Public and private funders are increasingly experimenting with guaranteed income – unconditional cash paid regularly to low-income people – as a bold new anti-poverty tool. Also known as cash transfer programs or guaranteed basic income, these initiatives have become a rising philanthropic innovation. An Urban Institute report notes that cash transfers have “won over funders who once shied away from [them]” – “so many people from so many different types of philanthropy have started with cash transfers as a primary tool in their toolbox”. Today’s funders see guaranteed income not just as charity, but as efficient investment. For example, New York’s Bridge Project emphasizes “return on investment” and trusts mothers to spend money wisely. As one analysis concluded, unconditional cash “ensures individuals experience basic economic security and … the autonomy, dignity and freedom” to address their own needs.
Across the U.S., dozens of local pilots and nonprofit initiatives are testing guaranteed income. Many are explicitly backed by philanthropists or public-private partnerships. Notable examples include:
Stockton, CA (SEED): In 2019 the City of Stockton began the Stockton Economic Empowerment Demonstration (SEED), giving 125 low-income residents $500 per month for 24 months. The $3 million pilot was entirely funded by philanthropy. Early results were striking: after one year, recipients were more than twice as likely to hold full-time jobs and reported significantly better financial and mental health than similar non-recipients.
Jackson, MS (Magnolia Mother’s Trust): Launched in late 2018 by local advocates, Magnolia provides $1,000 per month for 12 months to selected Black mothers in public housing. The Magnolia pilot is one of the longest-running community-based GI efforts and was expressly designed to center racial and gender equity.
New York City (Bridge Project – Maternal Guaranteed Income): The Bridge Project, a nonprofit backed by donors, offers monthly cash to low-income expectant and new mothers to promote healthy early child development. In 2024 NYC officials dedicated $1.5 million of city funds to expand Bridge’s program for 161 pregnant women facing homelessness. This first-ever municipal GI funding follows Bridge’s private donors and research partners. Early survey data from Bridge’s cohorts show that 90% of mothers reported improved stress or mental health after just one cash payment. Recipients have also increased spending on food and baby supplies.
Mayors for a Guaranteed Income: A coalition of 17 city mayors (including Los Angeles’ Eric Garcetti, Atlanta’s Keisha Lance Bottoms, and others) has united around GI policies. Led by Michael Tubbs, the group advocates for federal or state cash programs and helps launch local pilots. The coalition’s launch was fueled by a $3 million donation from Twitter’s Jack Dorsey. Several member cities (Atlanta, LA, Oakland, etc.) are planning their own pilots in 2024. As Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf observes, predictable monthly cash can mitigate the “disparate impact on people of color” that one-off aid can’t address.
Each of these efforts is essentially a cash transfer program – no strings attached – and many have been designed or supported by nonprofits and funders as experiments. Together they illustrate how local philanthropies and governments are collaborating on guaranteed income: nonprofits like the Bridge Project and advocacy groups like Mayors for GI build programs, while foundations and donors provide seed funding and research support.
The burgeoning research on these pilots shows real impacts on poverty-related outcomes. Key findings include:
Employment and Well-being (Stockton SEED): In SEED’s first-year analysis, Stockton recipients achieved full-time employment at more than twice the rate of the control group. They also reported significantly lower anxiety and depression and better overall well-being compared to non-recipients. These results counter the “work disincentive” argument: recipients used cash mostly for necessities like food and utilities, not leisure.
Local Economic Multiplier (Kenya Study): Although U.S. pilots are small, large-scale trials abroad suggest broader economic benefits. In rural Kenya, GiveDirectly researchers delivered $1,000 per household (totaling 15% of local GDP). They found that every $1 of cash generated roughly $2.50–$2.60 in local spending or income. A team of Berkeley/Princeton/UCSD economists concluded the local fiscal multiplier was about 2.5. In other words, cash transfers “ripple” through the community, boosting business revenue and wages.
Household Spending (NYC Mothers): Evaluations of NYC’s maternal income pilots (Bridge Project) show that low-income mothers spend the funds on essentials: one report found food was the single largest category of purchases. Crucially, very few recipients used the money on non-essentials, contradicting skeptics’ fears. In addition, after one cash payment, 90% of moms reported reduced stress or better mental health – a critical outcome given the links between maternal well-being and child development.
These findings align with decades of global research: unconditional cash programs consistently reduce poverty and improve nutrition, health, schooling, and gender equity. For example, GiveDirectly’s long-term study in Kenya (163,000+ transfers) reports higher food security and investment in farming among recipients. And the freedom of cash empowers people to manage shocks. As one funders’ primer notes, cash transfers have yielded gains in income, health, education, and more. In short, evidence from both U.S. pilots and international trials suggests that cash transfer programs can deliver measurable benefits with high efficiency and dignity.
Philanthropic innovation in cash assistance is not limited to the U.S. Around the world, similar experiments offer perspective:
Kenya: GiveDirectly has delivered over $163 million to 406,000+ Kenyans since 2011. Its randomized trials found that long-term cash grants significantly boost food security and assets. Researchers also observed the 2.60x economic multiplier noted above.
