Guaranteed Income After One Year in Baltimore

This report captures findings from Abt’s evaluation of the first year of Baltimore’s two-year guaranteed income (GI) pilot—the Baltimore Young Families Success Fund (BYFSF). Generally, young people from ages 18 to 24 have the most potential to access training, employment, and housing opportunities that will enable them to build stability and social and economic mobility. These opportunities are harder to access when parenting a child, particularly a young child. In Baltimore, this “opportunity youth” cohort have historically faced above-average unemployment—between 14 and 19 percent—compared with the city’s average unemployment rate of 2.8 percent. In 2021,16 percent of all young adults aged 18-24 did not attend school or work and had no degree beyond high school, limiting their future employment opportunities.   

Who participated?  

The BYFSF designed a program to provide cash directly to young parents ages 18 to 24 so they can make financial decisions and investments in childcare, continued education, or housing as needed. More than 4,000 Baltimore parents submitted an eligible application, and 200 of these applicants received the GI. One hundred thirty of these 200 applicants were included in our research study. An additional 156 applicants in the study’s control group participated in the research but did not receive a GI. 

Findings 

Initial findings show participants increased their income, were more likely to transition to independent living situations, and reported improved mental and emotional health. These results demonstrate early potential for GI as an intervention to improve the overall well-being of young families.  

• Six months into receiving the GI, BYFSF participants, who had an average household size of three people, reported an average income that was 90 percent higher than the control group’s: $26,926 versus $14,211. However, that higher income is only about $2,000 above the 2023 federal poverty level for a family of three. At 12 months, participants’ average household income fell to $23,608, approximately $1,200 below the federal poverty level, but was still higher than the control group’s reported income of $16,233.  
• One possible reason for the decline in income between the six month and one-year results is that BYFSF participants may have been investing their GI in education, rather than using it to supplement their incomes. At the beginning of the study, 16 percent of BYFSF participants and control group members reported applying to college or a trade school; at 6 months, 24 percent and 15 percent did; and at 12 months, 27 percent and 13 percent did. Future analyses of data through the study’s 30-month follow-up will begin to show whether these educational aspirations came to fruition.   
• By 12 months, labor force participation increased by 9 percent for the BYFSF participants, while the control group remained stable. This indicates that BYFSF participants did not leave the work force once they started receiving the GI.   
• Housing stability improved for recipients: the percentage of families who were living independently increased from 52 percent to 64 percent.   
• BYFSF participants reported being less stressed. Stress is associated with poor mental health outcomes, and that stress is exacerbated for those who are unmarried, unemployed, and have low incomes.