Household Income and Child Development in the First Three Years of Life (Phase 1) Household Income and Child Development in the First Years of Life (Phase 2)
Phase: NA
Conditions: Child Development, Brain Development, Household and Family Processes
Sponsor: University of California, Irvine

RESEARCH STRATEGY 
Household Income and Child Development in the First Years of Life 
(Baby’s First Years, Phase 2) 
June 23, 2022 
NIH 2R01 HD087384 
 
NOTE: The following is the Research Strategy submitted to NICHD in June 2022 and approved and funded by NICHD. We have 
since completed the age-4 assessments. 
 
PROJECT SUMMARY 
        Poverty puts children at risk for developmental delays, lower school achievement and educational 
attainment, and unfavorable labor market and health outcomes. The Baby’s First Years (BFY) project is the 
first large-scale randomized controlled trial in the U.S. to estimate the impact of poverty reduction on 
children’s development and health. Launched in 2018 (NICHD R01HD087384), BFY recruited 1,000 low-
income mothers and their newborn infants in four metropolitan areas. Mothers were randomized to receive a 
monthly unconditional cash transfer of either $333 (“high-cash gift group”) or $20 (“low-cash gift group”) for 
the first 4 years and 4 months (52 months) of the child’s life. Participants have been followed up annually 
around the children’s birthdays to measure child development and family life. In this renewal, with funding 
already in hand for a two-year extension of the cash gifts, BFY has the opportunity to study the impact of 
poverty reduction for an unparalleled duration, across the first six years of life. The continuation of the project 
is driven by a need to understand whether continuous monthly cash transfers will improve low-income 
children’s development at the start of formal schooling. To accomplish this, we will collect two lab-based waves 
of data, at ages 6 and 8. We will assess high-cash/low-cash group differences at age 6 on measures of academic 
achievement skills as well as cognitive, self-regulation, and socio-emotional development. We will additionally 
assess high-cash/low-cash group differences in measures of brain activity and stress physiology. At age 8, we 
will investigate whether children’s learning and developmental trajectories have been altered in ways that 
generate persistent impacts, 20 months after the cessation of the payments. The study will also measure family 
contexts based on two pathways by which poverty is theorized to affect children: an investment pathway 
(household expenditures; maternal work; activities with children, early care and education arrangements) and 
a stress pathway (economic hardship; parental relationship quality, maternal mental health, stress, and 
parenting quality). At both ages 6 and 8, we will assess high-cash/low-cash group differences in these 
investment and stress pathways. 
 
SPECIFIC AIMS 
In the U.S., nearly 1 in 5 children under age 6 experiences poverty each year. Poverty puts children at risk 
for developmental delays, lower school achievement and educational attainment, and ultimately, unfavorable 
labor market and health outcomes. The extent to which increasing family income would change the trajectories 
of children living in poverty is often debated, but not well understood.  
The Baby’s First Years (BFY) project is the first large-scale randomized controlled trial in 
the U.S. to estimate the impact of poverty reduction on children’s development and health. 
Launched in 2018, and supported in part by NICHD (R01HD087384), BFY recruited 1,000 low-income 
mothers and their newborn infants in four metropolitan areas. Mothers were randomized to receive a monthly 
unconditional cash transfer of either $333 (“high-cash gift group”) or $20 (“low-cash gift group”) for the first 4 
years and 4 months (52 months) of the child’s life. Early results suggested that infants in the high-cash gift 
group showed more high-frequency brain activity after the first year of cash gifts, in a pattern associated with 
the subsequent development of higher cognitive skills.  
The study has also measured family contexts based on two pathways by which poverty is theorized to affect 
children: an investment pathway (household expenditures; maternal work; activities with children, early care 
and education arrangements) and a stress pathway (economic hardship; parental relationship quality, 
maternal mental health, stress, and parenting quality). To date, data suggest positive impacts of the cash 
transfers on key elements of the investment pathway, but no positive impacts on the stress pathway. This 
pattern may be due to the comparative speed with which monthly cash gifts can be used to purchase parental 
investments in children, relative to the longer timeframe needed to improve psychological wellbeing and 
relationships. Alternatively, it may be that the BFY cash transfers are not large enough to reduce economic 
hardship and maternal stress among families living in poverty, particularly during the pandemic.  
With this renewal application, BFY will estimate the causal impacts of the longest-running 

unconditional cash transfer in the U.S., and the only one to provide income support throughout 
all of early childhood—a highly sensitive developmental period. Thus, BFY will provide an 
unprecedented opportunity to learn whether poverty and family income affect not only early 
brain development, but also academic achievement, health, and behavior. In so doing, BFY will 
inform policy debates about the developmental consequences of economic supports. The 
continuation of the project is driven by a need to understand whether continuous monthly cash transfers will 
improve low-income children’s academic outcomes at the start of formal schooling. With funding for a two-
year extension of the cash gifts, BFY provides the opportunity to study the impact of poverty reduction for an 
unparalleled duration, across the first six years of life. To accomplish this, we will collect two additional lab-
based waves of data, at ages 6 and 8. At age 8, we will investigate whether children’s learning and 
developmental trajectories have been altered in ways that generate persistent impacts, 20 months after the 
cessation of the payments. We will accomplish this through the following specific aims: 
Aim 1: To measure the impacts of 6 years of monthly unconditional cash transfers on low-income 
children’s school achievement, as well as cognitive and behavioral skills.   
• 
We hypothesize that, at age 6, children in the high-cash gift group will have higher reading and math 
achievement, self-regulation, and socioemotional functioning, as well as lower rates of special education 
and grade retention, compared with children in the low-cash gift group (Aim 1a). We expect that these 
impacts will be at least as large as those found at age 4. We expect partial persistence of these impacts 
20 months after the cessation of payments, at age 8 (Aim 1b).  
Aim 2: To understand the impacts of 6 years of monthly unconditional cash transfers on low-income 
children’s neurobiological development.  
• 
We hypothesize that, at age 6, children in the high-cash gift group will have more mature patterns of 
brain function, as well as lower hair cortisol concentrations, compared with children in the low-cash gift 
group (Aim 2a). We expect that these impacts will be at least as large as those found at age 4. We expect 
partial persistence of these impacts 20 months after the cessation of payments, at age 8 (Aim 2b).  
Aim 3: To understand the impacts of 6 years of cash transfers on parental investments and stress.  
• 
We hypothesize that, at age 6, mothers in the high-cash gift group will continue to report higher child-
focused expenditures and more frequent parent-child activities, compared with mothers in the low-cash 
gift group (Aim 3a). We will assess whether treatment effects on the stress pathway have emerged, by 
testing whether mothers in the high-cash gift group report better mental health or less stress compared 
with mothers in the low-cash gift group (Exploratory Aim 3b). We will assess whether any impacts on 
investment and stress persist at age 8, 20 months after the payments end (Exploratory Aim 3c).  
 
