Buying Time Back: The Impacts of Unconditional Cash on Resettled Refugees in the United States

• In Event: Policies and Factors Influencing the Well-Being of Immigrant and Hispanic Families

Abstract

Background: The U.S. refugee resettlement system contains contradictions. On one hand, it is organized around neoliberal goals, expecting refugees to become self-sufficient as quickly as possible at the expense of holistic support. On the other hand, underfunding, caseworker strain, and administrative burden force refugees to spend time awaiting services. This simultaneous ‘speeding up’ and ‘slowing down’ leaves refugees with little control over their time, leading to instability and uncertainty. Though time constraints impact people at all income levels, they are salient for those experiencing financial precarity. For refugees, this is compounded by other stressors, including pre-migration trauma, language barriers, etc.  

Proponents of unconditional cash, such as guaranteed income (GI), position it as one policy tool to counter financial precarity, thereby giving individuals greater agency over their time. In 2022, a Midwestern state launched the first GI pilot for persons with refugee and other humanitarian immigration statuses to understand their specific experiences with cash interventions. The pilot provided 25 households with USD 750 per month for one year, with funds distributed towards the end of resettlement agency support. This qualitative study explores how GI interacted with the time constraints participants experienced.

Methods: Fifty semi-structured interviews were conducted with twenty families between 2022 and 2024, timed with the beginning and end of the pilot, and the post-disbursement period. The interview protocol covered various domains including resettlement processes, health, unpaid care, relationships, and finances. Analysis occurred in two phases. During phase one, researchers coded transcripts in Dedoose. In phase two, a framework-guided rapid analysis was employed. This involved recursive, in-depth immersion in the transcripts and a theoretically driven template, tailored to the project, to organize and analyze the data. Analytic memos were then triangulated from both phases. 

Findings: Participants outlined how the emphasis on rapid self-sufficiency and time-limited resettlement support forced them into employment with low pay and unpredictable hours. This precluded them from balancing work and family in ways they saw fit. Moreover, participants were frustrated with the waiting they experienced at the hands of resettlement agencies and the broader welfare system, including delays in benefits reauthorization and work permit processing, feeling that this prevented them from making plans. With the GI, participants were able to ‘buy time back,’ using the money to smooth income volatility and decrease reliance on other time-limited and conditional benefits. As such, they reduced working hours, spent more time with their families, and in some cases, sought more stable jobs. However, the one-year duration of the pilot limited its effectiveness. Many participants felt it was too short to engender sustained change.

Implications: At the time of this study, various constraints associated with the refugee resettlement system put stress on participants’ time. The GI, though limited by its duration, acted as a buffer to these challenges, providing participants with greater self-determination regarding their time. Though the current administration has effectively dismantled the system, these findings demonstrate how GI may be used in future rebuilding efforts.

Author

• Mira Philips, University of Pennsylvania
  Presenting Author