Final Payments: Off-Boarding and Shock Management In Cash Transfer Programs

Background: Interest in cash transfers, both conditional and unconditional, has grown substantially, with over 100 studies of income transfers in the U.S. alone since 2020 (Bogle, 2024). These programs have been hailed as positive, with some evaluations indicating they are faster and more efficient than traditional cash welfare programs (Kline, 2022, 15), and many programs finding benefits of their pilots, such as reduced food insecurity and improved mental health (e.g., Tarasuk, 2017; West & Castro, 2023; Wilson & McDaid, 2021). Despite these benefits, most pilot programs are temporary, and the conclusion of these research studies results in a loss of cash benefits for participants. We conceptualize this loss of benefits as a researcher-manufactured financial shock, akin to the financial shock felt by families who lost SNAP benefits due to policy changes in February 2026 (Congressional Budget Office, 2025). While negative financial shocks are known to result in adversity, such as reductions in food consumption, increases in mental health issues, and increased likelihood of child protective services involvement for families with children (e.g., Cai, 2022; Bufe et al., 2021), we currently know little about how cash transfer studies in the U.S. are planning for and responding to the financial shocks of pilot program conclusions. We answer one research question: “How do cash transfer pilot programs publicly communicate the off-boarding process and the management of potential financial shocks to participants at program conclusion, including the provision of monetary step-downs or wraparound supports?”

Methods: We conducted a qualitative content analysis of public materials from a purposive sample of 30 cash transfer pilot programs across the U.S. Program selection prioritized diversity in geography, scale, and target populations. Data sources included program FAQs, participant testimonials, and evaluation reports, all systematically retrieved from official websites. Using an inductive approach, we coded and analyzed textual content to identify key themes related to participant communication, including how programs informed recipients about the initiation and conclusion of cash transfers, as well as any availability of monetary step-downs or wraparound supports when the money ends to reduce the financial shock of program conclusion.

Results: We find that pilot programs rarely publicize or discuss any step-down strategies, exit counseling, or other off-ramp interventions in public materials. While onboarding materials and explicit initial conversations about the temporary nature of programs are common in public program materials, limited evidence of off-boarding procedures was found in our sample. Protective measures to reduce the financial shock of program closures, if present, are often minimally and vaguely described or absent from public-facing information.

Conclusion/Implications: Though it is possible that programs are providing more off-boarding work behind the scenes, this study highlights a lack of public focus on the potential financial shocks of program conclusions. Our results underscore a deficiency of transparent off-boarding and protective strategies in cash transfer pilots, indicating a pressing need for improved exit planning and public communication to reduce adverse financial shocks for participants when temporary benefits end.