 
SIGNIFICANCE 
In the U.S., nearly 1 in 5 children under age 6 experiences poverty each year.1 This is especially worrisome 
because, early in life, a child’s brain is remarkably sensitive to experiences that can have profound and 
enduring influences on subsequent development.2 Family economic resources shape the nature of many of 
these experiences, yet the extent to which they affect child development is not fully understood. Our team of 
neuroscientists, economists, social policy scholars, and developmental psychologists is proposing to fill 
important gaps in scientific knowledge about the role of economic resources in child development, by renewing 
and extending the Baby’s First Years study (BFY). BFY is the first U.S. randomized controlled trial (RCT) to test 
whether cash transfers have a causal effect on the cognitive, socio-emotional, and brain development of young 
children experiencing poverty. 
The BFY intervention is a simple, monthly, unconditional cash transfer to low-income families (which we 
refer to as “cash gifts,” because they are unconditional and funded by private philanthropy). Mothers were 
recruited from postpartum wards of hospitals within 1-2 days of their child’s birth and were randomized to 
receive either $333/month (the “high-cash gift group”) or $20/month (the “low-cash gift group”) via a debit 
card. To put the magnitude of the gifts in context, the annual cash gift of $4,000 increases the baseline income 
in the average BFY family by 18%. As of June 2022, we will have completed four waves of data collection—
primarily consisting of maternal surveys at baseline and at child ages 1, 2, and 3—with exceptionally high 
retention rates. In July of 2022, we will begin in-person data collection of children’s outcomes at age 4.  
With this renewal application, BFY will estimate the causal impacts of the longest-running 
unconditional cash transfer in the U.S., and the only one to provide cash transfers throughout 
all of early childhood—a highly sensitive developmental period. BFY was originally formulated to 
study the effects of monthly unconditional cash transfers on child development for the first three years of life, 
with the cash gifts set to be distributed for 40 months (3 years, 4 months). In response to the COVID-19 

pandemic and the need to postpone in-person research activities, the cash transfers were extended for an 
additional year, through 52 months (4 years, 4 months), enabling us to postpone in-person direct child 
assessments to age 4. Now, motivated by evidence that the likelihood of unfavorable outcomes increases with 
the number of years a child spends in poverty,3 we have raised additional philanthropic funding to extend the 
monthly cash transfers for two more years. Thus, BFY will provide participating families with monthly 
unconditional cash gifts for a total of 76 months (through child-age 6 years, 4 months), with two additional 
follow-up waves of in-person data collection proposed at ages 6 and 8.  
By measuring the impacts of six years of unconditional cash support to low-income families, this 
renewal will provide an unprecedented opportunity to learn whether reducing poverty shapes 
development, school achievement, and health in middle childhood, as children transition to 
formal schooling. In the U.S. context, quasi-experimental studies of tax and transfer programs have shown 
that, among low-income school-aged children, higher income usually contributes to better health, higher test 
scores, higher educational attainment, and higher adult earnings.4-8 Yet, past work has tended to examine 
income increases conditioned on or bundled with employment, complicating efforts to isolate the causal 
impacts of income, per se. Moreover, these studies largely focus on older children, despite the fact that young 
children’s development is highly sensitive to early experiences in their home environments and interactions 
with their caregivers.9   
With this renewal, we will also learn if cash transfers during early childhood result in 
lasting improvements in children’s outcomes. We propose a follow-up wave of data collection at age 8, 
approximately two years after the cessation of the cash gifts. This will enable us to measure the persistence of 
impacts on school achievement, health, and development. Finally, with this renewal, we will gain 
additional insight into the mechanisms that may be driving impacts on children’s outcomes, by 
assessing the extent to which parental investments and parental stress are impacted by the multiple years of 
cash supports. Our proposed renewal through ages 6 and 8 is feasible, given the proven successes of the project 
to date—both in terms of project implementation, including exceptionally high rates of sample retention, as 
well as philanthropic fundraising for the cash gifts. In sum, the extent to which reliable and consistent cash 
transfers during the earliest years of life will yield important and long-lasting positive impacts has not been 
rigorously tested in the U.S. context. Baby’s First Years is designed to fill this gap. 
Rigorous evaluations of conditional or unconditional cash transfer programs (CCTs and UCTs) to low-
income families have been conducted in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). These CCTs and UCTs 
have often produced significant—but selective—improvements in children’s development, education, and 
health, with effects varying within and across studies.10-12 A review of Latin American CCTs concluded that 
most programs result in positive long-term effects on children’s schooling, but fewer positively affect children’s 
cognitive skills, learning, or socio-emotional skills.13 Likewise, a review of UCTs and CCTs in LMICs found that 
nearly all studies positively improved at least one aspect of children’s mental health, but none produced 
positive impacts on all mental health outcomes examined.14 Although the literature on CCTs in developing 
countries has begun to examine early childhood,15-18 evidence tends to focus on anthropometric outcomes, such 
as stunting and related metrics of nutrition and growth.   
With a few exceptions of studies conducted in the 1970s as part of the negative income tax 
demonstrations,19,20 UCTs have rarely been tested at scale in the U.S. Opportunity New York City (ONYC) was a 
CCT designed to reward family health, children’s schooling, and parental employment. It reduced family 
economic hardship but did not affect older children’s school test scores. Unfortunately, early childhood 
outcomes were not considered.21,22 Currently, several at-scale U.S. UCT evaluations are underway: A one-time 
$1,000 transfer delivered by GiveDirectly; a $1,000-per-month benefit for 36 months studied by Open 
Research; and Mayors for a Guaranteed Income providing varying benefits across 20 cities. None of the 
evaluation studies for these programs has published results yet, and all focus primarily on adult health 
outcomes.  
BFY is the first study designed to provide definitive causal evidence of the impact of 
childhood poverty reduction on U.S. children’s brain development. Developmental studies have 
documented socioeconomic disparities in language, memory, executive function, and socio-emotional 
processing23-27 from toddlerhood through adolescence.24,25,28 Neuroscience provides an explanatory framework 
for the physiological mechanisms that explain how early experiences lead to disparities in cognitive, emotional, 
and behavioral development and, ultimately, school achievement. Distinct brain circuits support discrete 
cognitive and socio-emotional skills, and thus differentiating between underlying neural systems may provide 
important insights for prevention and intervention.25,29 
Neuroscience studies have found that family income is associated with the structure and function of brain 
regions that support key cognitive skills.30-36 For example, several studies have reported associations between 

family income and the size of the brain’s surface, particularly in regions supporting children’s language and 
executive functioning.32,33 These associations appear strongest among the most disadvantaged families, 
suggesting that an increase in family income may yield greater differences in brain development among poor 
children compared with their more advantaged peers. Correlational studies employing electroencephalographic 
techniques find that young children from lower-income families tend to show less mid-to-high-frequency brain 
activity, and more low-frequency brain activity, compared with children from higher-income homes.37-40 This is 
important because greater mid-to-high-frequency activity has been associated with higher language,41-44 
cognitive,41,45 and social-emotional scores,46 whereas greater low-frequency activity has been associated with 
behavioral, attention, or learning problems.47-49   
Our first paper reporting the early impacts of the BFY intervention, published in PNAS,50 provides 
suggestive evidence that UCTs may affect brain activity among poor children. We measured the differential 
impacts of the cash 
gifts on children’s 
brain activity after 
just one year of cash 
transfers, when the 
BFY children were a 
year old. We found 
that infants in the 
high-cash gift group 
exhibited more high-
frequency brain activity (ES=.17-.26 sd), particularly in frontal and central brain regions. Prior research has 
linked this pattern of brain activity with the subsequent development of higher-order cognitive skills.41-44 
Because the pandemic halted in-person data collection, the sample size was smaller than planned (n=435), 
reducing statistical power. Nevertheless, we interpret the weight of the evidence to support the conclusion that 
the high-cash gifts likely changed children’s brain activity. The present renewal will provide an opportunity to 
test whether these brain activity differences are maintained or grow after 6 years of monthly unconditional 
cash support, and whether differences persist at age 8, approximately two years after the cessation of the gifts.  
BFY will advance scientific knowledge by generating 
causal evidence on the mechanisms that explain how cash 
transfers affect child development. Poverty is associated with 
caregiving environments that are less stimulating and responsive,51-56 but 
past empirical studies are largely correlational, precluding strong 
conclusions about the causal nature of the associations. BFY will provide 
estimates of the causal impacts of monthly unconditional cash transfers 
on key dimensions of family processes. We have followed the literature 
in conceptualizing these family processes as an investment pathway 
and a stress pathway. The hypothesized investment and stress pathways differ in their developmental 
mechanisms, but have the potential to be overlapping and reinforcing with similar downstream effects.57 
The investment pathway views families with greater income as better able to purchase or produce 
important inputs into their children’s development.58 This results in children experiencing more stimulating 
and enriching early environments. A predictable monthly cash transfer may help low-income parents overcome 
challenges in meeting basic financial needs and adapt to fluctuations in income and expenses.59,60 It may 
support child development by enabling parents to meet their children’s basic needs, and to invest in goods and 
services, such as toys and books that provide cognitive stimulation; higher quality non-parental child care and 
enrichment activities; and, by allowing parents to reduce or restructure work hours, potentially supporting 
more parental time and interactions with their child.61-63 
Emerging BFY evidence suggests that mothers are indeed using the cash gift to “invest” 
money and time in their children’s development. After one year of cash gifts, mothers in the high-cash 
gift group report higher expenditures on child-specific goods such as books, toys, and diapers (ES=.23), and 
report engaging more frequently in parent-child activities such as book reading and storytelling (ES=.16).64 
Preliminary analyses suggest that these impacts may persist for at least three years. In addition, at age 2, 
mothers in the high-cash gift group reported that their toddlers were eating more healthy foods (ES=.20). After 
one year of gifts, no statistically detectable impacts were found on maternal paid work, breastfeeding duration, 
childcare use, or household economic hardship. However, at age 2, mothers receiving the high-cash gift were 
less likely to report working full time (20% vs. 25%), possibly in response to the pandemic (see “The COVID-19 
pandemic and external validity,” below).  
 
