Having adequate financial resources is a critical determinant of whether households can access sufficient, nutritious food—that is, whether households are food secure and nutrition secure. While federal nutrition programs play a critical role in reducing hunger, they cannot fully address broader economic challenges such as housing, transportation, and healthcare costs. Guaranteed income programs can complement nutrition assistance programs by providing flexible cash support that empowers families to meet diverse needs, reduces the need to make trade-offs between food and other essentials, and improves overall well-being. This explainer examines guaranteed income as a policy approach that directly addresses income as a root cause of food and nutrition insecurity.

Guaranteed income and food/nutrition security

Food insecurity—the condition of limited or uncertain access to adequate food for an active, healthy life— remains a pressing challenge in the US, affecting 13.7% of households in 2024. It is primarily driven by a lack of financial resources and is strongly associated with household income, with nearly four in ten households below 100% of the poverty threshold experiencing food insecurity (compared to just one in ten households with income above 185% of the poverty threshold). Households experiencing food insecurity often face difficult trade-offs between food and other essential expenses, leading family members to consume reduced quantity, quality, or variety of food, and in severe cases leading to periods when family members eat less or skip meals entirely. Food insecurity is also closely tied to nutrition insecurity, which is the lack of consistent access, availability, and affordability of foods that promote well-being, prevent disease, and, if needed, treat disease. Experiencing food insecurity is associated with higher risks of chronic conditions such as diabetes, hypertension, and coronary heart disease in adults and higher risk of asthma, anemia, and mental health conditions in children.

Federal nutrition programs, including SNAP, WIC, and the National School Lunch Program, aim to alleviate food insecurity and improve access to nutritious food but face funding and structural hurdles, often limiting participation among those in need. For example, SNAP work requirements reduce participation among otherwise-eligible individuals, including those who are in the labor force but are unable to navigate administrative requirements or find enough work to meet the required hours. These barriers limit the extent to which federal nutrition programs alone can fully address disparities in food access and health.

Guaranteed income programs have emerged as a promising complement to federal nutrition programs, filling in the gaps for households that require additional support and capturing families on the edge of eligibility. A recent systematic review and meta-analysis suggests that unconditional cash transfers significantly improve household food security for both families and single older adults with low incomes. Similarly, a review of studies on cash transfers in low and middle income countries found positive effects on food expenditure, food security, and dietary diversity.

Implications for policy and practice

Guaranteed income offers a strategy to improve food and nutrition security by addressing the root causes of poverty and health inequities. While cost and political feasibility remain challenges, guaranteed income could play an important role in efforts to advance economic equity, strengthen health, and ensure that people have the resources and autonomy they need to thrive. Although large-scale implementation may not be immediately feasible, guaranteed income pilots can be used to target specific high-need populations—such as pregnant women, families facing medical crises, or communities with high rates of food insecurity—where the potential impact is greatest. More research is needed to better understand the long-term effects of guaranteed income on economic stability, food and nutrition security, and health.