Finland (UBI Trial): In 2017–18 Finland ran a landmark trial giving €560/month to 2,000 unemployed people. The final evaluation showed a small increase in employment and significant gains in well-being, with recipients reporting better mental health and life satisfaction. The Finnish study underscores that even modest unconditional cash can improve quality of life without crashing labor force participation.
Switzerland (Referendum): By contrast, Switzerland’s 2016 national referendum on a full universal basic income (about CHF 2,500/month or ~$1,765) was overwhelmingly rejected – about 78% voted no. Critics warned of high costs and “people quitting their jobs,” reflecting deep political skepticism. The Swiss vote serves as a caution that public support for broad, universal cash programs is not guaranteed, even if targeted pilots show promise.
Together, these international examples highlight both the promise and limits of guaranteed income. In developing-country pilots, evidence has been overwhelmingly positive. In affluent democracies, trials have shown quality-of-life gains but also political resistance when programs scale up. The global picture reinforces the need for local experimentation and robust data – exactly what philanthropic-funded pilots provide.
Why are funders drawn to guaranteed income? In a word: evidence and values. Philanthropists see GI as an innovative, evidence-backed way to address poverty without heavy bureaucracy or stigma. Many donors have shifted from traditional in-kind charity to direct cash, drawn by the compelling research. As one GiveDirectly leader observed, “I haven’t seen a period like this” of widespread philanthropic interest in cash transfers. Indeed, foundations and high-net-worth donors (from tech executives to community investors) are seeding GI experiments to gather proof-of-concept and push for systemic change.
In practice, most U.S. pilots have been initially underwritten by philanthropy. A 2022 analysis found over 90 GI demonstration projects in the pipeline, with the majority relying on foundation grants. For example, Stockton SEED was supported by the Economic Security Project and others, Bridge Project by private donors before NYC’s council budget was set aside, and the Mayors coalition by startup philanthropy. As Business Insider reports, many U.S. pilots mix private funding with federal relief money rather than pure tax revenue.
Philanthropic primers highlight multiple roles for donors in this space. Grantmakers fund pilot cash programs (direct service), build networks of stakeholders, advocate for policy reforms, and commission research. They also push for related cash policies (like refundable tax credits) that incorporate GI principles. For instance, ESP’s funder guide notes that donors should help “test and refine what a scaled-up program could look like” and ensure the evidence is used to expand government safety nets. In short, philanthropy is not just writing checks – it is actively strategizing how unconditional cash can fit into a broader anti-poverty portfolio.
Of course, this raises ethical questions. Some worry that private funding of GI lets governments off the hook for systemic welfare, or that donors are “experimenting” on vulnerable people. Proponents counter that charitable cash pilots are fully voluntary, rigorously evaluated, and often targeted to historically marginalized groups. Others debate whether income should be universal (UBI) or targeted (as most GI pilots are). Oakland’s Mayor Schaaf and others argue that narrowly targeted one-time aid has failed people of color, so recurring, universal-like payments are more equitable. Criticism remains that without political will, philanthropic GI is a Band-Aid on deeper inequalities. Yet many funders see GI as ethically aligned with their missions – a tool that, at minimum, provides immediate help and, at best, sparks policy change.
What does guaranteed income mean for the future of philanthropy and nonprofit strategy? Early signs are that cash is here to stay in the philanthropy toolbox. The surge in GI experimentation suggests that many funders believe this innovation can complement or even transform traditional services. Nonprofits are beginning to weave GI into their strategies: for example, family-support organizations might incorporate cash stipends, and anti-poverty coalitions now include GI in advocacy agendas. Funders are also linking GI to broader aims: child welfare groups see monthly cash as preventive aid, health foundations view it as addressing social determinants of health, and justice-oriented philanthropies note its role in closing racial wealth gaps.
Moving forward, philanthropies will likely focus on two tracks. First, they will continue sponsoring pilots and evaluations – expanding to new cities, longer durations, and varied populations. Groups like Stanford Basic Income Lab and Center for Guaranteed Income Research are already cataloguing dozens of experiments. Second, they will push for policy integration. The hope is that successful pilots build a case for scaling GI through legislation or embedded into welfare. Early signs are promising: for instance, the federal Child Tax Credit expansion (though bipartisan) showed how unconditional cash can cut child poverty. In future, some funders envision guaranteed income as part of a nonprofit strategy that blends philanthropy, research and policy advocacy – an example of innovation driving systemic change.
In conclusion, guaranteed income is rapidly moving from fringe idea to mainstream strategy in U.S. philanthropy. By focusing on outcomes and centering human dignity, these cash-transfer programs align with philanthropic goals of impact and equity. For today’s philanthropists, guaranteed income offers a new frontier: an evidence-backed, values-driven approach to alleviating poverty. It may well become a fixture of tomorrow’s nonprofit playbook – an innovative way to ensure that no one’s basic needs are left unmet.