High-cash gift group 
Low-cash gift group 
High-
frequency 
(gamma) 
brain 
activity 
 
 
 
Power 
Power 
Child 
outcomes
Timing of measurement:
Investment 
pathway
Stress 
pathway
Continuous 
birth to age 6
Ages 1, 2, 3, 
4, 6 & 8
Ages 1, 4,
6 & 8
Cash gifts

Psychologists and sociologists also point to the ways in which economic disadvantage impairs children’s 
development through a stress pathway. This pathway includes effects on parent’s mental health and chronic 
stress,65-68 as well as the quality of family relationships,55,69,70 arguing that economic hardship increases 
parental psychological distress which in turn creates conflict and withdrawal in family relationships and results 
in parent-child interactions that are more negative and harsh as well as less nurturing and supportive.56,69-71 
Reducing the stress children experience may improve children’s executive functioning and socioemotional 
skills, which are supported by neural structures and circuits that are highly sensitive to chronic stress.72,73  
Evidence is mixed regarding the extent to which cash transfers from CCT, UCT, and other policy changes 
improve key elements of the family stress model. Systematic reviews of experimental international cash 
transfers suggest that these programs improve food security and economic well-being, and generate small 
reductions in family violence and parental mental health problems.12,74-78 In contrast, U.S.-based studies of 
policy changes find only selective reductions in economic hardship and maternal mental health, and null to 
small positive impacts on the quality of parenting.79  
Counter to expectations, in BFY we have not found early group differences in key elements 
of the family stress pathway (i.e., economic hardship, maternal psychological distress, maternal mental 
health, romantic partner relationships, parenting stress, or parenting quality).80 Indeed, counter to hypotheses, 
at age 1, the mothers in the high-cash gift group reported significantly more anxiety (ES=.25), though no 
differences were detected at age 2 or, preliminarily, at age 3. We do not see that the cash gifts have affected 
mothers’ marital or romantic relationship status or quality of co-parenting and romantic relationships, nor 
have they affected mothers’ fertility or her co-residence with other family members. We will continue to track 
these outcomes at age 4, and with the current renewal, at ages 6 and 8. 
Why the differential emerging support for the two mediational pathways? One obvious possibility is the 
amount of time it might take for each of the pathways to be changed by cash transfers. Participating mothers 
were provided with the BFY debit card with its initial monthly deposit in the hospital shortly after giving birth. 
Changes in expenditures can be immediate, as in the case of one mother in our qualitative sub-study who 
instructed her partner to go out and purchase a car seat for their trip home from the hospital. On the other 
hand, it may take multiple years of consistent poverty reduction for positive impacts to emerge on perceived 
stress, relationships, mental health, and parenting quality. With continued cash transfers over time, and with 
children growing older and easier to care for, changes in key elements of the stress pathway may be 
subsequently positively impacted by the BFY cash gifts.  
An alternate explanation is that $333 per month is not large enough to bring about fundamental changes 
in parents’ lives needed for better mental health or psychological well-being. To date, qualitative interviews 
with a subset of BFY mothers support this interpretation. The first set of interviews focused on experiences of 
the cash gifts. Mothers indicated that financial strain was acute at the time of their child’s birth, and that the 
cash gifts were an unexpected relief, which could be put toward expenditures such as paying a utility bill or 
purchasing food or cleaning supplies. Over additional interviews, we also heard how the BFY cash gifts help 
mothers meet their parenting goals. However, the mothers continue to report a wide range of stressful 
experiences: financial pressures, relationship troubles, parenting challenges, natural disasters, difficulties 
navigating public assistance programs, racism, and discrimination, as well as health problems in themselves 
and their families. Many of these challenges were also magnified by the COVID-19 pandemic and racial unrest.  
By providing a full six years of cash gifts, BFY will be able to provide clear causal evidence on the extent to 
which stress pathway processes respond to a monthly unconditional cash transfer of $333 in children’s early 
years of life, or whether the reliable monthly BFY cash gifts are just not large enough to cause positive 
improvements in parents’ mental health, family relationships, and parenting quality. 
The enduring effects of cash transfers on child development after cessation of the cash 
supports is not known. Studies of CCTs, UCTs, anti-poverty programs, as well as child and adolescent 
interventions, are dominated by “end-of-treatment” impacts. However, in the case of UCTs and CCTs, there is 
an increasing consensus from studies in LMICs that receiving benefits as a child has lasting impacts on 
educational attainment and adult labor-market outcomes.13 Quasi-experimental studies of tax and near-cash 
transfer programs in childhood suggest important long-term effects on children’s subsequent achievement and 
adult health and employment.4,81,82 A recent review of U.S. early-childhood education programs concluded that 
partial persistence of achievement impacts is common, but depends on the nature of the intervention and 
subsequent social and environmental contexts.83   
In the case of the BFY cash gifts, persistence is likely to depend on the magnitude and nature of impacts on 
the family’s behaviors and the children’s developing capacities in the first six years of life. Our proposed data 
collection will provide an assessment of impacts on early school achievement skills, as well as cognition, 
behavior, and neurodevelopment, including executive functioning, socioemotional skills, IQ, and brain activity. 

The family processes to be studied will include the full range of child investments, health behaviors, and 
relationship and parenting quality. Extending the measurement of these outcomes through the end of the BFY 
cash transfer period—and then beyond it—will provide a much more complete picture of the possible 
permanence of the benefits of poverty reduction on children’s long-run health and development. 
BFY findings will inform policy debates on the consequences and benefits of conditional 
and unconditional income support policies. Beyond its core contributions to science, BFY provides 
important evidence about the likely effects of tax and transfer policies on young children in the U.S. The $333 
monthly gifts comprising the intervention were chosen because they are consistent with the size of income 
increments associated with changes in children’s development and are well within the financial range of 
benefits of existing programs (SNAP, ETIC, CTC) that are active in ongoing debates. In 2021, the American 
Rescue Plan expanded the child tax credit (CTC) dramatically, both in amount and eligibility. Specifically, the 
CTC was made “fully refundable,” such that low-income parents who did not owe federal taxes were now 
eligible to receive the benefit. Congress fiercely debated whether to render the expanded CTC permanent, and it 
continues to be a policy priority for the current federal administration. Moreover, the policy appetite for 
providing cash support to vulnerable families has grown enormously in other arenas. By the end of 2021, 33 
state and local cash-support programs had been launched.84 Given our early success and high retention, BFY is 
well poised to contribute to policy discussions of whether and how cash supports affect children and families.  
 
