Georgia : In Her Hands Pilot


“In Her Hands” (IHH) selected 654 women across three Georgia communities – Atlanta’s Old Fourth Ward, rural Clay‑Randolph‑Terrell counties, and suburban College Park – through a public lottery. Participants were randomly assigned to one of two groups receiving $20,400 each.

  1. Half received $850/month for 24 months
  2. Half received $4,300 up front, then $700/month for months 2–24

A non-selected lottery group (~2,000 applicants) serves as the comparison cohort.¹ ²

Two different studies running at the same time lets us see whether a higher monthly amount vs. a small lump sum + lower monthly amount leads to different choices like buying a car (lump-sum leverage) or smoothing rent (higher monthly). So far, outcomes between the two treatment arms are similar—participants appear to match the cash to their goals, not the other way around.³

Improved Calm and Security

At 12 months, participants reported far fewer signs of financial distress than comparable non-recipients:

  • “Very difficult” to pay bills fell to 19% for IHH vs. 48% in the comparison group.
  • Utility shutoffs: 24% IHH vs. 42% comparison.
  • Missed housing payments: 37% IHH vs. 53% comparison; evictions: 6% vs. 14%.
  • Use of high-cost financial options plummets—payday loans 15% vs. 26%, pawn shops 22% vs. 37%, selling blood plasma 12% vs. 25%, checking overdrafts 39% vs. 54%.⁴

Households also build a cushion. 28% of IHH recipients report “rainy-day” funds vs. 15% of the comparison group; only 37% of IHH households say they couldn’t cover a $400 emergency vs. 58% in the comparison group.⁵

Nutritional security moves in tandem. Inability to afford balanced meals drops to 58% (IHH) vs. 78% (comparison); inability to buy healthful food falls to 42% vs. 69%.⁶

Mental health follows the money – and the meals. 56% of IHH participants score “likely no mental disorder” vs. 39% in the comparison group; sleep quality (“fairly good/very good”) rises to 67% vs. 52%.⁴ ⁷

Stability Increases Agency

Employment rates are statistically similar between groups; among those employed, IHH participants reported fewer weekly hours (~5.7 fewer) – a reallocation that participants link to returning to school, launching small businesses, or spending needed time with children.¹⁰

This coheres with broader evidence: guaranteed income tends to lower stress and improve health without causing mass exits from work. IHH’s own narrative synthesis notes alignment with global cash-transfer research and Stockton’s randomized trial, which documented lower mental distress and better physical functioning.⁸

Successful Study Design Principles

  • Community-defined goals, community-scale sample – Choosing three distinct geographies surfaces how context (transport deserts vs. job access vs. bank access) shapes use.¹¹
  • Dose and duration fit for asset-building – Two years (total $20,400) is long enough for auto purchase, credit repair, lease stabilization—stepping-stones that monthly-only, small-dollar programs can’t always reach.¹ ³
  • Unconditional by design – Participants consistently prefer GI over paternalistic programs with benefit cliffs and burdensome paperwork.¹²
  • Rigorous evaluation with humanized context – Random selection, a comparison group, multi‑method data (surveys, interviews, PhotoVoice), and transparent checks on baseline differences keep the science clean without flattening lived experience.²

These choices mirror best practices in the global basic-income literature – clear rules, ethical oversight, independent evaluation, and steady payments – because operational excellence is a justice issue.¹³ ¹⁴ ¹⁵

For Investors and County Leaders

If you’re building a county‑level portfolio, IHH and Flint’s Rx Kids complement each other by tackling different life moments with different doses:

  • Per‑person investment – IHH invests $20,400 over 24 months in adult women; Rx  Kids invests $7,500 per birth – $1,500 during pregnancy plus $500/month for 12 months.¹ ¹⁶ ¹⁷
  • Refine the policy aperture – IHH targets Black women in three communities, explicitly countering historic wealth extraction; Rx  Kids is universal to pregnant residents within the city (no income test), normalizing help as a public‑health prescription.¹ ¹⁷

Why this matters as a funder –  A diversified cash strategy – maternal/infant plus women’s two‑year stability – hedges risk, compounds benefits (nutrition, mental health, eviction prevention), and lets donors align county-based giving with measurable health and wealth outcomes.⁴ ⁶ ⁸

