Beyond Standard Employment Outcomes: Guaranteed Income and Low-Income Parents Employment Decision

Background: Employment impacts of unconditional cash transfers, including guaranteed income (GI), have been a central topic of debate, with mixed empirical findings. Some studies report no significant effect on employment (Sauval et al., 2024), while others suggest that GI may lead recipients to reduce paid work hours, often interpreted as a disincentive to work (Vivalt et al., 2025). What is often overlooked in existing research, which primarily focuses on changes in employment status or work hours, is how GI shapes recipients' perceptions and decisions about work. Drawing on qualitative data from an experimental study of GI, this study examines low-income parents' views on paid employment, focusing on whether and how receiving GI makes a difference and how these decisions intersect with issues of job quality.

Methods: Data were collected as part of the Los Angeles County Breathe Guaranteed Income program, which provides a monthly guaranteed income of $1,000 to randomly selected low-income individuals over three years, starting in 2022. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a subsample of participants from both the treatment group (receiving GI) and the control group (not receiving GI), who had at least one child under the age of five at the time of recruitment. In the third wave of data collection (November 2024 to January 2025), participants were asked about their employment status, employment history, and perceptions of job quality. Transcribed interview data from 14 control group and 12 treatment group participants were analyzed using thematic analysis, adopting deductive–inductive coding approaches.

Results: Treatment group participants described several specific ways GI payments impacted their decisions and experiences with paid employment. Some reported that GI helped them financially when they had to reduce work hours or remain unemployed to prioritize childcare. Others shared that GI allowed them to stay in jobs that, while not high-paying, offered some flexibility to manage both work and childcare. Some noted that the temporary nature of GI motivated them to work more and seek a better job in preparation for its end. Without the financial cushion of GI, some control group participants mentioned working multiple jobs to make ends meet, which added to work-family conflict and burnout, negatively affecting their interactions with their children. Both groups emphasized flexible work arrangements as a key aspect of job quality that mattered to them, with some even prioritizing it over pay. The lack of flexible jobs was discussed as a major challenge for unemployed participants, pushing some into gig work, which offers schedule flexibility but also exacerbates financial instability and unpredictable hours.

Implications: The study suggests that low-income parents' work decisions are more influenced by the availability of childcare support and flexible work arrangements than by receiving GI alone. GI provides financial support that enables parents to make work decisions that better align with their childcare needs, especially in the absence of adequate childcare support and flexible work options. The study emphasizes that the employment outcomes of unconditional cash transfers should be understood within the broader context of work-family support at the societal level.