Skip to main content

Table 1 Basic Income Experiments and Programs

From: Exploring different methods to evaluate the impact of basic income interventions: a systematic review

Basic Income Experiment/ Program Location Study Design Years Sample #a Sample Description Survey Timeline Income Data Collection Other Data Sources
New Jersey Income Maintenance Experiment (NJ) Trenton, Paterson, Passaic, Jersey City, New Jersey; Scranton, Pennsylvania, USA Randomized Controlled Trial 1968–1972 1357 households (725 intervention; 632 control [44]) Adult males 18–58 and at least one other family member Pre-enrollment Interview, Baseline Interview, Twelve Quarterly Interviews, a follow-up interview 3 months after the last payment was made. Income Data Forms;Pay stubs;Social Security aggregate data
Periodic Audit Forms
- Schools, hospitals, public organizations offering services to the poor, and other relevant institutions and organizations
- Family composition reporting: monthly for experimental and every 4 months for controls
Rural Income Maintenance Experiment (RIME) Duplin County, Iowa; Calhoun and Pocahontas Counties, North Carolina, USA Randomized Controlled Trial 1970–1972 809 families (372 intervention; 437 control [44]) Adults 18–58 including either two-parent or single parent households headed by females with at least one other family member; rural areas Baseline Interview, 12 quarterly Interviews, follow-up interview 3 months after the last payment Periodic Audit Forms - Schools, hospitals, public organizations offering services to the poor, and other relevant institutions and organizations
- Family composition reporting: monthly for experimental and every 4 months for controls
Gary Income Maintenance Experiment (Gary) Gary, Indiana, USA Randomized Controlled Trial 1971–1974 1799 families (1028 intervention; 771 control [44]) Black adults 18–58 including single parent families especially headed by females and at least one other family member Baseline interview and eight interviews about every 4 months Monthly Income Report FormsPeriodic Audit Forms - Family composition reporting: monthly for experimental and every 4 months for controls
Seattle/Denver Income Maintenance Experiment (SIME/DIME) Seattle, Washington; Denver, Colorado, USA Randomized Controlled Trial 1970–1976 4800 families (2747 intervention; 2053 control [44]) Adults 18–58 with at least one other family member Baseline interview and interviews about every 4 months Monthly Income Report Forms Periodic Audit Forms - Family composition reporting: monthly for experimental and every 4 months for controls
Manitoba Guaranteed Annual Income Experiment (MINCOME) Winnipeg, Manitoba, CanadaSaturation Site: Rural community of Dauphin and a number of small rural communities. Randomized Controlled Trial 1974–1979 > 1300 families (575 intervention; 612 control [44] Adults 18–58 with at least one other family member; Institutionalized, retired, or disabled were excluded from Winnipeg. Elderly and disabled not excluded from Dauphin (saturation site). Baseline interview and interviews 3 times per year None listed - The Manitoba Population Health Research Data Repository database
- Use of aggregate data from the Department of Education
Alaska Permanent Dividend Fund Alaska, USA Observational: Differences in Difference 1977–2015 48,686, 169 All residents of Alaska and all residents of control states that have been matched with Alaska on employment to population ratio and the population share working part-time Monthly surveys, with some questions asked at fourth and eighth month of the survey
(Integrated Public Use Microdata
Series – Current Population Surveys (CPS) provided by the Minnesota Population Center)
None listed - CPS Merged Outgoing Rotation Groups (MORG) provided by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) for number of hours worked
Namibia Basic Income Grant Pilot Project Otjivero-Omitara, Namibia Observational: cohort 2008–2010 398 individuals [40] All individuals under 60 years Baseline, 6-month, 11-month surveys None listed - Key informant interviews: e.g., local nurse, police chief, local leaders and shop keepers
- Case studies including pictures
Madhya Pradesh Unconditional Cash Transfer (MPUCT) Rural Villages, Indore District; Rural Tribal Villages, Indore District, Madhya Pradesh, India Modified Randomized Controlled Trial 2011–2012 11,688 individuals; 2034 households (8 villages randomly assigned to intervention; 12 villages to control [45]) Universal: all individuals within the villages Baseline survey, interim evaluation survey, final evaluation survey, post-final evaluation Survey None listed - Case Studies including structured interviews
- Community level surveys
- Interviews with key respondents
- Tracking of children’s weight for age
- Tracking of children’s attendance and school performance
Give Directly Unconditional Cash Transfer Program Rural Rarieda Region, Kenya Two-level cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial 2011–2013 1440 households (503 intervention; 432 “pure” control in control villages; 505 “spillover” control in intervention villages [36]) Individuals living in a house with a thatch roof Baseline and endline surveys None listed - Saliva samples to measure cortisol levels
- Height, weight, and upper-arm circumference of children under five years
- Interviews with village dwellers
Finland Basic Income Experiment Mixed Rural and Urban Areas in Finland Randomized Control Trial 2017–2018 175,000 (for the registry data) and 1633 (for survey) Individuals aged 25–58 receiving unemployment benefits from Kela (Finnish social insurance institution) Baseline survey and one interim survey nearing the end of the intervention None listed - Administrative data on employment
- Qualitative interviews (results not reported in the preliminary report)
  1. aSample size is often not consistently reported. The sample size is referenced throughout