The Daily: More Money Was Supposed to Help Poor Kids. So Why Didn’t It?

Episode Release Date: August 6, 2025

Introduction

In this compelling episode of The Daily, hosted by Natalie Kitroeff and featuring journalist Jason DeParle, listeners delve into a groundbreaking study that challenges long-held beliefs about alleviating childhood poverty through unconditional cash aid. The episode, titled "More Money Was Supposed to Help Poor Kids. So Why Didn’t It?" explores the intricate dynamics of a major social experiment and its surprising outcomes.

The Study: Babies First Years

Jason DeParle introduces the pivotal study at the heart of the discussion: the Babies First Years experiment. As a long-time reporter on poverty and social policy, DeParle provides a thorough overview of the study's design and objectives.

"The study's called Babies First Years. It came together about a decade ago when a group of prominent researchers set out to try to isolate the effect of money alone on children's development," [04:09] DeParle explains. Funded with $22 million from government and private foundations, the study enlisted 1,000 mothers from 12 hospitals across four cities. These mothers, all below the federal poverty line, were randomly assigned to receive either $333 a month in unconditional cash stipends or a nominal $20 for participation. The researchers aimed to determine whether this financial support could directly enhance various aspects of child development over four years.

Findings: No Detectable Differences

The cornerstone revelation of the study is both unexpected and profound. Despite the financial boost, researchers found no measurable differences in child development metrics between the group receiving cash aid and the control group.

"This group of researchers found that after four years there were no detectable differences between the children that got the aid and the children that didn't get the aid," [03:30] DeParle relays the Researcher's findings. The lack of impact was surprising to the scientific community, raising critical questions about the efficacy of unconditional cash transfers in breaking the cycle of childhood poverty.

Possible Explanations: Pandemic and Economic Factors

The episode doesn't stop at the surprising results; it delves into potential reasons behind the null findings. The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic during the study's early stages introduced unforeseen variables that may have influenced the outcomes.

"One possibility is that the pandemic interfered. The pandemic occurred when the kids were about a year old. The pandemic could have interfered in at least two ways," [12:35] the Researcher discusses. The disruptions caused by the pandemic—such as increased stress, altered living conditions, and the introduction of additional government aid to families—could have diluted the specific effects of the $333 monthly stipend. High inflation rates further eroded the real value of the cash aid over time, potentially rendering it insufficient to effect measurable change.

Reactions: Divided Interpretations Among Researchers

The study's findings have ignited a debate among experts. While some researchers question the validity of the results due to the pandemic's impact, others are reassessing their foundational beliefs about cash aid's role in child development.

"Greg Duncan, who's an economist at the University of California, Irvine, told me that these results have prompted him to change his views," [16:37] DeParle notes. Duncan, a prominent figure in the field, remains one of the few to publicly express skepticism about the effectiveness of unconditional cash transfers based on this study. The Researchers acknowledge that their results didn't support either side's extreme positions: they didn't confirm that cash aid would dramatically improve child outcomes, nor did they support conservative fears that such aid would be misused or reduce mothers' work incentives.

Policy Implications: Shifting Perspectives on Unconditional Cash Aid

The episode highlights the significant policy implications of the study's findings. In the current political climate, where Democrats advocate for expanded cash aid programs and Republicans push back against enlarging the social safety net, these results add a nuanced layer to the debate.

"These results did not bear out progressives hope that cash aid will unequivocally help children, but they didn't bear out conservatives fears that cash aid would hurt children either," [20:06] the Researcher clarifies. This middle ground suggests that while unconditional cash transfers might not directly enhance cognitive development metrics, they also don't carry the negative consequences some opponents feared. Additionally, qualitative data from ethnographers revealed that the money was meaningful to the families, with mothers reporting increased purchases for their children and greater time spent together, even if these benefits weren't captured in the quantitative measures.

Broader Implications: Rethinking Solutions to Childhood Poverty

DeParle and Kitroweff reflect on what these findings mean for the broader understanding of childhood poverty and the myriad factors that contribute to it. The study underscores the complexity of poverty alleviation and suggests that financial support alone may be insufficient in addressing the multifaceted challenges faced by low-income families.

"The results have just deepened the mystery of why some kids flourish and others don't," [21:49] DeParle remarks. The study prompts policymakers and researchers to explore more comprehensive or alternative interventions that address not just financial needs but also educational, environmental, and social factors influencing child development.

Conclusion: An Ongoing Quest for Answers

As the Babies First Years experiment continues beyond the four-year mark, the episode leaves listeners with a sense of lingering inquiry and anticipation for more conclusive results. The initial findings challenge existing paradigms and open the door for further research into effective strategies for breaking the cycle of childhood poverty.

"The question of whether poor kids have a fair shot at American life is just such a central question to American identity," [21:57] DeParle concludes. The episode emphasizes that while this particular study didn't provide definitive answers, it plays a crucial role in the ongoing dialogue about social equity and the best paths forward to ensure that all children have the opportunities needed to thrive.

Notable Quotes

• "This group of researchers found that after four years there were no detectable differences between the children that got the aid and the children that didn't get the aid." — Researcher [03:42]

• "These results did not bear out progressives hope that cash aid will unequivocally help children, but they didn't bear out conservatives fears that cash aid would hurt children either." — Researcher [20:06]

• "The results have just deepened the mystery of why some kids flourish and others don't." — Jason DeParle [21:49]

Final Thoughts

"More Money Was Supposed to Help Poor Kids. So Why Didn’t It?" serves as a thought-provoking exploration of social policy, challenging listeners to reconsider the complexities of addressing childhood poverty. Through engaging dialogue and insightful analysis, The Daily underscores the importance of evidence-based approaches in shaping effective interventions for vulnerable populations.