Basic income for care leavers in Wales pilot evaluation: annual report 2024 to 2025 (summary)

The Basic Income for Care Leavers in Wales pilot (‘the pilot’) was launched in July 2022. The first payments to 18-year-olds eligible for the scheme were made in August 2022 (Welsh Government, 2022). 

The evaluation of the scheme is now in its third year. This is a summary of the second annual report from the evaluation.

Overview of the pilot

The pilot pays a basic income to young people leaving care for two years. More detail about the nature of the pilot is available from the Welsh Government Basic income pilot for care leavers: overview of the scheme. 

The pilot was open for young people to sign up to from 1 July 2022 to 30 June 2023 for all those having an 18^th birthday in that period. The total amount of the basic income payment was £1,600 gross per month, which is taxed at source to leave recipients receiving a net amount of £1,280 each month, for two years, unless they chose to leave the pilot early.

Young people continued to receive the support that all care leavers usually receive from their local authority whilst on the pilot, and were also offered additional support around managing finances.

In total, 97% of those who were eligible for the pilot agreed to take part (644 individuals).

Overview of the evaluation

The evaluation began in November 2022. It is due to end in 2027 so that data can be collected on longer-term impacts.

The research questions

• Research Question 1: What is the impact of the pilot?
• Research Question 2: Is the pilot implemented as intended?
• Research Question 3: How is the pilot experienced?
• Research Question 4: How does the pilot fit into the overall offer for care leavers in Wales?
• Research Question 5: How cost effective is the pilot?

The evaluation is designed around five core areas called ‘work packages’. These are briefly summarised as follows.

1. Co-production: A group of care-experienced young adults meet regularly to provide advice to the study. A number of changes have been made to the study following their advice.
2. Theory enhancement: The study is a theory-based evaluation, and the evaluation aims to increase understanding of how and why the pilot may or may not have the intended effects for different people involved.
3. Impact evaluation: The impact of the pilot on young people’s lives is being measured in relation to health and wellbeing, their finances, their engagement with education and employment and engagement with their communities.
4. Implementation and process evaluation: This part of the research explores how the pilot is implemented, its ongoing delivery, and how the scheme is experienced and perceived by those involved.
5. Economic evaluation: The economic evaluation will consider whether the pilot represents value for money in terms of the outcomes achieved.

Aims and scope of this report

The second annual report opens with an update from our co-production group, summarising their work over the first two years of the evaluation. 

We then report on two sets of findings from work package 4: early perspectives and experiences of young people receiving the payment and the initial implementation of the pilot. These address research questions 2 and 3.

The second annual report provides detailed information about the research methods used to collect and analyse the data. In this summary report, only findings are reported.

Similarly, the report includes more detailed findings, with overarching summaries only included here.

This section is written by our co-production group.

We are a group of young adults who have similar care experiences to those receiving the basic income. Because most of us are in our early to mid-twenties, we have vivid memories of our financial and living situation between the ages of 18-20 and are well-placed to advise the researchers on research questions and methods. We are supported by Voices from Care, Cymru.

The second annual report contains a visual representation of the activities of our group since 2022, which has met 9 times between December 2022 and November 2024.

Examples of how we have shaped the research

• From a list of previously tested questions, we chose mental health questions for the survey that we thought were important and sensitive.
• Added questions and topics for the interviews with professionals and young people, e.g. to ask about changes to confidence in socialising with friends – going for a coffee, a meal or a day out.
• Gave advice on how to help young people feel safe and comfortable in interviews.
• Gave advice on how to ask about sensitive topics in interviews like alcohol and drug use.
• Suggested researchers offer individual, paired or group interviews for young people which wasn’t in the original research plan but worked well.
• Gave advice on how to run group interviews with young people.
• Threw out some ideas that researchers thought were creative, but we thought were too complicated!

Group members’ thoughts about being involved

“I can remember being 18. Almost everything went wrong. I wanted to make sure this didn’t happen for my younger siblings and others.”

“I want to help other young people, I was worried how some would cope with the money.”

“The groups went well, and everyone had the right to speak and all views and opinions were listened to.”

“I preferred in person meetings as I feel people communicate better.”

Views on the design of the pilot

Choice of cohort

There was universal support for the choice of cohort and provision of additional support to young people leaving care. Participants frequently identified multiple challenges facing care leavers and perceived their cohort as both emotionally and practically disadvantaged.

