The OpenResearch Unconditional Cash Study started with a 2016 feasibility pilot in Oakland, California and broadened to 3,000 participants in select Illinois and Texas counties from 2020 to 2023. It is the most comprehensive guaranteed income study ever undertaken in the United States.

Our analysis of the data shows:

Material well‑being improved immediately. In terms of dollar amounts, the largest increases in spending in response to the cash transfers were on basic needs — food, rent, and transportation — plus financial support to others.
Greater agency and future planning emerged. Cash heightened recipients’ capacity to budget, plan for large expenses, pursue education or training and explore entrepreneurship.
Savings and financial resilience increased. The cash improved financial well-being and reduced vulnerability in the short term.
Employment shifted modestly. On average, recipients worked 1.3 fewer hours per week. They searched for jobs more often and were more selective about fit. The variation across participants and the diverse ways people chose to reallocate that time reflect how cash can increase people’s ability to make employment decisions that align with their individual circumstances, goals, and values.
Some healthcare utilization rose; however, there were no measurable effects on physical health. The cash transfers increased recipients’ use of hospital and emergency department care and some types of office-based medical care — particularly dental and specialist care. The cash led to large and significant improvements in mental health and food security in the first year of the program. These effects faded in subsequent years.
Mobility and housing choices broadened. Recipients were more likely to move homes or neighborhoods and more likely to pay their own housing costs.

Agency

The transfers increased agency to think about, plan, and pursue goals.

The cash had a positive and significant effect on budgeting and planning for the future, desire to pursue further education, and entrepreneurial interest. Recipients set goals that aligned with their values and desires and many took steps toward achieving them:

“If I hadn’t have had that money, I would’ve lost my apartment. I would’ve lost everything.” – Heather

“Without the program, I would probably still be in an abusive relationship.” – Mallory

“I could finally stop the creditor calls all day every day… day-to-day, constant agony.” – Kyle

“I’m in a position for once to be picky… I don't have to take a crappy job. I have the opportunity to hold out and try and find the right fit.” – Jessie

“Allow me a time of peace of mind, so I could explore what I really wanted out of life.” – Dominic

“My relationship with my children is the most important thing to me in life… I’m always at their school now… as opposed to me working 12-hour shifts.” – Max

“It gave me the financial means to actually start my own clothing line.” – Marcus

Explore more participant stories at OpenResearch.

Study Motivation

OpenResearch embarked upon the most comprehensive direct cash transfer study in the United States to produce a multidimensional understanding of how guaranteed income affects people’s lives.

Societal Factors

In 2016, as the research was being shaped, several significant societal and economic realities provided a backdrop.

GDP growth dwarfs growth in median household income
Dramatic increases in income inequality
Declining intergenerational mobility
Significance of new jobs being contractor or “gig” jobs
Limitations of the existing social safety net
Structural barriers to economic security and mobility

Data Collection

Extensive baseline, midline, and endline surveys
Interviewer enumerated followed by a series of web-based surveys
Short monthly online surveys
More frequent measures to reduce variance and obtain updated contact information
Mobile app activities
Including time and nutrition diaries
In-depth qualitative interviews
Cohort of 156 people interviewed 6 times
Biomarkers at endline for subsample
Blood pressure, height, and weight, HbA1c, C-reactive protein, lipid panel with cholesterol, GlycA
Administrative data
Credit records, income, crime, education, census, voter records, hospital discharge data, etc

Mixed Methods Approach

The study combined both quantitative and qualitative research.

Quantitative

What happens when individuals receive unconditional cash each month for 3 years?

Defined, narrow research questions
Specific, measurable outcomes
Large sample size → statistical significance of associations

Qualitative

How and why does receiving cash transfers affect people’s lives?

Explore broad questions
Identify mechanisms of impact
What constraints and challenges do people face?

This was a large-scale study, the most comprehensive of its kind in the United States, specifically designed as a foundational exploratory study to understand what happens when individuals receive guaranteed income.

Addressed Outcomes

Gathering so much data allows a big picture understanding of how cash transfers can affect people's lives. Investigated outcomes included:

Children + Parenting
Cognition
Consumption + Finance
Crime
Employment
Geographic Mobility
Intra-household Dynamics
Material Hardship
Physical and Mental Health
Political Attitudes & Behaviors
Social & Subjective Well-Being
Use of Time

The Study's Impact

The impact of GMI depends on each person’s needs, goals, and experiences throughout the study. There were 3,000 distinct outcomes based on recipients’ circumstances.

Spending Effects

In terms of dollar amounts, the study found that the largest increases in spending in response to the monthly cash transfers were on basic needs — including food, rent, and transportation.

All Income Groups in the study saw an increase in spending on these Basic Needs categories.

After the three-year study concluded, all Income Group recipients were found to have increased spending overall, both on Basic Needs, as well as Supporting Others.

