Exploratory

•

06.24.25

Cash Transfers in Rural America

Exploratory Findings from the OpenResearch Unconditional Cash Study

Rural residents face distinct and layered barriers to economic mobility—including limited access to quality jobs, reliable transportation, healthcare, and childcare. These challenges are often compounded by long distances, sparse infrastructure, and fewer institutional supports.¹ The voices of rural participants in the OpenResearch Unconditional Cash Study illustrate how these barriers shape their experiences: 

These excerpts reflect how geography can limit access to opportunity—shaping not only daily routines but also long-term economic prospects. In this context, there has been growing interest in whether direct cash transfers could serve as a tool to promote economic security and mobility, particularly for individuals and families facing structural barriers. Dozens of pilot programs and research studies have emerged in recent years to explore the potential of unconditional cash, yet most have focused on urban or suburban populations. Rural residents remain largely underrepresented in the evidence base.

The OpenResearch Unconditional Cash Study is a notable exception. The large-scale randomized controlled trial included 3,000 participants, with 1,000 individuals randomly assigned to receive $1,000 per month for three years while the remaining 2,000 control participants received $50 per month. In addition to extensive survey and administrative data, researchers conducted in-depth qualitative interviews with a subset of participants, offering the most comprehensive assessment of unconditional cash transfers in the U.S. to date.

Participants were recruited from multiple counties in Texas and Illinois, including 5 rural counties in each state, and 13% of all study participants lived in rural areas at the time of enrollment. These participants were intentionally included to explore how cash might function in rural settings. While the subsample is too small to support broad generalizations, the experiences of these rural participants surface important questions: What unique needs do rural communities face? What are the limits—and possibilities—of unconditional cash in rural spaces? And what, in addition to cash, is needed to build lasting economic stability and opportunity in rural America? 

Though the OpenResearch data offer preliminary insights into the experiences of unconditional cash recipients in rural areas, the participants were drawn from a small number of counties in just two states. Rural communities are not homogenous; conditions vary widely by  region, economic base and industry mix, infrastructure, and demographic composition. Some areas face chronic disinvestment, while others benefit from growing industries and strong local institutions. Existing research shows that rates of economic mobility vary across rural areas,² and the factors associated with mobility may be different in rural areas than in urban areas.³ Understanding how local economic, institutional, and social conditions shape both opportunity and the impact of cash support will require further research across the diverse contexts in which rural families live and work. 

Receiving the money did not cause recipients to leave rural areas.

Media outlets routinely frame out-migration as the primary pathway to economic security for rural Americans. Headlines such as “Rural America Struggles as Young People Chase Jobs in Cities,”⁴ “What America Is Losing as Its Small Towns Struggle,”⁵ and “Rural America’s ‘Brain Drain’”⁶ all depict success as synonymous with departure. Yet in the OpenResearch study, 79% of recipients living in rural areas at the time of enrollment stayed in rural communities for all three years, statistically indistinguishable from the 78% of control participants who stayed. Regression analysis confirmed that receiving the transfer had no effect on whether someone stayed or moved to more populous areas.⁷ 

A growing body of research shows that while migration can be a pathway to economic mobility, it is not the only—or even the preferred—pathway for many rural families. Cayleigh, a mother living in a rural area, offers insight into why staying can be a purposeful and aspirational choice grounded in self-sufficiency and intergenerational learning. “We have a garden, we have chickens, we have a small piece of land…so we can teach them how to fish, and hunt, and work the land...that's educational,” she explained. "We're trying to make a business here so we can teach our children how to be entrepreneurs and run their own business and do what they enjoy doing versus working for somebody." Rather than pursue traditional educational or employment pathways, Cayleigh and her husband were investing in teaching their children practical skills for resilience and independence.

Many rural residents, like Cayleigh, weigh the potential economic gains of moving against the social, familial, and housing advantages of staying.⁸ These findings underscore the need for research and investment aimed at creating pathways to economic security and opportunity where people already live. 

In several key areas, the impact of the cash transfer on rural recipients differed notably from the effect observed among non-rural recipients.

