This report offers findings on Louisville, KY’s guaranteed income (GI) pilot, Young Adult Louisville Income for Transformation! (YALift!). As part of the Mayors for Guaranteed Income (MGI) pilot program, the YALift! pilot provided 151 participants with $500 monthly in unrestricted cash payments from April 2022 through March 2023.

The pilot focused on young adults aged 18-24 who resided in three historically disinvested, predominantly Black neighborhoods in the Louisville metro area. YALift! aimed to support young people during a period of post-pandemic recovery that was marked by particular challenges to young adults’ mental health, including the ability to accomplish milestones of adult transition such as completing education, working, or forming independent households.

Findings:

The report found financial stability, more stable and supportive housing, increased goal setting, and an overall greater sense of hopefulness. Other highlights include:  

YALift! improved the economic status of participants, and some of the impacts persisted after the program ended. YALift! participants had more financial and housing stability during and after the pilot than control group members. They were better able to afford emergency expenses and had greater savings. They were significantly less likely than control group counterparts to be evicted during the pilot, with a possibility this trend could continue after the pilot. Some interviewees said they were working the same amount as before the pilot, but some said they were working harder or more. Despite the pandemic’s toll on young adults’ mental health, YALift! participants’ mental health slightly improved. Some participants reported in interviews that GI helped them care for their mental health needs. Interviewees spoke about reduced stress and increased time to reflect and plan for the future. They created more organized and peaceful living environments during the pilot. Interviewees also said they were able to ask less of their loved ones, bolstering feelings of independence and agency. Those who were parents said that GI increased their self confidence as parents.

Interviewees also spoke frequently about new aspirations they had after being part of YALift! and about GI’s effects on dreams they had nurtured before YALift! The program helped participants set and pursue goals. Some interviewees used GI to support their education or start a business. A subset of interviewees indicated that their mindsets shifted from reactive habits caused by living with scarcity toward more intentional and healthier choices in their personal lives, relationships with money, and motivations for work and entrepreneurship. 

Who Participated:

• On average, the young adults who applied to YALift! were more economically vulnerable than most of Louisville’s young adults.
• At the time of application, the average YALift! participant was 21 years old and approximately 20 to 25 percent were parents. 
• Most participants (60 percent) had completed high school or a GED but had no further education.
• More than a third of participants (35 percent) received public assistance, such as Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program or Temporary Assistance for Needy Families benefits. 
• About half (51 percent) of participants worked, either through paid labor or as stay-at-home caregivers.
• About half (44 percent) had utility debt, placing them at risk for shutoff of necessary services such as water, electricity, or heat.
• Despite working and in some cases receiving benefits, household incomes for participants were low, about $15,648 annually.

Design & Program Implementation

• Family and friends often referred participants to apply to YALift!
• Trusted implementation partners legitimized YALift!
• Interviewees had split opinions on the length of the application.
• The YALift! onboarding process made participants feel welcomed and supported.
• Setting up payments was more challenging than partners anticipated.
• Participants felt apprehensive about YALift! ending but planned ways to ease the transition.

The report suggested several areas for further research. One possibility is a follow up with pilot participants to explore how influential YALift! was on their life trajectories. Many interviewees reported having limited support networks, so a future GI pilot or program might add optional support on budgeting or career planning. One year of GI likely isn’t enough to support participants through completing new education or training programs, so a future pilot could test whether a longer program would be more effective. Finally, YALift! wasn’t sufficient to overcome systemic issues in neighborhoods, including violence, gentrification, and feelings of exclusion and limited job opportunities. Future pilots could explicitly connect GI to an integrated policy landscape that addresses these broader contextual challenges.

Related Work: 

Evaluating Guaranteed Income Programs