Over the summer and fall of 2021, the Urban Institute worked with the Delaware Department of Health and Social Services to recruit participants for a cash transfer study aimed at reducing rates of violence among young men in Wilmington. There are two main types of cash transfers: unconditional cash transfers, defined as money provided to people without any stipulations, and conditional cash transfers, defined as money provided to people with certain conditions, such as program attendance or work requirements. The Yes! Study included young men between the ages of 14 and 17 who were randomly assigned to one of three groups:

• an after-school program combined with a cash transfer that participants received if they attended the first few weeks of programming (a partial conditional cash transfer),
• a cash transfer without any program requirements (an unconditional cash transfer), or
• a waitlisted group that served as a control group and received no treatment until after the study was complete. 

Key Findings

We found that receiving the cash transfer alone led to an increase in healthy behaviors, one of our primary outcome composite measures. This means that participants who received the cash transfer were less likely than the control group to engage in activities such as drinking alcohol, using marijuana, taking prescription medication without a prescription, being in a physical fight, carrying a weapon, or using a vapor product. Neither the cash transfer alone nor the programming plus cash transfer had statistically significant effects on our other composite measures for our primary outcomes of interest: physical and mental health or school attendance and disciplinary actions. But in most cases, the confidence intervals were too large to rule out meaningful effects, either positive or negative. 

We also found that the cash transfer plus programming improved the financial health of participants, one of our secondary outcome composite measures. This may be because the after-school programming included financial education, which may have helped the young people in that group spend their money more wisely. There were no statistically significant differences between groups for our other secondary composite measures (criminal justice engagement and social supports).

The young men who participated in the program told us that the programming plus cash transfer helped them avoid the violence of their neighborhoods, stay out of trouble, learn valuable skills, and form meaningful connections. Many shared that they experience a lot of violence in their neighborhoods and, as a result, do not go outside except to go straight to their bus or back to their homes. The programming enabled them to go to a neutral, calm area after school, which helped them stay away from the violence in their neighborhoods and connected them with engaged adults who could serve as role models. 

Overall, the results suggest that cash transfers on their own increase healthy behaviors and reduce risky behaviors for young men at risk of violence exposure. Cash transfers coupled with programming also improve the financial health of these young men. However, low levels of participation and modest response rates on participant surveys led to small sample sizes and reduced the statistical power of our quantitative analyses. Therefore, our study lacks the power to detect modest but meaningful changes in other composite measures, such as overall physical and mental health, school attendance and disciplinary actions, criminal history, and social supports. With more power, these effects may be present.