A major new study challenges the idea that giving people cash leads to chaos.
Programs that provide money directly to individuals are becoming more common across the United States. Despite their growth, these cash transfer initiatives remain controversial, with critics questioning whether they are effective or even safe. Some opponents argue that recipients may quickly spend the money on alcohol or drugs, potentially increasing the risk of injury or death.
Long-Term Alaska Study Finds No Increased Risk
A new study that followed a major cash transfer program in Alaska for 11 years challenges those concerns. The research found no evidence that direct cash payments raise the risk of traumatic injury or death.
The study was conducted by researchers from New York University, the University of California San Francisco (UCSF) School of Medicine, and Alaska’s former chief medical officer. Their findings were published in the American Journal of Epidemiology.
“Past research has shown that cash transfers are an effective tool for reducing poverty, but their implementation is often limited by critics who worry about irresponsible spending that can lead to tragedy,” says NYU sociologist Sarah Cowan, founder and executive director of the university’s Cash Transfer Lab, which conducted the study. “Those fears are unfounded. Our long-term study of a state’s population shows no connection between cash transfers and serious injury or death.”
Examining Alaska’s Permanent Fund Dividend
The research focused on Alaska’s Permanent Fund Dividend (PFD), a long-running program that provides annual payments to residents.
“As a practicing emergency physician I worried about yearly PFD leading to immediate harm, but as Alaska’s chief medical officer and public health official, I know how important it is to review the data objectively,” adds Anne Zink, chief medical officer for the State of Alaska from 2019 to 2024 and now a senior fellow at the Yale School of Public Health. “This study provides the kind of population-level evidence that public health officials and policymakers need when evaluating guaranteed income programs. When looking across the entire state’s population over 11 years, there was no evidence of increased trauma or mortality temporally associated with the PFD cash transfer.”
How This Study Differs From Earlier Research
Previous studies on cash transfers have produced mixed results. Some found no link to injury or death, while others suggested a possible connection. According to the authors, this new research stands out because it covers all traumatic injuries and deaths statewide and spans a much longer time period than earlier studies. It also evaluates a universal program affecting an entire state, capturing a broader and more diverse population than most guaranteed income research.
Additional contributors to the study include Ruby Steedle, a researcher at the Cash Transfer Lab and the paper’s lead author, and Tasce Bongiovanni, an associate professor of surgery at UCSF’s School of Medicine.
A Natural Experiment in Universal Cash Payments
Since 1982, Alaska has distributed an annual payment to every resident. The size of the payment changes each year but usually falls between $1,000 and $2,000 per person. This long-standing program provides researchers with a rare opportunity to observe how a universal basic income-style payment, along with other cash transfer programs, operates in real-world conditions.
What the Data Showed Over 11 Years
For this study, the researchers analyzed data from 2009 to 2019. They reviewed all traumatic injuries treated in Alaska hospitals using the state’s trauma registry, along with all reported deaths recorded in vital statistics.
The results showed that Alaska’s annual cash payments did not lead to an increase in serious injuries or deaths from unnatural causes in the short term. This conclusion remained consistent across multiple robustness checks. Injury and death rates did not rise in the weeks immediately following payments, which are usually distributed in the fall.
Importantly, the same pattern was seen in Alaska’s urban areas, which resemble small and mid-sized cities in the continental US. This suggests the findings may apply beyond Alaska.
“Together, these findings provide strong evidence that narratives about short-term harm from cash payments are unfounded,” the authors conclude.
Reference: “Cash transfers do not increase traumatic injury and mortality: evidence from Alaska” by Ruby Steedle, Robert E M Pickett, Tasce Bongiovanni, Hailie Dono, Byungkyu Lee, Erica Hobby, Anne Zink and Sarah K Cowan, 29 January 2026, American Journal of Epidemiology.
DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwag007
The paper’s other authors were NYU Cash Transfer Lab researchers Robert Pickett, Hailie Dono, and Erica Hobby and Byungkyu Lee, an assistant professor in NYU’s Department of Sociology.