INNOVATION 
BFY is the first and only study designed to provide definitive causal evidence of the impact 
of early childhood poverty reduction on U.S. children’s outcomes. With this renewal, BFY will 
follow children through the early grades of formal schooling. BFY is the only U.S. cash-transfer study 
assessing whether and how reductions in poverty causally affect child development. Our proposed extension 
builds upon prior experimental and quasi-experimental studies of the impacts of income changes on children’s 
development, and complements studies offering unconditional cash to families in LMICs. It adds to these 
studies by offering evidence on a long-duration of cash transfer prior to the start of formal schooling.10   
BFY will provide evidence on the extent to which cash transfers have persistent impacts. 
Understanding whether end-of-treatment impacts persist is of significant scientific and policy interest. It 
contributes to a scientific body of work about the role of early childhood and later developmental trajectories. 
In addition, tax and transfer programs for low-income families are routinely debated, modified, and rescinded 
from one political administration to the next. The proposed 8-year follow-up will provide an opportunity to 
examine whether the impacts of the cash gifts persist 20 months after cessation of the cash gifts.   
BFY combines the best elements of rigorous social science and neuroscience research. The 
study combines random assignment, rigorous sampling and survey methods, and state-of-the-art measurement 
of parenting and other family processes, coupled with rigorous methods from neuroscience, including brain 
and stress physiology assessment. Employing such neuroscience methods in the context of a large social 
science experiment is highly innovative, and the value of the study is further enhanced by the richness of the 
accompanying longitudinal data.   
BFY is a highly innovative and synergistic combination of funders (NIH, private philanthropy, 
and local government for research; private philanthropic funding for cash gifts); advisers (national advisory 
board, local community engagement boards); and government partners (state and local governments for 
data-sharing and public benefit exemptions). Unlike most other cash support studies, BFY has participants 
residing in four communities, which vary in terms of cost of living and generosity of public benefits, and which 
also have differing histories of oppression and incorporation. Moreover, prior to the launch of the study, we 
secured exemptions to ensure that, to the extent possible, BFY cash gifts would not count in 
determining eligibility for public benefits in those communities. In contrast, most of the current 
guaranteed-income demonstration programs are small, shorter-term pilot projects among specific local 
communities or populations, with fewer public benefit exemptions. Finally, the quantitative research is 
informed by a longitudinal qualitative companion study, as well as by community engagement 
boards comprised of key stakeholders and champions for the BFY mothers and their communities.   
 
PROGRESS TO DATE 
 BFY Baseline Recruitment and Study Design. Birth-giving persons (who we refer to as mothers 
throughout the proposal) were recruited from postpartum wards of hospitals within 1-2 days of their child’s 
birth in New York City (n=289); New Orleans (n=295); and the Omaha (n=295) and St. Paul/Minneapolis 
(n=121) metropolitan areas. Eligibility criteria included: (1) mother of legal age for consent; (2) household 
income below the federal poverty threshold in the calendar year prior to the interview, counting the newborn; 

(3) infant admitted to the newborn nursery and not the intensive care unit; (4) mother not planning to move 
out-of-state; and (6) mother fluent in English or Spanish (necessary for the child outcome measures). 
Approximately 40% of the mothers in the study self-identify as Black (non-Hispanic), and another 40% 
identify as Hispanic (of any race). Somewhat larger fractions of BFY mothers identify as Black (40% vs. 35%) 
and Hispanic (40% vs. 20%) than do corresponding fractions of low-income mothers in the cities in which they 
live. Although our sampling of mothers from hospitals took advantage of the random nature of the timing of 
births, some of the hospitals primarily served communities of color.   
Mothers were on average 27 years old at the time of their child’s birth. Close to half of the mothers had 
never been married, and a little over one-third reported living with the biological father of their infant. About 
one-third of the newborns were first births. The average household income of the mothers was about $22,000 
and mothers averaged just under 12 years of education. 
Sampling mothers from hospitals rather than community-based organizations or other agencies increased 
the likelihood that families were representative of low-income communities. The four sites were selected 
because they are diverse in terms of racial and ethnic composition of low-income residents, cost of living, 
urbanicity, and the generosity of state safety-net programs. We worked with state and local governments to 
implement administrative rule changes or pass legislation that put in place exemptions or approvals, ensuring 
that the mothers would not lose eligibility for public benefits because of the BFY cash gifts. As a result, the cash 
gifts are exempted from countable income in the determination of benefits from most relevant programs, 
including TANF, SNAP, Medicaid, public housing units, child care subsidies, LIHEAP, and Head Start.   
Sample design, recruitment strategies, and exclusionary criteria were chosen to optimize the external 
validity of the sample with respect to all poor families with newborns, and to minimize the difficulty and 
expense of recruitment and follow-up. Clustering the sample in four medium-to-large metropolitan areas 
provided a geographically diverse sample that could feasibly be assessed in university research settings. 
Spreading recruitment evenly over 12 months smoothed the workflow. We included all families living in 
poverty regardless of number of children or depth of poverty, because previous studies have found positive 
income effects for all poor families, regardless of these factors. Moreover, it was not clear a priori that either 
families with more or fewer children—or the least poor or poorest families living in poverty—would be best able 
to use the money to improve child outcomes. Finally, in keeping with our goal of informing policy debates on 
the consequences and benefits of income support policies, the use of the federal poverty threshold best 
matched the population commonly targeted by U.S. means-tested social policies. 
Randomization. After agreeing to participate in a longitudinal study and completing the baseline 
survey, mothers were randomized to receive either a large (n=400) or nominal (n=600) monthly cash gift. 
Random assignment occurred within-site. Baseline equivalence was successfully achieved across 30 
characteristics, both for the full sample of 1,000 mother-infant dyads, and within each site.85 The equivalence 
of participants on baseline characteristics has been preserved through all waves of data collection. 
Cash Gift Implementation. Currently, mothers in the high-cash gift group receive monthly cash gifts of 
$333 ($4,000 per year) for the first 52 months of the child’s life, paid on the day of the month of the child’s 
birthday. Gifts are disbursed on an electronic debit card branded “4MyBaby.”86 With philanthropic funding, we 
are now extending the gifts for an additional 24 months (for a total of 76 months of cash transfers). Monthly 
text messages alert mothers to the distribution of funds. To eliminate any transfer-mode effect, mothers in the 
low-cash gift group receive $20 per month, delivered in the same way. Debit cards were chosen for the cash 
transfers for practical reasons (e.g., few low-income individuals have bank accounts) as well as for conceptual 
reasons (e.g., to preserve the unconditional cash transfer nature of the transaction, and to enable point-of-sale 
or ATM cash transactions).   
 Over 90% of the mothers gave us permission to track their card transactions. During the first 24 months, 
we saw nearly universal uptake and use of BFY cash gifts. We maintain a debit card helpline that provides 
support to mothers for any card-related issues. Transaction data from the first year of the project showed that 
in any given month, over 90% of the mothers in the high-cash gift group used the card. Two-thirds used the 
card every month. Further, most of the cash gifts were expended within days of the disbursement. The most 
common transaction among high-cash-gift recipients was a withdrawal of cash from an ATM (about 33% of the 
money). The remainder of the high-cash gift spending was spread across a variety of point-of-sale venues, with 
the largest and most frequent transactions occurring at large chain restaurants or grocery stores. 
Progress on Original Aims, Sample Retention, and Changes Due to the COVID-19 Pandemic. 
Our original Aims were to measure impacts of the cash gifts on age-3 cognitive and behavioral development 
(Aim 1); age-3 neurobiological development (Aim 2); and parental investment and stress at ages 1 and 2 (Aim 
3). The pandemic changed our study plans in several ways. First, we halted in-person data collection in March, 
2020, which was roughly two-thirds of the way through the age-1 data collection. Age-2 and age-3 data 