Despite being beneficiaries of the policy, the interviews highlighted some young people’s sense of social responsibility, with hopes for it to be used responsibly by other recipients.

Age

Some participants felt the pilot should not have been restricted to those turning 18 years between a defined timeframe, and instead argued it should be given to all care leavers - regardless of age or stage of transition. However, when reflecting on this aspect of the pilot’s design, participants generally felt that age 18 was an appropriate time to start receiving the basic income.

Amount of money

A series of quotations in the second annual report suggest participants felt that the amount of basic income enabled young people to cover their expenses and also allowed some choice and control with the remaining money. The extent to which participants felt they had surplus monies after living costs varied depending on specific circumstances (e.g. geographical location and living arrangements). The perception that it was not an excessive amount of money was noted as being particularly true for those paying high housing costs.

Duration

When discussing the duration of the pilot, participants agreed that the availability of the basic income between ages 18 to 20 was helpful. Some would have preferred three years, while others feared a longer time period would lead to dependence on the income.

Discussions about the end of the pilot were frequent within interviews, with almost all young people saying that they had thought about it and were conscious of its time-limited nature.

Early experiences of the pilot

Engagement with financial advice

Apart from the cash transfers each month, recipients have continued access to routine care leaver services, including access to a Personal Advisor. As part of the pilot, young people could access bespoke financial advice, which in most locations was provided by Citizens Advice.  Citizens Advice is an advocacy and advice service.

For a minority of respondents involved in interviews, the introduction of a Citizens Advice advisor or equivalent had resulted in regular financial check-ins. Others were vague about the availability of this service or knew about it but had not needed it.

Engagement with Personal Advisors and other professionals

Many young people referred to their interactions with a range of professionals, but particularly Personal Advisors, and described them as important sources of information and advice regarding the basic income. Some would have liked more knowledgeable advice about the pilot, noting that their Personal Advisors were learning alongside them.

Informal support

In addition to professional support, young people also referred to the support available from family members and carers. For some, family members, carers and partners were seen as good sources of advice as they understood the situation they were in.

However, the complexity of young people’s relationships was sometimes apparent as participants disclosed negative experiences or choosing not to tell family members or friends about the pilot.

Many reported giving small gifts or loans to family, friends and partners, appearing to value the ability to do so.

Perceived impacts in the first year of the pilot

Developing financial literacy

Many participants described a process of learning and adapting to receiving the basic income. As part of this, young people were sometimes self-critical for spending on things that they felt that they did not really need, with examples including games consoles and alcohol. However, many reported a learning curve, with financial literacy increasing in the course of the first few months.

Saving was a recurrent topic of discussion in interviews. It was common to report saving for a car, driving lessons or university.

Some young people discussed choices around payment frequency (monthly or fortnightly) and linked this to other financial cycles they had set up such as rent, payments for bills and phones.

Mental health and wellbeing

During the interviews, young people frequently referred to stresses and uncertainties associated with leaving care, and that the basic income had eased or helped them manage anxieties.

Several reported being able to participate in activities with friends, reducing a sense of difference from peers. Others reported improved wellbeing through pursuing new hobbies, sports and having ‘treats’ such as day trips, getting their nails done, buying hair dye, and, in some cases, holidays.

Autonomy and control

This combination of emotional and material benefits appeared to lead to a sense of autonomy and control over their lives, with less reliance on others.

Some reported greater choice and control in respect of housing, being able to take a taxi to hospital in a medical emergency, and a pregnant recipient buying ahead for a baby. 

In terms of future planning, young people also discussed feeling more in control with some taking time to explore career pathways, taking on part-time rather than full-time employment, or not working while at university. Several young people reported continued struggles to find employment and, while the basic income may reduce young people’s disadvantage and increase their options and opportunities, long-standing needs and challenges remain.

The apparent simplicity of cash transfers and basic income schemes is an important part of their appeal but, as has been found elsewhere, the context of this pilot makes it complex to implement. This was the first government-run basic income pilot of this nature and scale; operating within a devolved governance context; working on the delivery with various actors at different levels; and working with a group whose members often face multiple social and economic challenges. 

Initial announcements and background

By autumn 2021, then First Minister Mark Drakeford MS, had publicly confirmed a plan to test a basic income pilot, to do so with care leavers as a target group, and an intention to launch the scheme by April 2022 ^{[footnote 1]}.

