The Impact of Guaranteed Income in Los Angeles: Helping Low-Income Families Provide Safer and More Enriching Environment for Their Children

Background and Purpose: Extensive literature links poverty and worse child outcomes in multiple domains, such as educational attainment, physical and mental health, and system involvement. Two main mechanisms hypothesized to explain this linkage include poverty’s effect on 1) parent’s ability to buy goods and services that contribute to child development and 2) environmental stressors that come from unsafe neighborhoods and household situations. Recently, social safety nets have been found to mitigate the impact of poverty on child’s development by improving children’s learning environment and reducing material hardship. Nearly 650,000 residents in Los Angeles city are living in poverty and struggling with food and housing insecurity, many of whom have children. A Guaranteed Income (GI) program that provides consistent unconditional cash to families is hypothesized to increase financial wellbeing and provide added agency to seek opportunities that improve individual and environmental conditions of health and wellbeing across generations. This randomized-controlled trial assessed the impact of a GI pilot program implemented in the city of Los Angeles.

Methods: At baseline, participants were randomly assigned to the control (n=4,992) or treatment (n=3,202; received $1,000/month for 12 months) group. Four waves of surveys were administered to both groups at baseline, 6-, 12-, and 18-months after the first disbursements of funds. Two waves of qualitative interviews were conducted at the midpoint (n=35) and end (n=20) of the study period. We used Multiple Imputation by Chained Equations to address missing data and conducted Two-level multilevel modeling (level 1: individual; level 2: council district) examining the impact of GI outcomes of interest at each wave controlling for baseline value.

Results: Controlling for baseline, across all subsequent waves, GI recipients were more likely to be able to fully cover a $400 emergency expense (e.g., wave 4 B=.84; p<.001), less likely to experience food insecurity (e.g., wave 4 B=-.36; p<.001), more likely to enroll their children in enrichment programs (e.g., sports wave 4: B=.51; p<.001; lessons wave 4: B=.80; p<.001), less likely to worry about neighborhood safety (e.g., wave 4: B=-.60; p<.001); and more likely to positively engage with neighbors (e.g., wave 4: B=.23; p<.001) than control participants. Intraclass Correlations (variation of outcome explained by council districts) ranged between 0 to .016.

Conclusion and Implications: This study provides a robust evaluation of GI efficacy on reducing food insecurity among low-income families and enhancing their ability to invest in their children’s enrichment activities. We also found families reporting more positive engagement with neighbors and less worry about neighborhood safety. The financial relief provided by GI may be a promising approach to uplifting families and individuals from poverty, providing additional opportunities for self and their children, and in the long run, improving outcomes across generations.