The findings that follow are based on a restricted sample of rural participants—those who lived in rural areas at the time of enrollment and remained in rural areas for at least six months of each year during the three-year cash transfer period. Participants who initially lived in rural areas but did not meet this threshold were excluded to avoid capturing effects associated with relocation. The resulting sample is small: 307 participants met the rural residency criteria for the full study period (107 treatment, 200 control). As such, all findings should be interpreted with caution and not considered conclusive. The purpose of presenting these results is to highlight the potential for heterogeneous effects of cash transfers in rural settings and to underscore the need for additional focused research. Given the exploratory nature of the analysis, no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons; all reported p-values are unadjusted. Unless otherwise noted, all estimates are pooled across the full duration of the study. 

Housing and Homeownership

Rural recipients of the cash transfer reported gains in housing security and ownership. While the program had no effect on homeownership for non-rural participants, recipients who lived in rural areas at enrollment and stayed in a rural area throughout the program were 8.5 percentage points more likely to own their home—an increase equivalent to 20% of the control average.⁹ Among those who did not own their home at enrollment, homeownership increased by 7.6 percentage points by year two—a 374% increase relative to the control mean.¹⁰

Rural participants also experienced notable improvements in housing stability. Compared to the average control participant, they were 43% less likely to report staying with others for financial reasons¹¹ and 45% less likely to receive an eviction notice.¹² Though the estimated reduction in actual evictions was not statistically significant, the magnitude amounted to a 40% decrease relative to the average among control participants. In addition, rural recipients were 8% more likely to pay for housing directly.¹³ Their individual contribution to monthly housing costs increased by $107 on average, suggesting greater investment in independent living arrangements.¹⁴

These shifts indicate that even modest cash support may help rural families secure more stable housing and take steps toward homeownership—key foundations for upward mobility.

Physical and Mental Health

While non-rural recipients reported little change in physical or mental health, rural recipients experienced small but potentially meaningful improvements in both domains. Physically, the cash appeared to improve the extent to which poor health or pain interfered with work and daily life. Compared to control participants, recipients reported a 6% improvement in how much health challenges limited what they could accomplish, a 5% reduction in limitations on daily activities, and a 6% improvement in their ability to climb several flights of stairs. The estimated effect on the frequency with which pain limited the kind of work they could do was equivalent to 7% of the control mean, and recipients reported a 5% improvement in health-related work limitations more broadly.¹⁵ Physical health improvements grew in magnitude and significance in every survey year, with the largest effect in year three (0.17 SD, p < 0.01). Rural recipients also reported increased physical activity, with exercise frequency rising by 25% relative to the control group.¹⁶ 

Mental health outcomes among rural recipients also diverged from the full sample. We observed mental health improvements across all time periods, though statistical significance varied. Psychological distress—measured using the Kessler-6 score—declined by 17% by the end of the study,¹⁷ and recipients were, on average, 48% less likely than the control group to report high levels of distress across all years.¹⁸ While there was no overall change in average scores on a depression screening scale, scores indicating severe depression declined by 30% relative to the control mean.¹⁹ 

Despite these encouraging findings, the mechanisms driving health improvements remain unclear. Rural recipients spent significantly more money on food, yet this did not translate into measurable gains in nutrition or food security. Similarly, we did not observe improvements in healthcare access or utilization, such as primary care or hospital visits. This suggests that observed health improvements may be linked to changes in living conditions, stress reduction, or other indirect effects of the cash transfer, rather than increased engagement with the healthcare system. The declines in psychological distress and severe depression among rural recipients lend support to this interpretation. Still, more research is needed to better understand what is driving these changes—particularly in rural areas where health burdens are greater and access to care is more limited.²⁰ 

Education and Entrepreneurship

The OpenResearch study found no measurable impact of cash transfers on rural recipients’ engagement in formal or informal education or job training. This contrasts with findings in the full sample showing positive—though not statistically significant—trends in education, including suggestive gains for recipients under 30. In the rural subgroup, interest in pursuing further education rose modestly in the second year of the transfer, increasing by 11 percentage points (equivalent to 38% of the control mean). However, the effect faded entirely by the end of the study.²¹ 

This decline, and the broad lack of impact on education or training, may reflect the structural limitations many rural residents face. Fewer nearby colleges or training programs, limited broadband access, and transportation barriers can make it difficult to act on educational aspirations.²² Yet additional research is needed to better understand these barriers and identify what kinds of support are necessary to help rural residents pursue and sustain educational advancement. 