Health & Wellness

Increased health care utilization

10% increase in receiving dental care at least once per year
26% increase in the number of hospitalizations per year
Recipients spent an average of $20 more per month on health care than control participants

No direct evidence of improvements to physical or mental health

Significant reductions in stress and food insecurity and improvements in mental health in year 1 fade by years 2 and 3

Decrease in certain types of drug and alcohol abuse

20% decrease in reported alcohol use that interferes with responsibilities
53% decrease in the number of days reported using non-prescribed painkillers

Savings & Income

On average, household savings in bank accounts increased by $792 (a 12% increase). Individual savings increased by $1,048, a 24% increase compared to the average among control participants
The maximum savings held at any point during the program was $2,372 higher for recipients than control participants – a 35% increase over the average maximum savings for control participants

Greater financial resilience

Recipients were, on average, 24% more likely to report paying for an unexpected or emergency expense out of savings compared to the average control participant
Recipients were also 31% more likely to pay for an unexpected expense by reducing spending in other areas, suggesting that they had more flexibility to absorb these expenses

No effect on net worth

Modest positive effects on asset values, driven by financial assets, but these gains are offset by higher debt, resulting in a near-zero effect on net worth

Average effect of the cash transfers

Self-reported individual income increased less (excluding the transfers):

Individual earned income grew more slowly for recipients and was roughly $1,500 less per year
Most of the reduction came from salaried income and wages (~$1,100), followed by government benefits (~$200) but none of the component estimates are statistically significant
Among Illinois recipients, we do not see a significant difference in individual income between recipients and control participants in the survey data

Self-reported HHI increased less (excluding the transfers)

Total household income was roughly $2,500 to $4,100 per year less for recipients than control
In many cases, participants’ partners appeared to reduce their work hours by a similar amount
Among Illinois recipients, the difference in household income was smaller

Employment

Modest reduction in employment and hours worked

2% less likely to be employed
1.3 fewer hours worked per week
Recipients were employed roughly 8 days less per year (0.26 months)

Longer periods of unemployment

Average duration of continuous unemployment is about 1 month longer for recipients than control participants

Increased job search, but more selective

Recipients were 6% more likely to be searching for a job at any time period
4.5% more likely to have applied for a job
Applied to a smaller number of jobs when searching compared to control participants

Averages obscure significant variation:

Single parents – reductions in both employment and hours worked are larger for single parents.
Recipients under 30 – reductions in both employment and hours worked are larger. We also observe larger effects on formal education among this group
Recipients over 30 – no significant effect on employment or work hours

Agency

The transfers increased agency to think about, plan, and pursue goals.

“As a parent, I was able to take care of my kids’ needs. I was able to give them money for field trips.” – Celene

"The moment they told me about the program, I cut my hours at work to spend time with my 4 year old son. Not just spend time with him, but teach him things... Being around him all that time when he's a little sponge of knowledge and information already — it was such an integral time to be able to do that.” – Nathan

“The transfer let me think about my future and what I'm gonna do, what kind of career, what education I'm gonna do. Right now, I'm in college and I just got a job recently, so it helped me figure all that out.” – Paloma

“I just got back from the army when I received the cash transfer, so I was just dealing with health issues, I really couldn’t do much. The cash transfer actually helped me start my own businesses and everything.” – Shawn

“I have a friend that lost her job, she doesn’t have a husband or kids... She tore her Achilles in July and had surgery. So, I’ve sent her money when I received the cash transfer... generally anytime I receive something that I feel is a blessing, I share with somebody who needs a blessing, too.” – Tameka

Explore more participant stories at OpenResearch.

Entrepreneurship

The cash transfers had a large and significant impact on entrepreneurial interest and entrepreneurial mindset, but no significant effect on starting businesses across the full sample. Exploratory analyses suggest that the impact may have been greater for underrepresented groups. For example, by year 3:

Black recipients were 9 percentage points more likely to report starting or helping to start a business than control participants (a 26% increase)
Women were 5 percentage points more likely to have started a business (a 15% increase)

Geographic Mobility

Receiving the transfer led to a 10% increase in moving both housing units and neighborhoods.
Recipients were also 5% more likely to pay for housing, as opposed to staying with family or friends or another living arrangement that does not involve regular payments.

Education

No effect overall

Estimates are generally positive but not statistically significant
By the final year, recipients were 3.3 percentage points more likely to have pursued education or job training—an increase of 14% relative to the average among control participants

Impact is stronger for recipients under age 30 at enrollment

Though subgroup analyses are exploratory and should be considered suggestive, recipients under 30 are more likely to be enrolled in postsecondary education and complete more years of postsecondary education

Increase in plans to pursue further education or training

By the end of the program, recipients were significantly more likely to report plans to pursue further education. The estimated effect is a 15% increase compared to the average control participant.
Recipients were also more likely to plan to pursue job training. The increase is equivalent to 43% of the average among control participants.

Societal Factors Revisited

The broader societal context has evolved since the study began.

AI is no longer hypothetical — it’s already reshaping daily life
COVID-19 was a major disruption — it offers lessons for navigating change
Interest in unconditional cash is growing, but implementation lags behind
The social contract is under pressure from rapid technological and social change
Public attitudes are increasingly complex

Conclusion

To quote Sam Altman, OpenResearch Board member, “The steps that we take now will determine who has power and voice and input in the long-term decisions”.