Providing some form of “no strings attached” money to low-income individuals and monitoring the results is a longstanding research protocol aimed at finding a tipping point at which people’s lives measurably improve. Compared to what? Often it’s a comparison with others who are given lesser amounts in randomized control trials. A new report from the Rooted School Foundation looks at outcomes of the latest iteration—conducted with high school students for the first time. Some of the academic outcomes are interesting. And though the results are underwhelming, that may not be the point.
Students in grades nine through 12 were recruited during their orientation at three charter schools—two in New Orleans and one in Indianapolis, all supported by the Rooted School Foundation—over two consecutive school years. Those chosen for the treatment groups received $50 per week over 40 weeks via a reloadable debit card funded by another non-profit, while those in the control groups received a $10 Amazon gift card monthly. The big picture goal is stated to be “rapidly reduc[ing] child poverty while increasing academic achievement, financial capability, and mental health” among young people, though this report concentrates on the academic and financial capability outcomes.
Phase I of the project (2022–23) comprised 74 treatment students and 77 control students at two schools; Phase II (2023–24) comprised 90 treatment students and 150 control students at three schools. Spending data, for treatment group students only, came from the bank issuing the cards, with permission from students over 18 and the parents of those under 18. (The average age of students in both treatment and control groups was 16.) Academic data were provided by the schools and all students completed a Financial Capability Survey created by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, as well as an in-depth questionnaire called Possible Selves, developed at the University of Kansas, to assess their self-perceptions.
The vast majority of students in both groups were Black and low-income, with more than 80 percent of families reporting $50,000 or less in annual income. Nearly 90 percent of treatment group students reported having jobs, as did 92 percent of control group students.
First let’s look at the comparison findings. Students who received the cash attended 1.23 more days of school in the semester following the intervention than students in the control group. While differences in average GPA were not statistically significant, control group students did consistently record higher average GPA than their treatment group peers. On the other hand, the latter showed greater understanding of financial products (such as savings accounts and IRAs) and long-term expenditure planning compared to the control group. Both groups reported increased feelings of control over their finances and confidence in making long-term decisions, with no significant differences between groups.
What did students who received $2,000 per school year spend their money on? The basics. Nearly half (45.8 percent) was spent on food, with retail sales and services (35.2 percent) and transportation expenses (12 percent) consuming most of the rest. Quotes from student interviews state that many in the treatment group became co-breadwinners for their families, contributing to food, transportation, rent, and other necessities for siblings and parents, as well as themselves. Additionally, some treatment group students amassed significant savings[1] by underspending their weekly $50 in pursuit of some large future expenditure.
The report does not analyze these findings at all, but Hechinger Reports coverage of it finds several voices within the Rooted School family willing to laud the handful of statistically-significant results as “incredibly impactful” or “laying the foundation for lifelong financial capability,” despite the fact that much of the data shows little or no difference between the higher-award and lower-award groups. Nor does $50 per week seem likely to achieve the goals of rapidly reducing childhood poverty, boosting academic achievement, and all the rest.
But even before numbers were crunched for this report, the “no strings cash for kiddos” experiment was already expanding to more schools in Louisiana (thanks to a $1 million investment by the City of New Orleans) and to a school in Washington, D.C. Each of the expansions is using the same methodology and data capture protocols with the promise of more reports in the years ahead. So perhaps making strides toward understanding the results is secondary to just running the experiment again and again in different permutations, perhaps hoping for more dramatic results.
Is that a pipedream? A recent New York Times piece discusses another novel iteration, this time focused on children in four metro areas whose low-income moms received $333 per month for four years after giving birth. Their children showed no significant differences in terms of language skills, behavioral problems, executive functioning, or cognitive development than four-year-olds in a comparison group that received just $20 per month. “We were all very surprised,” by this outcome, said one of the researchers. “The money did not make a difference.” Similar findings to the Rooted School experiment. But another member of the birth-mother research team stressed that there was still two more years to go on the experiment and conclusions must wait for the next report showing outcomes when the children turn six. In that case, as with the Rooted School experiment, the point seems to be to keep the research dance going with new and innovative permutations in the hope that minimal or null effects will somehow grow.
SOURCE: Stacia West, Zibei Chen, and Joana Halder, “The $50 Study: Outcomes from a dual-year randomized controlled trial,” Rooted School Foundation (June 2025).
[1] Something like three times the national average for savings, relative to income.