While traditional education pathways appeared out of reach for many rural recipients, entrepreneurship may offer a more accessible avenue to pursue economic goals. Over the course of the transfer period, rural participants expressed growing interest in starting a business, with both intent and follow-through increasing steadily and peaking in year three. By that point, they were 8 percentage points more likely to report having ever started a business. Though not quite statistically significant, this is a 28% increase relative to the average among control participants.²³ Across all years of the program, rural recipients also reported higher levels of interest in entrepreneurship overall, with an effect size equivalent to 11% of the control group mean.²⁴ 

This inclination towards entrepreneurship may reflect the realities of rural labor markets, where job opportunities are often limited, low-paying, or far away and difficult to access—especially without reliable transportation. Research suggests that many rural residents do indeed turn to entrepreneurship out of necessity rather than opportunity. Compared to urban business owners, rural entrepreneurs are more likely to run very small enterprises and to start businesses because they have to, not because they’ve spotted a lucrative market gap.²⁵ For many rural participants, starting a business may have seemed more feasible than commuting long distances for low-wage work.

These participant experiences illustrate how long commutes, limited job opportunities, and childcare constraints make both traditional employment and educational advancement difficult to sustain. In this context, flexible, self-generated forms of income seem more feasible. It is important to recognize, however, that entrepreneurship is not a guaranteed solution to rural economic challenges. Rural business owners face unique difficulties, including distance from large markets, limited access to capital and skilled employees, and weaker local systems of support for entrepreneurs.²⁶ Though cash assistance may give people the breathing room to explore starting a business, many would still need the right conditions and support to succeed in the long run.

Overall, these findings point to a deeper need to understand how place-based constraints shape people’s ability to pursue long-term economic goals. For many rural residents, formal education may be out of reach, and entrepreneurship, while offering more flexibility, still requires the right conditions to turn a business idea into a sustainable livelihood. Moving forward, more research is needed to understand what kinds of support—financial, logistical, and institutional—can help rural residents turn aspirations into sustainable progress, and how cash assistance can be most effectively paired with other interventions to support economic mobility in rural communities.

Transportation

Transportation is a critical link to opportunity in rural areas. For example, a car breakdown in a place with no public transit options can trigger cascading hardships, affecting access to work, childcare, healthcare, and other essentials. Despite the importance of transportation, we observed no overall effect of the cash transfer on transportation security. This is notable given how frequently transportation challenges were raised in qualitative interviews.

We did observe improvements in two specific transportation-related challenges, but only during the second year of the transfer. Recipients reported a significant decrease in the frequency of being unable to leave the house when they wanted to due to lack of transportation (33% reduction relative to the average among control participants) and of rescheduling an appointment because of transportation problems (31% reduction).²⁷ These gains were not evident in the first year and did not persist into the third, suggesting a temporary improvement rather than a sustained change.

The small rural sample limits how much we can conclude, but the pattern suggests that monthly cash transfers may help with relatively modest transportation expenses such as fuel, routine maintenance, or minor repairs. However, they are unlikely to address more substantial and persistent barriers, including unreliable vehicles, major repairs, long travel distances, or the absence of public transit.

It is possible that limited access to conventional auto loans and the time required to save enough from monthly transfers for a down payment or vehicle purchase made it difficult for recipients to acquire reliable transportation. Future research could explore whether a lump sum or a larger initial grant followed by smaller monthly payments would be more effective in rural areas where transportation challenges are common.

Conclusion

For researchers and policymakers focused on economic mobility, the experiences of rural residents must be part of the conversation. This study provides rare, exploratory evidence on how a long-term cash transfer affected rural families. While the findings point to potential gains in rural areas that were not observed in the full sample, the results highlight persistent structural challenges that cash alone may not address. The small sample size and limited geographic scope constrain generalizability, but the study raises important questions about what it takes to create durable opportunity in rural areas and how local conditions shape the impact of financial interventions. Expanding the evidence base to address these questions requires continued, focused research that is both rigorous and rooted in the lived experiences of rural Americans.