collection has subsequently been conducted via phone interviews with the mothers. Despite these disruptions, 
our sample retention has been excellent (n=931 mothers at age-1 and n=922 mothers at age 2). We are on track 
to have similarly high rates of retention at age 3 (to be completed in June, 2022). Second, to accomplish our 
original Aims 1 and 2, we initially planned for an in-person laboratory visit at age-3. Because this was not 
feasible in the pandemic context, and because high-quality measures of child development require direct 
assessment, we successfully raised funds to extend the cash gifts for one year, postponing the laboratory 
assessments of child development and health until age-4 (scheduled to begin in July, 2022). As a result, 
original Aims 1 and 2 will be completed at age-4 rather than age-3. However, as noted above, we have 
published early impacts on brain activity at age 1.50 Original Aim 3 has been completed, with results as 
described above currently under review.64,80 Public-use data from baseline and age-1 have been released 
through ICPSR, and age-2 data are being processed for release. ICPSR reports 1,953 data downloads to date.87 
Mothers’ Voices Qualitative Study. Eighty mothers (50 in New Orleans and 30 in the Twin Cities), 
chosen at random and divided equally within site across high-cash and low-cash gift groups, were recruited to 
participate in a qualitative sub-study comprised of 1.5- to 2-hour conversational interviews every 9 to 12 
months. These data provide an important opportunity to hear directly from the mothers about what the money 
has meant in their lives. Interviews have focused on experiences of the cash gift, economic goals, financial 
products, the use of public benefits, social support, romantic relationships, parenting, adjustment to the 
pandemic, coping with stress, and natural disasters.88,89 Our research team meetings include PIs of both the 
qualitative and quantitative studies to ensure shared learning.  
Dissemination of Findings. The study and early findings have been of significant interest to scientists, 
stakeholders, and the general public. We have published six papers in academic journals, have five more under 
review, and have more than a dozen in progress. In addition, in the first three years of the study, the PIs have 
presented on BFY more than 135 times. The audiences have been diverse—including academic departments 
and conferences in social work, public policy, economics, psychology, medicine, and neuroscience. We have 
also given presentations to general audiences in the form of webinars and publicly broadcast talks, with more 
than 2 million views to date. The study has been widely covered by nearly every major U.S. media outlet. 
Finally, we have held briefings for state legislative and administrative staff, federal Senate and House staff, as 
well as the Office of Management and Budget and Department of Health and Human Services.      
 
APPROACH  
 The proposed study renewal will invite BFY mothers and children to participate in two more waves of in-
person data collection, at child ages 6 and 8. Data collected at age 6 will be used to estimate the impact of six 
years of cash gifts on children’s school achievement and cognitive and behavioral skills (Aim 1); neurobiological 
development (Aim 2); and family processes (Aim 3). We have already secured $3.5 million in co-funding from 
private foundations to cover the additional 24 months of cash gifts, for a total of 76 months (6 years, 4 
months). Within each Aim, we will measure the extent to which “end-of-treatment” impacts observed at age 6 
persist through age 8. 
Mothers and the focal child will be eligible for the age-6 and age-8 data collection if they are not 
permanently separated from each other or deceased (n=993 as of June 2022). As in the past, to avoid 
coercion, we will explain to the mother that her receipt of the monthly cash gifts is completely independent of 
her research participation. Although a small number of participants may decline to participate in the 
research, the extremely high rates of study participation to date suggest this is unlikely to be a problem.  
Following the current BFY recruitment schedule, data collection will be scheduled around the time of the 
child’s 6th and 8th birthdays, to ensure that the age-6 data collection occurs several months prior to the end of 
the cash gifts. As in prior waves, data collection will be spread evenly over the course of 12 months to avoid 
impacts of seasonal variation and to keep staff workload manageable. The data collection and sample-tracking 
will be managed by our PI team, in close collaboration with local site laboratory staff.  
Sample Tracking and Retention. We expect to retain and collect data from at least 80% of the 
baseline sample at age 6, and 75% at age 8. We have collected extensive contact information to keep in touch 
with mothers, and we regularly check and update this information. We will stay in contact with families after 
the age-4 data collection, reaching out every 3 months to confirm addresses and contact information. This will 
be supplemented with updates through passive approaches such as checking national address change 
registries. This strategy has been extremely successful in maintaining high response rates over the course of the 
study and will be supplemented by in-person locating attempts, as needed, at the age-6 and age-8 waves.  
BFY Renewal Child Outcome Measures. We will invite the mother and child to university 
laboratories for age-6 and age-8 data collection. Whenever possible, measures have been normed and validated 
among low-SES children whose primary language is English or Spanish. Table 1 shows which constructs were 

collected across waves of data collection. See Human Subjects Section 4.2 (“Outcome Measures”) for further 
details.  
Child achievement and cognitive measures. We will administer tasks to assess early achievement 
(Woodcock-Johnson IV Broad Literacy and Math composites), non-verbal IQ (Wechsler Nonverbal Scale of 
Intelligence), and executive functioning (Minnesota Executive Function Scale; MEFS).  
Child socioemotional development. We will administer the Child Behavior Check List (CBCL), a parent-
reported measure of behavior and emotional problems. We will use a shortened version that measures 
attention problems and aggressive behavior. 
Child schooling outcomes. We will obtain maternal report of whether the child has repeated a grade or 
receives special education or other services in school, adapted from the School Enrollment and Expectations 
(SEE) section of the PSID Child Development Supplement. We will also measure suspensions and related 
school disciplinary events.  
Child health. We will measure child height and weight to calculate body mass index (BMI). We will 
additionally collect maternal report of the child’s general health, including sicknesses, chronic health 
conditions, and developmental diagnoses.  
Child brain activity. Many studies of brain activity in childhood rely on electrophysiological techniques 
such as electroencephalography (EEG) and event-related potentials (ERP).90 These techniques measure the 
electrical activity of the human brain (or “brainwaves”) by placing electrodes on the scalp and amplifying the 
signal. Changes in voltage are then plotted over time. While EEG is measured while the child is “at rest,” ERP 
assesses the child’s neural response to a particular set of stimuli, such as words or pictures, to better 
understand how children’s brains are functioning during particular cognitive tasks.  
We will collect all electrophysiological data on 128-lead, high-density Electrical Geodesics Inc. (EGI) 
systems using identical procedures across the four sites, as have been described in numerous studies in the co-
investigators’ labs.91-102 Each lab in the four sites has prior experience collecting these measures with children 
from low-income families. All raw EEG and ERP data will be transmitted via secure electronic transfer to MPI 
Noble’s lab for central processing and analysis. Resting EEG will be collected while the child sits quietly in a 
chair in front of a computer monitor presenting a colorful, animated display of a pinwheel. We hypothesize 
that, as at age-1,50 children in the high-cash gift group will show a more mature pattern of resting EEG.101,103,104 
Specifically, we predict that the high-cash gift group will show more mid-to-high-frequency resting EEG 
activity, including greater frontal gamma power, relative to children in the low-cash gift group. Children’s 
language-related brain activity will be measured by the Auditory Mismatch Negativity (MMN) ERP. We 
hypothesize a greater amplitude MMN to the phonetically deviant stimulus in the high-cash gift group, which 
has been associated with better language development.105-109 Children’s executive function-related brain activity 
will be measured by the Zoo Game, a computer-based Go/No-go task that has been used to examine children’s 
inhibitory control at these ages.100,110-113 We hypothesize that children in the high-cash gift group will have fewer 
false alarms, and a larger N2 ERP to no-go trials, associated with better executive function. 
BFY Renewal Family Process  

