Using national longitudinal survey data from the Fragile Families & Child Wellbeing Study (FFCWS), this study builds on existing knowledge about housing insecurity, female caregivers, and well-being. The study analyzed the relationship between housing cost burdens (HCB) and depression among a sample ( N = 399) of predominantly (67.6%) Black non-Hispanic mothers and other female primary caregivers. A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model yielded results that indicate housing cost burden among mothers and other female primary caregivers has a statistically significant association with meeting symptoms of depression and liberal criteria for depression as measured by the CIDI-SF survey instrument. This study contributes to the knowledge base of health outcomes related to housing cost burden by providing a unique analysis of the association of depression and housing cost burden at an unprecedented scale by using data from several consecutive waves of survey responses of a large, multi-city, longitudinal study. The findings hold implications that may inform future policy and research concerning the affordable housing crisis, which disproportionately affects mothers and other female heads of household. Considering the prevalence of housing cost burden in the USA and the disproportionate indications of depression found among housing burdened mothers/female caregivers, the findings of this study may hold implications for housing and health policies that address U.S. communities as diverse as the wide range of communities from which the FFCWS respondents were drawn.

DO WE NEED MORE UNIVERSAL BASIC INCOME EXPERIMENTS?While the notion of universal basic income (UBI) has been around for many decades, the idea has recently gained more traction in the United States. A 2020 poll from the Pew Research Center found that almost half (45 percent) of survey respondents would support a guaranteed payment of $1,000 per month to all adults, regardless of their working status. Several politicians have campaigned in recent years on implementing a local or federal UBI, and stimulus payments during the COVID-19 pandemic have further heightened the debate.As more cities, states, and countries have experimented with implementing UBIs, there have been growing opportunities for researchers to understand the potential implications of this policy. For example, the Stockton Economic Empowerment Demonstration, which provides $500 monthly payments to a random selection of the city's residents, found that the payments increased financial stability, full-time employment, and health and wellness. These findings, along with those of other experiments, have drawn much attention as other cities consider implementing similar programs both in the U.S. and worldwide. However, researchers and policymakers are now facing a critical question: how much more evidence on the impacts of universal basic income is needed? That is, do we have enough evidence to support rolling out these programs more broadly, or are more experiments needed in order to further refine UBI policies and understand their potential effects?In this issue, Bru Laín, of the University of Barcelona, argues that while further experiments can be useful, the extensive evidence base that has already accumulated renders them unnecessary. Therefore, he feels that the establishment and implementation of UBI policies should not wait for further evidence. Amy Castro, of the University of Pennsylvania, and Stacia West, of the University of Tennessee -Knoxville, respond to Laín's argument by highlighting remaining gaps in the body of evidence on UBI. They assert that further experimentation is needed before widespread UBI adoption to ensure that well-intentioned programs do not result in far worse outcomes for the populations that they aim to support. In his response, Laín argues that the evidence is clear that UBI generates positive effects for the targeted population, hence justifying UBI policies, while he agrees with Castro and West about the need for additional research on effective UBI implementation.

The purpose of this experiment was to test the effects of a $500 per month guaranteed income for 2 years on health and financial outcomes. A mixed-methods randomized controlled trial in Stockton, CA, USA enrolled 131 individuals to the treatment condition and 200 to control to receive a guaranteed income from February 2019 to January 2021. Quantitative data collection began 3 months prior to allocation at 6-month intervals concluding 6 months after withdrawal of the intervention. Qualitative data collection included 105 interviews across 3 stages. The primary outcomes were income volatility, physical and mental health, agency, and financial wellbeing. The treatment condition reported lower rates of income volatility than control, lower mental distress, better energy and physical functioning, greater agency to explore new opportunities related to employment and caregiving, and better ability to weather pandemic–related financial volatility. Thus, this study provides causal evidence of positive health and financial outcomes for recipients of guaranteed income. As income volatility is related to poor health outcomes, provision of a guaranteed income is a potentially powerful public health intervention.

A and West S () Corrigendum: Guaranteed Income and Financial Treatment (G.I.F.T.): a -month, randomized controlled trial to compare the e ectiveness of monthly unconditional cash transfers to treatment as usual in reducing financial toxicity in people with cancer who have low incomes. Front. Psychol. :. doi: .