A Study Design Playbook

  • Start with place and purpose – Co‑design eligibility and outcomes with community members; name the “why” (e.g., maternal health, eviction prevention, debt exit).¹¹ ¹³
  • Choose a disbursement that matches the job –  If the goal is asset acquisition (a car, a deposit), consider a partial lump sum plus monthly tail; if it’s day‑to‑day stabilization, maintain a higher monthly.³ ¹³
  • Protect against benefit cliffs – Keep payments unconditional and non‑means‑tested where feasible, or design offsets that avoid punishing work or family formation.¹² ¹⁵ ¹⁸
  • Build a gold standard evaluation without red tape – Randomized selection where possible; comparison cohorts if not; pair surveys with qualitative methods to capture “why” behind the numbers.² ¹³
  • Plan for time sovereignty – Expect some participants to reduce hours to train, formalize micro‑businesses, or care for infants – as stated in the Flint study, this is a feature, not a bug, in a labor market reshaped by automation.¹⁰ ¹⁹
  • Mind the funding curve – Multi‑year commitments increase ROI; align with tax/benefit reforms that reduce administrative churn and high marginal tax rates on the poor.²⁰ ²¹

Why GMI Matters 

From Social Security to the Great Society, America’s most durable social advances were pragmatic leaps that expanded the pursuit of happiness from a phrase into a foundation. As AI and automation compress wages at the low end, guaranteed income is the next pragmatic leap – a way to buy time, restore dignity, and rebuild local wealth where it was extracted.¹⁹ ²² ²³

Georgia’s lesson is clear –  when people are trusted with cash, they repay that trust – in steadier homes, fuller pantries, healthier minds, and stronger communities.

References

  1. Brugger, Laura, Shadonna Davis, Desha Elliott, Leah Hamilton, Aaron Quick, Stephen Roll, Latrice Rollins, Simone Smith, and Naomi Zewde. In Her Hands: First‑Year Research Summary. Washington University in St. Louis, Social Policy Institute, February 23, 2024.
  2. Ibid., Research Methodology; see also weighting discussion addressing baseline differences.
  3. Ibid., Feedback on Program Design—payment modalities and participant goal‑matching.
  4. Ibid., Executive Summary and Appendix Tables A2–A4 (bill difficulty, shutoffs, housing, evictions; use of payday, pawn, plasma, overdrafts).
  5. Ibid., Savings & Asset Development (rainy‑day funds; $400 emergency).
  6. Ibid., Food & Nutrition Security, overall and by site.
  7. Ibid., Kessler‑10 and sleep quality tables.
  8. Ibid., Discussion linking to global cash‑transfer evidence and Stockton SEED outcomes.
  9. Ibid., Higher‑education enrollment and child‑savings rates.
  10. Ibid., Employment and weekly hours among those working; qualitative accounts of schooling/entrepreneurship.
  11. Ibid., Community access differences across urban/rural/suburban sites.
  12. Ibid., Comparisons with other assistance programs (autonomy, reliability, reduced paternalism).
  13. Standing, Guy. Basic Income: And How We Can Make It Happen. London: Pelican, 2017. Appendix, “How to Run a Basic Income Pilot.”
  14. Torry, Malcolm, ed. The Palgrave International Handbook of Basic Income. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 2019.
  15. Citizen’s Income Trust. Citizen’s Income: A Brief Introduction. London: CIT, 2015.
  16. City of Flint. “New and Expecting Moms in Flint Can Now Sign Up for Rx Kids Cash Prescriptions,” January 10, 2024. https://www.cityofflint.com/new-and-expecting-moms-in-flint-can-now-sign-up-for-rx-kids-cash-prescriptions/. City of Flint
  17. Rx Kids. “Flint Residents: Apply Now—$1,500 During Pregnancy & $500/Month for 12 Months.” Accessed 2025. https://rxkids.org/communities/flint/. Rx Kids
  18. Torry, Malcolm. “A Feasible Way to Implement a Citizen’s Income.” Research note, September 2014.
  19. Neumärker, Bernhard, and Jessica Schulz, eds. Financial Issues of a Universal Basic Income (UBI). Berlin: LIT Verlag, 2022—esp. Neumärker & Weinel on “Time Sovereignty.”
  20. Mirrlees, James, et al. Tax by Design. Oxford: Oxford University Press/Institute for Fiscal Studies, 2011.
  21. Haarmann, Claudia, et al. The Basic Income Grant Pilot Project: Assessment Report. Windhoek: BIG Coalition, 2009 (evidence on local development spillovers).
  22. Wright, Robert E., and Aleksandra Przegalińska. Debating Universal Basic Income: Pros, Cons, and Alternatives. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 2022.
  23. Haagh, Louise. The Case for Universal Basic Income. Medford, MA: Polity, 2019.