Key Findings: Moving

Recipients were more likely to move housing units, move neighborhoods, and pay for housing

Cash increases interest in moving.

Recipients reported greater interest in moving and took actions to search for new housing, especially in the final year of the transfers.

Recipients were 5 percentage points more likely to express interest in moving housing units—a 15% increase compared to the average control participant.
Recipients’ interest in moving neighborhoods rose by 6 percentage points, an 18% increase from the average control participant.
Recipients’ interest in moving cities rose by 3.2 percentage points, a 13% increase relative to the average control participant.
Recipients were, on average, 16% more likely to actively search for new housing and 23% more likely to actively search for a new neighborhood than the average control participant.

Cash increases the possibility to move

Recipients were more likely than control participants to move housing units and to move neighborhoods.

Recipients were 4.4 percentage points more likely to move neighborhoods—an 11% increase compared to the average among control participants.
Recipients were 4 percentage points more likely to move housing units—a 9% increase relative to control participants.

Descriptively, we find that by year three, 56% of recipients had moved housing units at least one time compared to 51% of control participants. 52% of recipients had moved neighborhoods compared to 47% of control participants. Approximately 9% of recipients had moved states compared to 8% of control participants.

Recipients were more likely to pay for housing.

At the start of the program, it was common for recipients to live with friends or family in order to save money on rent and utilities, especially during the pandemic. After receipt of the cash transfers, recipients were 4.2 percentage points more likely to pay for housing. Our qualitative data suggests some recipients could afford to move out on their own, as opposed to staying with family or friends or another living arrangement that does not involve regular payments. Further, for some people living in toxic or abusive environments, the cash transfers allowed them to secure healthier arrangements.

Sarah, for example, lived in her mother-in-law’s house along with other family members at the start of the program. She often clashed with her sister-in-law, especially on issues related to parenting. For the first two years of the program, Sarah’s husband was unemployed, and they used the cash transfers as income replacement. By the end of the program her husband had found a job and, with the help of the additional cash, they were able to move into a townhome with their two daughters.

Who is moving?

Descriptively, of the recipients who moved housing units:

68% were female
56% started off living in Texas
52% had children
31% were in the lowest household income group at enrollment and 43% were in the middle household income group
27% were single parents

The impact of the cash on moving varied across recipients.¹

When we look at these effects broken down by household income level at enrollment, we see how some participants were better positioned to move than others. The effect of the cash on searching for new housing was greater for recipients who had the lowest household incomes at enrollment.² Interest in moving neighborhoods rose by about 6 percentage points for the average recipient, but it rose by 8 percentage points for recipients who had the lowest income at enrollment. Similarly, increases in active searches for new housing and neighborhoods and actions taken were all greater for the lowest income recipients.

Though directionally positive, however, the effects on actually moving housing or neighborhoods were not significant for the lowest income recipients. This suggests that although the cash made it possible to start thinking about moving and to take actions toward searching for new housing, more financial support may have been needed to enable the lowest income recipients to actually move. In contrast, recipients who started from a better financial position at enrollment moved at significantly higher rates than control participants with similar household incomes.

Though the lower income recipients may not move significantly more than lower income control participants, we do find a significant increase in paying for housing among these recipients. Qualitatively, we heard from participants that needing to rely on the financial support and altruism of others was often a source of shame, embarrassment, or vulnerability. By increasing the possibility to pay for housing, the cash gave many participants increased agency over their living situations.

Where are people moving?

Throughout the study, recipients resided in 37 U.S. states and territories and multiple countries, and control participants resided in 40 U.S. states and territories and one other country. Among participants who lived in Texas at enrollment, 7% had moved out of state by the third year of the program; 8.3% of participants who lived in Illinois at enrollment moved out of state. Though the American Community Survey (ACS) data does not precisely replicate our sample, compared to the ACS national data on mobility it appears that study participants reported more mobility than Americans of similar income and age. Specifically, in 2022, 26% of program participants reported moving housing units within the past year. Nationally, 20% of individuals aged 20 to 39 and 15% of individuals living below 150% of the federal poverty level reported moving.^3,4

The cash transfers in this study were truly unconditional. Unlike other place-based pilots, there were no restrictions on movements and participants could relocate whenever and wherever they wanted. We collected data monthly on mobility, and this frequent contact with study participants provided a more comprehensive understanding of participants’ decisions around housing.

Our analysis into the effects of the cash on moving is ongoing. In future analyses, we will explore if and how the cash affected housing and neighborhood quality, housing costs, housing stability, and other important topics.