What Happens When the Checks Stop? Young Adults’ Experiences of the End of a Guaranteed Income Program.

Introduction
Guaranteed income (GI) programs have proliferated as a strategy to address unmet material needs of marginalized populations, including transition age youth (TAY; ages 18–25) navigating legal system or child welfare involvement, early parenthood, and/or houselessness. GI offers a promising approach to reduce economic stress and promote positive development among TAY. However, little is known about what happens when these interventions end. While social work has a robust literature on service termination in other domains, limited research examines the conclusion of cash-based interventions. This study examines how system-impacted young adults navigate the transition off GI, with the goal of informing program design and social work practice.

Methodology
This study draws on qualitative interviews from a sub-sample of TAY participating in a larger randomized controlled trial of a GI intervention. The sample included young adults involved with the criminal legal system, along with a variety of histories of child welfare system involvement, young parenthood, and periods of being unhoused. Our analysis focuses on a sub-sample of 12 participants (5 treatment, 7 waitlist control) who completed two or three interviews while receiving GI payments and several months after payments ended. This longitudinal design enabled analysis of participants’ evolving perceptions, planning, and experiences related to program termination. Interviews were conducted virtually, transcribed and analyzed using the RADaR approach, including iterative coding and data reduction to identify patterns within and across participants over time. We paid specific attention to anticipatory planning for program termination and post-program adjustment.

Results
Participants described GI as a critical financial and psychological buffer that reduced stress, supported basic needs, helped avoid crisis, and enabled them to pay down debts and invest in career development. Consequently, they experienced the end of GI as a loss of this safety net, often accompanied by disappointment and increased financial strain. Participants’ transition experiences and strategies followed two trajectories. Some engaged in proactive planning, including saving funds, adjusting spending habits, or picking up other work in anticipation of the program’s end. Others reported having adjusted to the additional income, giving little thought to program termination, or struggling to secure alternative resources— thus experiencing the end of GI as destabilizing. These differences highlight variability in financial preparedness and the impact of the program’s end.

Conclusions and Implications
Findings underscore the importance of intentional transition and termination planning for GI and similar cash assistance programs. Notably, this program did not include structured transition planning or remind participants about the program’s end. As with other social service interventions, more structured support for termination could sustain program benefits and mitigate disruptions. While GI programs are unconditional and should not mandate participants complete additional requirements such as transition planning, offering optional pre-termination supports such as financial coaching, future-oriented budgeting, or gradual tapering of payments may be beneficial. These considerations are especially important for marginalized young adults, who often lack financial safety nets and face heightened economic vulnerability. Integrating transition supports into GI design represents a key opportunity to enhance the long-term effectiveness and equity of cash-based interventions.