showed a statistically significant increase in employment within the first six months of the LEAP program, and a 19 percentage point increase in full-time employment by the end of the study period.

In the pilot for young adults, the increase in full-time employment was statistically significant, going from 6% at the outset to 21% after the program.

St. Louis participants with any savings went from 27% to 46%, and credit scores rose an average of 12 points. Rochester recipients finished the year about $250 ahead of the control group and were 51% less likely to expect a serious financial setback in the coming year.

The amount of money that recipients were able to put into savings doubled. At baseline, 59% of participants could not cover a $400 emergency, despite working full-time. At 24 months, that number had dropped to 20%, indicating that many more people were financially better off.

Over 50% of participants said they were managing financially after the pilot ended, against 38% of the control group.

A greater percentage of SGIP participants were able to cover a $400 emergency expense, and were 20 percentage points less likely to report that they were "going into debt" compared with control group parents. More SGIP parents reported their household financial situation as "managing," and this difference was significant at 20 percentage points.

There was a significant decrease in participants' reported psychological distress, from enrollment to eight months, and this reduction was sustained at 20 months. A large majority, 68.7%, reported that their general health was better at the end of Elevate Boulder, compared to when they enrolled.

Recipients showed few symptoms of anxiety or depression (measured on the Kessler scale) and had favorable levels of well-being across the three subscales of general health, physical limits, and physical functioning.

Recipients reported statistically significant improvements in mental health across a variety of measures: lower stress, increased hopefulness, an improved sense of mattering, and more community engagement.

Participants over 50 saw a doctor more often during the pilot, and six months after the payments stopped they were still going three times as often as the control group. They spent the money on co-pays and on covering the paycheck they lost while recovering.