Measures. At ages 6 and 8, we will 
also obtain multiple measures of 
family processes hypothesized to 
explain the connections between 
poverty reduction and child 
development (i.e., the investment and 
stress pathways). Data will be obtained 
through surveys and interviewer 
observations. All survey measures have 
been validated in prior large-scale 
studies of low-income families and 
many have been used in BFY maternal 
surveys at earlier ages. 
Economic resources and 
investment. Survey measures of the 
nature and use of economic resources 
will include families’ total income, 
earnings, debt, savings, economic 
hardship, food insufficiency, and 
household expenditures. Our measure 
of total income will enable us to 
measure the net family income 
increased by the cash gifts, while 
details on income from other family 
members will enable us to assess how 
much of the increased income is 
shared across extended families. We 
are working with states to obtain 
administrative data on Unemployment 
Insurance (UI)-based quarterly 
earnings and state records of TANF, 
SSI, CCDBG child care assistance, and 
SNAP benefits. To date, we have data-
use agreements in place or well in-process in all 4 states. These administrative data will provide us with a 
second source of information on income and benefit use. We have permission to collect administrative data 
from over 75% of mothers.   
Information about the quality and characteristics of housing and residential histories will be collected 
from maternal surveys and geocoding data matching, which will enable us to test whether cash gifts are used to 
pay for moves to higher-quality housing units and/or safer neighborhoods. A separate NIH R21 proposal (PI: 
Tim Bruckner, University of California, Irvine) plans to link participant addresses to neighborhood dimensions 
of childhood opportunity (including neighborhood poverty, residential segregation, noise pollution, and 
proximity to healthy food outlets). This proposal scored in the 9th percentile and awaits funding pending 
council review. All deidentified neighborhood data will be made publicly available and linked to BFY data. 
 Information about parental employment and child care (current and retrospective to age 4), including the 
amount, type, and cost of care as well as transition to formal schooling, will be collected from maternal surveys. 
Surveys will also gather information about cognitively stimulating activities, learning materials, and parental 
time spent with children. We will ask about child enrichment expenditures as well as other major categories of 
spending such as housing, transportation, and food. Data on preventive health care visits, including well-child 
and dental visits, will be collected via maternal survey. 
Maternal and child stress physiology. To obtain a direct physiologic measure of stress dysregulation, hair 
cortisol (capturing cumulative stress) will be collected from children and mothers. Because hair follicles 
accumulate cortisol continuously, hair cortisol acts as a biomarker for chronic stress of the type experienced by 
low-income children and adults.67,114-116 Additionally, hair provides a measure of cortisol that can be obtained 
noninvasively in a single sample, free of many of the methodological challenges associated with collecting 
diurnal salivary cortisol.117,118  
Stress-related processes, parenting quality, maternal health, and maternal cognitive resources. To 
assess the family stress pathway, information on maternal relationships, maternal stress, mental health, and 
Age 1
Age 2
Age 3
Age 4
Age 6
Age 8
Child outcomes
Brain activity: Resting (EEG)
x
x
x
x
Brain activity: Task-related (ERP)
x
x
x
Math and reading achievement (WJ IV)
x
x
Executive functioning (MEFS)
x
x
x
Social-emotional health (CBCL)
x
x
x
x
Cognitive ability (WNV)
x
x
x
BMI
x
x
x
Child stress hormone (hair sample)
x
x
x
Physical health (survey)
x
x
x
x
x
x
School perf., participation, spec. ed (survey)
x
x
Family investments and stress (direct assessments)
Parent-child Interaction (coded video)
x
x
x
x
Maternal stress hormone (hair sample)
x
x
x
x
Executive functioning (MEFS)
x
x
x
Maternal BMI (self-report)
x
x
x
School quality (administrative records)
x
x
Family investments and stress (survey)
Expenditures: education, activities, learning 
materials, clothes, & technology
x
x
x
x
x
x
Health care costs
x
x
x
x
x
Parenting nurturance and self-efficacy
x
x
Harsh discipline
x
x
x
x
x
Daily routines & sleep
x
x
x
x
x
Mother's relationships: Co-parenting & quality of 
intimate partnerships
x
x
x
x
x
x
Maternal & household labor market participation
x
x
x
x
x
x
Household income overall & by source
x
x
x
x
x
x
Household expenditures (food, rent, 
transportation, internet/cell, utilities)
x
x
x
x
x
x
Household food security
x
x
x
x
x
x
Household economic stress
x
x
x
x
x
x
Maternal mental health: perceived stress, anxiety 
& depressive symptoms
x
x
x
x
x
x
Parenting stress, aggravation & competence
x
x
x
x
x
x
Experiences of everyday discrimination
x
x
x
Neighborhood poverty and safety
x
x
x
x
x
x
Proposed 
data 
collection
Current data collection 
(R01 HD087384)
Receipt of monthly unconditional cash gift
Table 1. Current and proposed outcome 
measures  
See Human Subjects Section 4.2 for more details on measures

interactions with children will be collected. Survey measures will assess family stress, quality and stability of 
mothers’ relationships with the child’s father and other romantic partners, as well as maternal parenting stress, 
and maternal symptoms of depression (PHQ-8) and anxiety (GAD-7). During a 10-minute free play, mothers 
and children will be provided with three toys, and parent-child interaction will be coded for parenting 
sensitivity and parent-child attunement using the Coding of Attachment-Related Parenting (CARP), which has 
been adapted for this age-range.119 The MEFS will be administered to mothers to measure maternal executive 
functioning (or “bandwidth”). We will also measure maternal physical health (self-report, BMI). State 
administrative data will enable us to track child protection welfare reports.   
Demographic characteristics. Demographic measures which have been collected in prior waves will be 
updated as necessary to note any changes (e.g., family size, maternal educational attainment, marital status).  
Analytic Approach. Our key aims are to evaluate the impacts of the BFY monthly cash transfers on 
validated measures of child development and family life. We hypothesize that, compared with the low-cash gift 
group, the high-cash gift group will have higher scores on measures of achievement, cognition, and behavior 
(Aim 1); more mature patterns of child brain activity and lower stress hormone (Aim 2); and increased 
maternal investments in children (Aim 3). We will also explore whether treatment effects on the stress pathway 
have emerged (Aim 3). Data will be collected on these measures at age 6 to assess “end-of-treatment” impacts 
of the cash gifts cumulatively from birth, and then again at age 8 to evaluate whether any impacts persist or 
newly emerge 20 months after the end of the cash transfers. All hypotheses will be preregistered. 
Before conducting main analyses, all measures will be examined for psychometric equivalence across 
race/ethnicity and home language. In data collected at ages 1 and 2, maternal survey measures had nearly 
equivalent psychometric properties across race/ethnicity and language. Most analyses will focus on full-sample 
impacts, although we will also estimate in exploratory analyses moderation of impacts by race/ethnicity (Black 
vs. Hispanic), family structure at birth, and depth of poverty at birth (income-to-needs ≤ .5 or not). As 
explained below, estimating experimental impacts on both family processes and child outcomes is a small 
subset of the full range of mediational models that could be estimated.  
Our basic empirical approach will be to use the survey and assessment data to compare the pooled cross-
site $333/month treatment and $20/month control groups on outcome measures at each age. Because of 
random assignment, the low-cash gift group average enables us to identify the average outcomes corresponding 
to the counterfactual state that would have occurred for individuals in the high-cash gift group if they had not 
been offered the additional $313/month. Therefore, differences in outcomes for the treatment group compared 
with the control group (after random assignment) can be interpreted as estimates of causal treatment effects of 
the $313/month higher income (regardless of whether treatment-group participants actually use all of the 
funds; i.e., intent-to-treat effects). 
Estimation strategy. Our approach to estimation is a simple regression framework. The “Intent-To-Treat 
effect” (ITT) is the estimate of the coefficient π1 in a regression of some child or family process outcome (Y) on 
a dichotomous indicator for assignment (Z) to the treatment high-cash group as in (1). 
(1)  
Y = Zπ1 + Xβ1 + ε1 
We will adjust standard errors by site using bootstrapping methods.120 We condition on baseline 
demographic child and family characteristics to improve the precision of our estimates by accounting for 
residual variation. As described above, we have very low rates (<1%) of “non-compliance,” obviating the need 
for ITT vs. TOT distinctions.   
For outcomes that are measured at two or three ages (e.g., EEG, MEFS, CBCL, and non-verbal IQ), we can 
also estimate pooled regressions using age-standardized scores. In these analyses, we will adjust for the non-
independence of observation, and interact child age with treatment group (high-cash gift vs. low-cash gift). The 
coefficient on the interaction term provides an estimate of whether the impact of the cash differs across ages 
(or waves). We expect age-6 impacts will not be significantly lower than age-4 impacts, although we expect that 
age-8 impacts will be somewhat smaller than age-6 impacts. Nevertheless, the statistical power to detect 
significant age-by-treatment interactions may not be sufficient to detect small changes across ages.  
To accomplish Aims 1 and 2, we will apply our regression estimation strategy to the measures of 
achievement, self-regulation, and socio-emotional functioning, as well as to the measures of brain activity and 
stress physiology at child ages 6 and 8. The coefficients obtained in our regression models will be used to 
quantify the causal effects of the $313/month group difference in cash support on age-6 and age-8 child 
cognitive development, socioemotional functioning, brain activity, and stress physiology. We will pool data 
across ages as appropriate and will test for age by treatment group interactions to answer questions about the 
relative magnitude of impacts at ages 4, 6, and 8. 
To accomplish Aim 3, we will apply our ITT regression strategy to measures of material hardship, family 
expenditures, food insecurity, housing and neighborhood quality, routines and time use, maternal executive 

