‘We start with the hypothesis that every mom’s situation is different. We have really learned that when you provide flexible cash, everyone can access what they actually need.’
The Bridge Project is an unconditional cash program for low-income pregnant and parenting individuals living under 150% of the federal poverty line, which is $38,730 for a family of three. The program starts in the last trimester and continues through the first 1,000 days of the baby’s life for a total of 36 months.
Launched in 2021 with an initial group of 100 participants in New York City, the Bridge Project has since expanded to all five boroughs, Rochester and Buffalo in upstate New York, as well as Milwaukee and Wisconsin, now serving about 1,300 participants.
Here, Steph Silkowski, director of policy & strategic initiatives, and Dr. Vanessa Dor, research director, share more about what they’ve learned so far through their research and their approach to increasing access to unconditional cash through The Bridge Project and a new bill that would expand unconditional cash support for new families statewide.
Q: Why does The Bridge Project primarily focus on unconditional cash?
Steph: Our moms have clarified that that’s what’s most important to them and their baby in this period of time. And we believe strongly in the power of unconditional cash.
Once you are enrolled with Bridge, you receive cash every two weeks for three years. There’s not a single thing that’s required from our program; you never have to talk to us again, you never have to check in or attend an event. All research activities, like surveys or focus groups, are compensated and optional. That is intentional. We will always be a program that will provide cash with zero strings attached.
During onboarding, each mom in NYC is offered a connection to a doula, breastfeeding coach and mental health resources, as well as workshops throughout the three years. All of these are through partnerships with other organizations. But again, it’s all optional.
Programmatic elements like a peer mentor, financial coaching, or benefits counseling could strengthen the impact of the cash. If they’re optional, it’s amazing. If they’re not optional, even with very good intentions, then it’s not unconditional cash. There’s a condition there and that’s OK, but that’s a different thing.
Vanessa: At Bridge, we start with the hypothesis that every mom’s situation is different. Trust is the centerpiece. We trust the moms to make the best decisions for their families. We are not here to tell them what to do or judge how they’re using the cash. We have really learned that, when you provide flexible cash, everyone can access what they actually need.
Steph: Also, unconditional cash is especially important because our existing social safety net is not enough for families to get by. The public benefits system is very restrictive, and though it focuses on the most needy, it leaves out a wide swath of people.
The basis of the federal TANF (public assistance) program, for example, was to provide cash assistance to families. And yet—though New York is not as bad as some states—so few of those dollars are actually going to cash assistance and reaching the families who need it. TANF is also conditional cash.
We’re working on shifting cash to families without barriers and restrictions. And whether that flexible cash is delivered through something like a refundable tax credit, or something more akin to our program, or through both of those—we’re more agnostic on what the delivery looks like.
Q: What have you learned about the impact of unconditional cash on mothers and babies?
Vanessa: In our first cohort, we tracked families receiving cash and families who did not and were able to see that the population receiving cash was doing much better. For example, there was a 63% increase in access to childcare for moms receiving cash, which is especially crucial in New York where childcare is so expensive. For moms not receiving cash, access to childcare remained the same.
In our second cohort of 500 moms—which did not include a control group—we found that 53% increased their food security, which we know is especially crucial for moms and babies during pregnancy and in the first year.
In the months after delivery, moms were able to spend more time with the baby, and to breastfeed. Moms reported using the money for baby expenses like diapers, formula, cribs, or strollers, to meet their day-to-day needs, as well as to provide precious time. One mom shared how she could take her baby to the park, buy toys and engage in different activities—things she couldn’t do before.
Steph: We launched with specific hypotheses around health and financial stabilization but found that the impacts of cash are much broader. This isn’t a housing program, but within the first year of our second cohort, 63% of moms living in transitional housing moved to permanent housing. Understanding the impacts of cash on housing instability, on food security, on mental health and postpartum depression, on potential child welfare involvement, is so significant.
Q: Have you seen effects on child welfare involvement?
Steph: Within the guaranteed income space nationally, these two groups—families with existing or potential for child welfare involvement (like youth aging out of foster care), and moms and babies—are rising to the forefront and being considered policy-wise and for public investment.
Vanessa: So far, we’re doing more indirect assessments, but child welfare is on our radar moving forward. Our focus was not on child welfare, so I cannot say with 100% certainty that our moms are not becoming system-involved, but we haven’t heard this come up in our qualitative or narrative work.
Steph: And while it was not one of our guiding hypotheses that access to cash could reduce child welfare interactions, we did see impacts on factors like housing stability and financial stability, which research shows lead to less child welfare involvement.
We also recognize that cash doesn’t address everything. There are variables that are not immediately poverty-related that could lead a family to child welfare, like racism.
Q: The Bridge Project’s mission is to eliminate child poverty. What have you seen so far around the longer-term impacts of the program on poverty?
Steph: Research shows how crucial financial stabilization via cash is for families—especially in those first three years of life. Our research is clear that the impacts of cash on low-income families, particularly low-income moms of color, are so significant. Most of our participants are moms of color, who are more likely to be experiencing poverty and face compounding barriers to both financial stability and access to opportunities.
Vanessa: We’ve heard from moms that, when they join the program, they’re coming in with a very low household income—on average, below $15,000 a year—and debt as well. The first or second monthly payment was not enough to help them prepare for the baby. So, Bridge decided to provide a $1,500 prenatal stipend in addition to the first monthly payment. The stipend was such a relief for moms to be able to pay the rent that was due for two months and buy the stroller or the crib or anything else needed for the baby.
A researcher we work with always says, “The womb is the baby’s first home.” Our program includes the last three months of pregnancy because we believe in starting at the earliest possible time to have the largest impacts. There’s significant physical and cognitive development happening in that timeframe and in the first year of a baby’s life.
This is also why our program lasts 36 months instead of 12 or 18 months. Starting with deep poverty and having a baby, how can you expect a new parent to pay off debt, find a secure situation and take care of the baby all in just one year?
We’ve found that, while receiving the cash, moms were able to engage in longer-term planning for themselves and for their babies to stay out of poverty. In New York, 20% pursued an additional degree while they were in the program. They reported that they could pay for childcare or stay home during the week and go to school on the weekends. Bridge is for three years, and they wanted to ensure they could secure well-paying jobs and continue providing for their babies after the program ended.
Q: You’re working now on a bill called the MILC allowance that was highlighted by the governor and introduced in the NY State Legislature budget last winter but not adopted. What are you hoping will happen in the coming legislative session?
Steph: The Mothers and Infants Lasting Change Allowance (MILC) bill would create a publicly funded and implemented pilot program to provide cash transfers for moms and babies. The design of the program is similar to Bridge, but there are a couple of changes:
- Eligibility is 200% of the FPL—which would be $51,640 for a family of three—aligning with statewide public benefits.
- 21-month program, which is three months before birth and 18 months after.
- $1,000/month, stepping down to $500/month after 12 months, similar to our NYC program.
For us, the research is clear and strong, particularly the efficacy of cash on mothers and infants. This statewide pilot would provide real financial support to families at this critical period of time.
There is broad appeal and excitement for this idea. Last session, we were able to build a coalition of about a dozen organizations in support of the bill. To get it into the budget bills for both the Assembly and Senate (called “one-house bills”) and have leadership endorse the idea of flexible cash was a good sign.
This is the type of thing that a municipal, state or federal government should and can implement. This bill–the state providing flexible, unrestricted cash–would be an immense step forward nationwide.