The policy team had already undertaken much consultation and research but now had to finalise all the logistical arrangements (e.g. partnership with Citizens Advice, a reliable payment partner and preparation of guidance for local authorities.) within relatively short timescales. This involved an intense consultation period and partnership-building with relevant stakeholders in order to develop guidance and the logistics of implementation. 

Partnerships and interaction

Implementation of the pilot required partnerships between horizontal and vertical levels of government, and external groups. Key players were local authorities (responsible for leaving care services) across Wales and Citizens Advice (responsible for the additional financial advice component of the pilot).

Partnerships with local authorities

The relationships between Welsh Government and local authorities developed over the course of the early stages of the pilot. From the perspective of the Personal Advisors who work directly with young people, it developed from initial confusion and about timescales and guidance to much stronger and more productive relationships. There were three key challenges at the outset. 

First, there was widespread, but not universal, concern among practitioners about the high support needs of many in the chosen cohort of recipients, accompanied by the perceived high amount of monthly income and the decision to make it unconditional.

Second, practitioners were concerned that guidance appeared not to cover all questions that were likely to arise with a group of young people with very varied circumstances. Policy officials had to contend with some variation on how local authority leaving care teams and related services are organised across Wales. This limited how prescriptive Welsh Government could be in written guidance.

Third, practitioners reported feeling underprepared by the time the pilot began, due to short timescales. Some felt ‘on the back foot’ and unable to prepare young people in their care for the pilot and answer their questions accurately.

Policy records and focus group discussions with practitioners and the Welsh Government policy team report some challenging exchanges between policy officials and local authority representatives in early meetings, but these gradually became routine. Both practitioners and policy officials reported an increasingly positive relationship that was frequent, frank and sometimes humorous.

Partnership with Citizens Advice Cymru

Additional financial advice was put in place, similar to several other basic income programmes. The financial advice element was delivered in partnership with Citizens Advice. Citizens Advice had a crucial role at the enrolment stage, particularly in conducting ‘better off’ calculations to make sure that no young person would be financially worse off on the pilot. Initial relationships between Citizens Advice advisors and leaving care teams were reported to be tense in some areas of Wales, with Citizens Advice staff feeling that Personal Advisors were acting as gatekeepers to the young people in their care. In the first few months, some Personal Advisors thought that Citizens Advice did not have the knowledge and experience to understand the complexity of care-experienced young adults’ needs. Nonetheless, over the course of the first year, relationships between these two groups of practitioners appeared to have developed positively and was working well in many areas.

Despite Citizens Advice national reports showing that hundreds of basic income recipients had been in touch with the service during each quarter of the pilot, many individual Citizens Advice advisors report feeling under-utilised, describing lack of engagement as their biggest barrier. The disconnect between the statistical returns from Citizens Advice nationally and local practitioners’ perceptions of low engagement will be further explored as the evaluation progresses.

Relational development: feedback and developing trust

The consensus across participant groups (young people, social care practitioners and Citizens Advice) was that many of the issues that were significant and urgent at the rollout stage, have been gradually addressed as the pilot has progressed. 

Successful ongoing communication from Welsh Government and consistent efforts to build relationships and address the concerns of practitioners has strengthened trust and resolved emergent issues over the course of the pilot. For example, local authority staff reported quick and effective responses from the Welsh Government policy team to all queries. 

A further factor in resolving the issues quickly was that policy officials seemed open and responsive to the ongoing concerns being raised by practitioners. For example, in response to feedback, options to have fortnightly payments and optional direct payments of rent were developed.

Complexity

In addition to the need to build partnerships rapidly, the devolved context and variations in young people’s life circumstances are two important areas of complexity that are explored in this section.

Devolution

Current devolution arrangements place both enablers and constraints on a devolved government’s ability to implement a basic income pilot.

Welsh Government used the areas in which it has policy competence under the devolution arrangement (e.g. social services and housing) to proceed to run the pilot. Nevertheless, given that areas like welfare and taxation are not wholly devolved, Welsh Government still had to navigate complicated governance routes to make the pilot a reality.

Variability

The unique life situations of different recipients have wide-ranging legal, fiscal and policy implications for different young people under the pilot conditions. This variability was highlighted most starkly in two areas: housing and asylum.

(a) Housing

Young people leaving care have various housing arrangements, including private renting, living with families/relatives, living in supported accommodation, and remaining with foster carers in a ‘When I am Ready’ arrangement.