function, maternal stress and parenting practices, and maternal mental health gathered at child ages 6 and 8. 
Because many of these measures are the same across waves, we can again estimate pooled regressions and test 
for differences by using an age-by-treatment interaction term.  
The investment and stress pathways are indexed by a collection of measures that may be independent of 
each other but that, in some cases, can be combined into summary measures. Some family characteristics, such 
as maternal cognitive resources, do not fit neatly into one pathway, although they may be related to both 
pathways. In other cases, measures might align with conceptual pathways in a complex fashion. For example, 
increased employment coupled with higher-quality child care may constitute an “investment,” but so might 
reduced employment coupled with more parental care. An important first task will be using psychometric 
approaches such as confirmatory factor analysis to evaluate the extent to which the elements of each proposed 
conceptual pathway can be combined into summary measures, given measurement across differing time 
periods and dimensions of behavior. 
We will again use a regression model to quantify the causal effects of the $313/month group difference on 
the family processes in each of the conceptual pathways. Examining the possible explanatory mechanisms in 
this way, rather than estimating a structural-equation mediation model, and has been used effectively to infer 
possible mediation in comparable studies.121,122 This approach is preferred because it preserves the 
experimental variation in income generated by random assignment. The underlying insight is that 
randomization occurred with respect to receipt of the cash gifts and not on the basis of the proposed pathway 
mediators. With the potential for multiple mediators, a causal interpretation cannot be applied to mediational 
models without a very strong, often implausible, assumption that there are no unobserved confounds of the 
association between the mediator and outcome.123,124 Still, the pattern of impacts can yield important insight as 
to which processes are likely to be operating. For example, data from age 1 through 3 suggest that several key 
child investments are affected by the cash gift64 and, at the same time, there are null to negative impacts on key 
elements of the family stress pathways.80 
Attrition. The greatest threat to internal validity is potential bias from sample attrition, and specifically 
differential attrition rates by treatment status. We have been very successful to date in reaching exceptionally 
high response rates (94% age 1; 92% age 2), which has the positive spillover effect of maintaining good 
comparability on baseline characteristics. These rates have been achieved by expending considerable efforts to 
track the sample and to track response rates by treatment status within site in real time.125 We have addressed 
any signs of differential attrition through small, strategic adjustments in survey follow-up efforts, including the 
use of increased financial incentives and on-the-ground location efforts. Based on our successes to date and 
continued contact with mothers around the debit card use, we anticipate continued high response rates at ages 
6 and 8 of at least 80% at age 6 and 75% at age 8. 
Any differential attrition will be handled with analytic weights, which are able to adjust estimates for 
differences in observed baseline characteristics. To date, with age-1 and age-2 data, we find some non-random 
attrition, in that baseline reports of mothers’ poor health and depression symptoms predict non-response. 
Analytically we have used weights to correct for these differences, but with such low rates of non-response, it is 
not surprising that these adjustments have had little effect on our ITT impact estimates. 
We will conduct two additional sensitivity checks to evaluate whether missing data due to time-varying (or 
unobserved) characteristics are affecting our estimates. First, we will examine the sensitivity of our results to 
worst-case bounds, which enable us to bracket the true effects of our treatment without imposing any 
assumptions about the unobserved outcomes of participants.126-128 A second approach to addressing the 
problem of missing data will be to use multiple imputation strategies with all available data (including all 
survey and administrative data). Multiple imputation is an appropriate method if, conditional on all observed 
information, data are missing at random.129 In this case, the high rates of baseline consent to collect 
administrative data are an important advantage in our effort to compare survey respondents and survey non-
respondents on measures such as earnings and social program benefit receipt. 
Multiple comparisons. One strength of our proposal is the collection of multiple types of data— 
neurobiological, survey, direct assessment, and administrative—but this leads to concerns about chance 
findings and Type 1 errors.130 Best-practice methods to address Type 1 errors (false positives) differ across 
disciplines, so we will draw from multiple approaches with the goal of ensuring that results from one approach 
are consistent with results from others.131-133 Following standard practice, we will first consider the statistical 
significance of individual treatment effects in isolation (“per-comparison significance”). Second, we will 
estimate the statistical significance of the entire family of related measures in cluster groups (“familywise error 
rate”) using Westfall-Young step-down resampling methods133 rather than the highly conservative Bonferroni 
correction. Third, where appropriate, we will estimate effects of the cash gifts on constructed summary 
measures, as described above. The summary measure approach results in the least loss of statistical power.131  

