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