The pilot exposed different policies between local authorities on how much young people were expected to contribute to cover ‘When I am Ready’ or supported housing costs. There was also variability in knowledge and confidence among practitioners about eligibility for housing benefit for basic income recipients in supported housing.

Further exploration of housing issues will be carried out as the evaluation proceeds.

(b) Asylum

As care leavers, former unaccompanied asylum-seeking children qualified for inclusion in the pilot. Despite a large volume of political and media attention to this group’s inclusion, including criticism from the then Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak MP, Ministers remained clear that including former unaccompanied asylum-seeking children was the right thing to do legally.  It also aligned with the Welsh Government’s ambition for Wales to be a Nation of Sanctuary. 

This public debate, which required the attention and time of officials and Ministers, was an additional layer to an already identified complexity of how being on the pilot affects an individual’s eligibility for receipt of legal aid. This issue was likely to affect many former unaccompanied asylum seekers who usually require legal aid to make asylum claims, but also any participant who needed legal aid, for example, those involved in the criminal justice system. The UK Government did not agree to exempt recipients from the legal aid means test, as proposed by Welsh Government.

Early in the pilot, Citizens Advice and other practitioners found it difficult to advise young people who may need legal aid whether they would be better off on the pilot. Discussions with policy officials suggested that Personal Advisors adopted different individual-level strategies, ranging from continuing to petition for legal aid for their young people to agreeing fixed fees with solicitors.

Delivering a ‘simple’ intervention in ‘complex’ systems’: iteration and adaptation

An early and continuing success has been that payments have been reliably delivered to young people. Other aspects of the design and implementation of the pilot have required a more iterative approach. One example of how policy developed through on-the-ground experience was changing guidance to allow late applications. In some cases young people could not be enrolled by their 18^th birthday at the early stages, due to administrative challenges that were outside their control. 

This approach of adapting and learning through doing appears to have been a core driver in the smoothing out of initial tensions and confusions from the rollout stage of the pilot, as well as building stronger relationships between those involved in the process. 

This report has aimed to document and analyse the early experiences of young people on the pilot, the initial journey of implementation and the factors that have generated the various successes and challenges along the way. Further waves of analysis will include young people’s views three months after exiting the programme, the views of senior stakeholders, practitioners’ reflections as the pilot draws to a close, as well as quantitative analyses of engagement, delivery successes and failures, and economic implications. In due course we will also report on how outcomes compare to comparable groups of young people who have not received the basic income.

Report authors: Vibhor Mathur ^{[footnote 2]}, Louise Roberts ^{[footnote 2]}, Zoe Bezeczky ^{[footnote 2]}, Harriet Lloyd ^{[footnote 2]}, Dimitris Vallis ^{[footnote 3]}, Michael Sanders ^{[footnote 3]}, Kate E Pickett ^{[footnote 4]}, Matthew Johnson ^{[footnote 5]}, Rod Hick ^{[footnote 6]}, Elizabeth Schroeder ^{[footnote 7]}, Patrick Fahr ^{[footnote 7]}, Stavros Petrou ^{[footnote 7]}, Hannah Lee ^{[footnote 2] [footnote 8]}, Sally Holland ^{[footnote 2]} and David Westlake ^{[footnote 2]} with The Evaluation Co-Production Group.

Views expressed in this report are those of the researchers and not necessarily those of the Welsh Government.

For further information please contact:
Equality, Poverty and Children’s Evidence and Support Division
Welsh Government
Cathays Park
Cardiff
CF10 3NQ
Email: SocialJusticeResearch@gov.wales

Social research number: 20/2025
Digital ISBN: 978-1-83715-380-0

[1] Record of Proceedings, Welsh Parliament, 19 October 2021, Para 83

[2] Children’s Social Care Research and Development Centre (CASCADE), School of Social Sciences, Cardiff University

[3] The Policy Institute, Kings College London

[4] Department of Health Sciences, University of York

[5] Department of Social Work, Education and Community Wellbeing, Northumbria University

[6] School of Social Sciences, Cardiff University

[7] Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford 

[8] Hannah Lee joined the research team during the analysis stage of this report, and approval for her to access sensitive data was not secured until 09/12/24. She was therefore tasked with analysing non-sensitive data and drafting/ editing sections of the text. Her contribution meets CASCADE’s threshold for report authorship.