Statistical power. After accounting for up to 25% attrition by age 8, and in the absence of adjustments for 
multiple-testing, an expected sample size of at least 750 by age 8, divided between experimental (40%) and 
control (60%) groups, provides 80% statistical power to detect a .23 sd impact at p <.05 in a two-tailed test on 
cognitive functioning and family processes. Given the directional nature of all our impact hypotheses, it could 
be argued that a one-tailed test is more appropriate, in which case our 80% power minimum detectable effect 
(MDE) size drops to .21 sd. Analyses of age-1 data showed that controlling for baseline covariates in estimation 
models yielded only very small improvements to statistical power from increased precision. 
Adjustments for multiple hypothesis testing have the potential to weaken our statistical power. To the 
extent possible, we have proposed to create indices for related outcomes that avoid these losses in statistical 
power and preserve our projected .23 sd MDES. The extent to which statistical power is reduced using step-
down resampling multiple-comparison approaches depends on the number and covariance of outcomes, and 
thus is difficult to predict. Analyses of EEG and maternal survey data from the age-1 interviews found that the 
typical increases in MDES ranged from 25% to 50%, with larger increases for outcomes that are highly 
correlated with the other outcomes in a cluster. A correction of this size would increase the .23 sd MDES to 
between .29 and .35 sd. As a result, we have chosen to measure sets of age-6 and age-8 measures that will 
minimize these power losses, while at the same time maximizing the analytic value of the collected measures 
for the purposes of testing our key hypotheses. 
The COVID-19 pandemic and external validity. BFY mothers were recruited from May of 2018 through 
June of 2019. In March, 2020, when we were two-thirds of the way through the age-1 wave of data collection, 
the pandemic was widespread. Moreover, 2020 brought profound racial unrest. Because our study was 
designed as an RCT, with randomization occurring within site, the internal validity of our study remains intact. 
Mothers in our study in both the high-cash and low-cash gift groups had similar community experiences, 
allowing us to causally identify the impact of the cash gifts.  
As we heard from mothers in our qualitative study, the pandemic changed the context of the mothers’ lives 
in complicated ways, bringing greater labor market uncertainty, health risks, and social isolation as well as 
child care and school closures. The pandemic also brought higher levels of government benefits in the form of 
increased food assistance, generous unemployment assistance, and government cash payments, including in 
2021 a child tax credit of $3,000 or $3,600 per child, half of which was paid on a monthly basis. These 
contextual changes may have affected the ways in which mothers used the BFY cash gifts. During our age-2 
survey (July 2020-June 2021), we asked mothers about their experiences related to the pandemic. Not 
surprisingly, we found that mothers were likely to report a loss of household income related to the pandemic 
(63%), and a similar number reported receiving federal stimulus payments (68%). About 13% of mothers 
reported having COVID-19 at some point. Most interesting, however, is that mothers receiving the high-cash 
gift reported that they were more likely to make major changes in their behavior (e.g., cutting back on work) 
because of the pandemic, than did mothers in the low-cash gift group (75% vs. 69%, p<.05). In the ongoing 
age-3 interviews, we asked questions about their receipt of federal payments, vaccination and mask-wearing. 
About 57% of the mothers report they are vaccinated and over 70% say they wear masks when indoors in public 
spaces. While the presence of COVID-19 will likely continue to impact society for the indefinite future, 
extending the cash gifts through age 6 will improve the external validity of the study by increasing the 
proportion of time that the cash gifts were received when pandemic restrictions were not in place.  
Structural racism. Structural and systemic racism and other factors create and perpetuate poverty and 
inequity within and across generations. Poverty and violence are racialized and gendered, with impacts that are 
borne unequally across individuals and communities. Although always present, as we heard from mothers in 
our qualitative study, 2020 brought profound racial unrest following police murders of Breonna Taylor, George 
Floyd and others. The BFY intervention addresses limited economic resources but does not fundamentally 
address the structural factors that create these inequities. From our age-3 survey data, we will learn about 
mothers’ reports of their everyday experiences of discrimination; this will help to contextualize the findings 
related to BFY cash gift impacts and will shed light on whether the cash gifts affect mothers’ experiences of 
discrimination. To date, we have learned that mothers (n=831) report only moderate levels of everyday 
discrimination, and mothers in the high-cash gift group report somewhat less discrimination than those in the 
low-cash gift group (63% vs. 58% report “never” experiencing discrimination). 
Timeline. The first 12-months of the project period (from August 2023 through July 2024) will focus on 
survey and child assessment planning, piloting and design review, and continuing to track participants. Six 
months are devoted to site-based staff training and review, with the first two months overlapping with data 
collection to allow for contemporaneous troubleshooting and quality evaluation. The 6-year follow-up data 
collection will begin in July 2024 (when the first focal children begin to turn 6) and will continue through 
approximately June 2025 (when the last focal children turn 6). The 8-year follow-up will follow a similar cycle  

of planning, piloting and design review starting in August 2025; 
training of site-based staff for data collection and launching the 8-
year follow data collection in July 2026 to continue through June 
2027. Data quality will be monitored continually on a weekly 
basis. Preliminary analyses will occur approximately 3 and 6 
months after data collection fielding has begun. Processing and 
analyses of data will occur 12 months after completion of data 
collection fielding and will include time for preparation of data 
files for public use (posting at ICPSR). We will meet with each 
site’s community engagement board members once a year (for a 
total of 5 in each of the 4 sites over the study period). We will meet 
with the advisory board once a year for a total of five meetings 
over the study period.  
 
PI Team and Consortium of Community and 
Technical Advisors. This project will be led by three Principal 
Investigators: Greg Duncan, PhD in economics at UC—Irvine; 
Katherine Magnuson, PhD in human development and social 
policy at University of Wisconsin—Madison, and Kimberly Noble, 
MD, PhD in neuroscience and pediatrics at Teachers College, 
Columbia. Economist Lisa Gennetian, PhD; psychologist Hirokazu Yoshikawa, PhD; and neuroscientist Nathan 
Fox, PhD form the rest of our core team of investigators. Duncan is a member of the National Academy of 
Sciences and was the 2013 recipient of the Klaus J. Jacobs Research Prize. Magnuson is the director of the only 
federally-funded Poverty and Economic Mobility Research Center in the U.S., and is an elected Fellow of the 
American Academy of Social Work and Social Welfare. Noble was awarded the 2021 American Psychological 
Association Award for Distinguished Contributions to Psychology in the Public Interest and is an elected 
Fellow of the Association for Psychological Science. Working together for over 10 years, the team has 
successfully implemented the BFY study, and has partnered with neuroscientist co-Is in each site to prepare to 
collect data at age 4 (ongoing study) as well as at ages 6 and 8 (proposed renewal study). These Site PIs are 
Timothy Nelson, PhD, and Jennifer Nelson, PhD (Omaha); Michael Georgieff, MD (Twin Cities); and Sarah 
Black, PhD (New Orleans). Noble leads the NYC data collection. 
A multidisciplinary advisory board of scholars will provide feedback over the duration of the project (see 
letters of support): Orazio Attanasio, PhD (Economics, Yale); Flavio Cunha, PhD (Economics, Rice); Kathryn 
Edin, PhD (Sociology and Public Affairs, Princeton); Philip Fisher, PhD (Psychology and Neuroscience, 
Stanford); Brenda Jones Harden, PhD (Child Development and Social Work, University of Maryland); Charles 
A. Nelson III, PhD (Neuroscience and Pediatrics, Harvard); Krista Perreira, PhD (Social Medicine, UNC); 
Charles Zeanah (Psychiatry and Pediatrics, Tulane); Stephanie Jones, PhD (Child Development and Education, 
Harvard); Isaac Petersen, PhD, (Psychological and Brain Sciences, University of Iowa); Dawn Witherspoon, 
PhD (Psychology, Penn State). We consult with the advisory board at a yearly group meeting and in smaller 
groups on an as-needed basis. The range of key topics that they have provided input on to date include 
instrument or assessment selection, analytic data analysis decisions, strategies to improve sample retention, as 
well as framing and interpreting qualitative and quantitative findings.  
Summary. Our team of neuroscientists, economists, social work scholars, and developmental 
psychologists proposes to extend the first U.S.-based experimental test of unconditional cash transfers in the 
first years of life. Results will provide definitive evidence about the nature and magnitude of causal connections 
between family income and achievement, development, and health through the start of formal schooling. 
Moreover, by collecting data approximately two years after the cash transfers have ended, we will provide 
evidence of the extent to which any impacts persist over time, informing our understanding of whether early 
childhood income support has the potential to change children’s long-run developmental trajectories. Beyond 
core contributions to both neuroscience and social science research, the proposed project will provide 
unparalleled scientific knowledge to inform the design of numerous tax and transfer policies aimed at low-
income families with young children. 
Table 2: Study Timeline 
Month 
(child age) 
Primary Activity 
1-48 
(age 5-8) 
Participant Tracking 
1-12 
(age 5) 
Cash Gifts, Planning and 
Piloting of Age 6 Data 
Collection 
13-24 
(age 6) 
Cash Gifts, Age 6 Data 
Collection 
25-36 
(age 7) 
Planning & Piloting Age 8 
Data Collection, Data 
Analysis 
37-48 
(age 8) 
Age 8 Data Collection, 
Data Analysis, Public 
Data Release 
49-60 
(age 9) 
Data Analysis, Public 
Data Release