How Timing, Dosage and Place Influence Guaranteed Income Programs

Session Submission Type: Panel

Abstract

Since 2020 experimentation with unconditional cash has rapidly expanded, but with minimal variation in dosage, duration and tailoring for context (Doussard, 2024). Although lengthier programs exist, most pilots provide either $500 or $1000 per month for 12 – 24 months and rarely adjust disbursement amount for household size. This offers researchers the opportunity for pooled analyses across a wide geographic range, but it can mask the role timing and place may play in driving disparate outcomes.  Without contextualized data driving program design and implementation, policymakers run the risk of creating new benefits cliffs or misaligned expectations.  As GI experimentation shifts towards pairing cash with other interventions, such as housing or employment supports, understanding dosage and how to time the cash considering other benefits matters. As Vibhor Mathur (2024) reminds, the power imbalances inherent in cash transfer programs demand careful ethical attunement to ensure no harm is done in design or research. Given the scale of the housing crisis, GI programs pairing with rental support or rapid-rehousing face key questions about where and how to time the cadence of cash to maximize both benefits and avoid generating new benefits cliffs. Similar gaps exist surrounding duration. It is well established that GI impacts well-being through recurring and predictable payments over time, while lump sum and short-term payments rarely carry influence beyond relief of material hardship (West et. al., 2023), but those findings are based on the relatively similar GI programs noted prior. It is still unknown if a short-term infusion of unconditional cash carefully timed for an emergency or nested within other benefits may propel economic mobility in unexpected ways. 

This panel begins interrogating how place, context, duratino and dosage drives outcomes through the lens of 4 papers studying guaranteed income. The first illustrates how participants in the LA County Breathe program unwittingly became members of a natural experiment with GI and disaster response in the recent LA wildfires. Their findings highlight how unconditional cash can function in a natural disaster, particularly when infrastructure pre-exists. The second turns towards the impact of a more substantive $1000/mo disbursement over two years in Alameda with much stronger health outcomes than most pilots raising new questions about dosage and social determinants of health. The third tackles how recipients use cash to offset housing cost burden in the notoriously expensive housing market of LA County. This lengthier 3-year pilot is also providing $1,000/month and offers an early window into how GI program design may effectively pair with housing supports. The final paper zeros in on place by comparing civic engagement data from Newark, NJ and Providence, RI whose GI pilots were similar, but produced disparate findings on civic behavior such as voting, petition-signing and volunteering for political causes.

Policy Area

• Poverty and Income Policy

Secondary Policy Area

• Health Policy

Chair

• Hannah Thomas, Abt Global

Discussants

• Mira Philips, University of Pennsylvania

• Margaret M. C. Thomas, The University of Chicago

Organizer

• Amy Castro, University of Pennsylvania

Individual Presentations

• Prioritizing Rent While Managing Material Hardship: Insights from Unconditional Cash Recipients - Presenting Author: Keenan Leary, University of Chicago

• Impacts of a $1,000 GI in Alameda Show Variation in Benefits For Younger, Older Adults - Presenting Author: Judy Geyer, Abt Global

• Strengthening Safety Nets: Guaranteed Income Pilot and the January 2025 Los Angeles County Wildfires - Presenting Author: Judith L. Perrigo, University of California - Los Angeles

• Unconditional Cash, Voting & Civic Engagement in Newark, NJ and Providence, RI - Presenting Author: Amy Castro, University of Pennsylvania