Never miss a breakthrough: Join the SciTechDaily newsletter.
Follow us on Google and Google News.
9 Comments
Anyone thinking a UBI is a good idea needs a reality check.
Worst idea in history.
So blind! In an ever advancing society AI will,sooner than you think, make most jobs obsolete. What do you suggest then? We all live on dreams and dirt. Youll be kissing the presidents deriere when those cheques start coming in. We all paid for it since we were 18. Ever heard of the illegal program called Taxes. Its our money now we get some back. Quit being so high and mighty, UBIs have been dicussed for decades there not some mumbo jumbo the president thought up while smoking a blunt. Go back to school if your going to talk with the adults.
Your post is filled with nothing but ignorance and arrogance.
If you cannot understand basic human psychology then you will never understand the reasons why things like this will not succeed.
You know we have documented history of how ideas like this dont work.
A little research goes a long way.
They should get rid of all the government agencies that provide social benefits and give those benefits out as “cash” no new spending just remove the agencies the hand it out with all the strings attached, the benefits will go up because none of those taxes will go to salaries or infrastructure to decide how the money is spent by individuals. With taxes automatically taken out by computers they can also automatically add the credits. People get more effective aid and the bureaucracy shrinks. All Social aid programs wrapped into one check a month, simple.
“… just remove the agencies the [sic] hand it out with all the strings attached, the benefits will go up because none of those taxes will go to salaries or infrastructure to decide how the money is spent by individuals.”
Then what do we do with the people who formerly received salaries to administer the programs? Are you going to let them starve to give more benefits to the recipient class? No. That would be unacceptable. Therefore, if you put the formerly salaried administrators on the dole as well, you won’t have your theoretical bonus to increase income. You will just have more people on the dole.
I suspect that the results will vary with the culture and extrapolating from a culture that still functions close to nature as subsistence hunters will probably not translate well. A thousand or two to replace a rusty rifle, buy more ammunition, or have some repairs done on their boat motor or snowmobile, will be welcome even though it won’t help much with the cost of imported food. On the other hand, urban people in the Lower-Forty-eight have different priorities and needs.
“The results showed that Alaska’s annual cash payments did not lead to an increase in serious injuries or deaths from unnatural causes in the short term.”
This sounds like a straw man argument. The bigger question is whether the society will be stronger and more productive, not whether they will be having more boating/driving accidents. Native Americans already have higher homicide rates in both Alaska and Canada than the ‘late arrivals.’
“A man without purpose is like a dog without hunger.”
This is not like other free money programs where the money comes from state and federal taxes and only paid to certain people.
It’s interesting that this article doesn’t mention that the money for this Alaska’s Permanent Fund Dividend (PFD) comes from oil and mining revenues and not from state or federal taxes. It is money Alaska gets from the oil and mining industries. The fund as of 2019, was worth approximately $64 billion.
An example to qualify for a Permanent Fund Dividend, you must be able to answer yes to all of the following statements.
I was a resident of Alaska during all of calendar year 2024;
On the date I apply for the 2025 Permanent Fund Dividend, I have the intent to remain an Alaska resident indefinitely;
I have not claimed residency in any other state or country or obtained a benefit as a result of a claim of residency in another state or country at any time since December 31, 2023;
To qualify the annual payment:
I was not:
Sentenced as a result of a felony conviction during 2024;
Incarcerated at any time during 2024 as the result of a felony conviction; or
Incarcerated at any time during 2024 as the result of a misdemeanor conviction in Alaska if convicted of a prior felony or two or more prior misdemeanors since January 1, 1997
If absent from Alaska for more than 180 days, I was absent on an allowable absence; and
I was physically present in Alaska for at least 72 consecutive hours at some time during 2023 or 2024.
Everyone who qualifies to get the money which is essentially all Alaska residence and not just a few people.
Alaska and Norway have the distinct privileges of being resource rich and the money comes in whether anyone works or not. However, it is unlikely to become universally available to people in the world. That is, it is more of an academic question than a practical one.