Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) of...

A Guaranteed Income Cash Transfer Program for Low-income Families in Oakland, California

Reviewed

Poverty Reduction
Not accurately reported

The University of Pennsylvania’s Center for Guaranteed Income Research (April 2025) posted findings from an RCT of Oakland’s guaranteed income cash transfer pilot program for low-income families. Despite the positive portrayal of the results in the executive summary, the study found no discernible impacts on any of its prespecified targeted outcomes at the final (24-month) follow-up.

Relevant Excerpt from Executive Summary:

Key Findings at a Glance:

  • Income volatility for the treatment group remained consistently lower and more stable across all observed time periods compared to the control group.
  • The treatment group showed a steady rise in extending help to family (10% to 15%), during the GI phase, while levels fluctuated unpredictably for the control group.
  • The percentage of eldest children who received all A’s in school increased from the study's beginning to end in the treatment group (24% to 27%), whereas it decreased in the control group (24% to 17%).
  • Full-time employment increased at a higher rate for the treatment group (15% to 26%) throughout the study than for the control group (14% to 18%).
  • The unconditional cash led to an increased sense of mattering for many in the treatment group, spilling over into their investment of time in their families and communities.

Full Study Report

Key Findings at a Glance:

The study found no statistically significant impacts on any of its prespecified targeted outcomes at the final, 24-month follow-up - including household income, unemployment, financial well-being, physical and mental health, housing status, and other outcomes.

The study found positive impacts on some prespecified targeted outcomes at earlier follow-ups, and on some outcomes that were not prespecified. These results are only suggestive, since (i) they could be chance findings resulting from the examination of numerous outcomes over multiple timepoints; (ii) many did not reach statistical significance; and (iii) the study had high rates of sample attrition that differed substantially between the treatment and control groups. The suggestive findings include:

  • Income volatility for the treatment group remained consistently lower and more stable across all observed time periods compared to the control group.
  • The treatment group showed a steady rise in extending help to family (10% to 15%), during the GI phase, while levels fluctuated unpredictably for the control group.
  • The percentage of eldest children who received all A's in school increased from the study's beginning to end in the treatment group (24% to 27%), whereas it decreased in the control group (24% to 17%).
  • Full-time employment increased at a higher rate in the treatment group (15% to 26%) throughout the study than for the control group (14% to 18%).
  • The unconditional cash led to an increased sense of mattering for many in the treatment group, spilling over into their investment of time in their families and communities.

No-Spin’s Study Overview

An RCT of Oakland’s Guaranteed Income cash transfer pilot program for low-income families finds no discernible impacts on any of the study’s prespecified targeted outcomes (in areas such as economic well-being, health, and housing) at the final, 24-month follow-up. The study’s claimed effects on other outcomes - those not prespecified or measured at earlier timepoints - are only suggestive (not reliable) for multiple reasons.

Program:

  • The program, a collaboration with Mayors for a Guaranteed Income, provided participants with an unconditional cash transfer of $500 each month for 18 months. City residents were eligible if they had at least one child and an annual income at or below 138% of the federal poverty line.

Study Design:

  • The study randomly assigned 660 Oakland residents to a treatment group which received the cash transfers, or a control group which did not. The study used surveys to measure outcomes every six months through 24 months after program entry.

Findings:

  • The study found no statistically significant impacts on any of more than a dozen prespecified targeted outcomes reported at the 24-month follow-up (six months after the cash transfers ended), including household income, unemployment, financial well-being, physical and mental health, housing status, and other outcomes.
  • The study found positive impacts on some targeted outcomes at earlier follow-ups, and some outcomes at 24 months that weren’t prespecified. But these results are not reliable for multiple reasons, including sample loss (“attrition”) of approximately 40% that was nearly twice as high in the control group as in the treatment group at all follow-ups. Such attrition creates “unacceptable levels of potential bias” under recognized standards (WWC) by undermining the equivalence of the two groups created by randomization.

Comment:

Click or tap a highlight to see No-Spin’s comment

Related Reviews