A new study suggests that providing low-income mothers with a substantial monthly cash stipend during their child’s first four years slows down the child’s biological pace of aging. The research, published in Nature Human Behaviour, indicates that while this financial support altered cellular markers of aging in young children, it did not have a similar effect on the mothers themselves.
The study focuses on DNA methylation, a biological process where small chemical tags are added to DNA molecules. These tags change how genes are expressed without altering the underlying genetic code. Over a person’s lifespan, these molecular changes accumulate in ways that reflect their biological age, which can sometimes outpace their chronological age depending on life experiences and environmental factors.
Scientists use algorithms called “epigenetic clocks” to measure this biological aging process. One such clock is DunedinPACE, which tracks the speed at which a person’s body is biologically aging. Another epigenetic tool, known as Epigenetic-g, attempts to quantify cognitive functioning and brain health based on these same DNA methylation patterns. Both tools offer a way to look at how life circumstances become biologically embedded in the body.
Growing up in poverty is consistently linked to poorer health, faster aging, and lower cognitive function later in life. The early years of childhood are thought to be an especially sensitive period where financial hardship might have the largest negative impact on a child’s developing system. A 2021 study found that children growing up in socioeconomically disadvantaged families tend to exhibit a faster pace of biological aging.
Research often explores how early life stress affects the body on a cellular level. For example, a study covered by PsyPost in 2024 observed that children with more emotional and behavioral difficulties also displayed DNA-methylation patterns indicative of accelerated biological aging. To test whether a financial boost could intervene in this trajectory, researchers examined data from the Baby’s First Years project. This initiative was designed to see if unconditional cash assistance could directly influence child development and family well-being.
“Our previous work, including a recent meta-analysis of 140 studies encompassing nearly 66,000 people across 23 countries, established a robust, global pattern: lower socioeconomic status is consistently linked to accelerated epigenetic aging,” Laurel Raffington, leader of the Max Planck Research Group Biosocial at the Max Planck Institute for Human Development in Berlin, told PsyPost. “This biological weathering is visible in early childhood and seems to persist into adulthood decades later.”
“However, a major gap remains in the literature,” Raffington explained. “Existing studies show strong correlations, but they cannot prove that poverty causes faster aging, nor do they show whether relieving financial strain can slow it down. That is exactly what makes Baby’s First Years unique. By evaluating the impact of direct, unconditional cash gifts to mothers with low incomes, this study provides causal evidence that providing economic support can alter a child’s biology.”
The Baby’s First Years project enrolled mothers with low incomes shortly after they gave birth in hospitals across four U.S. metropolitan areas. The mothers were randomly assigned to one of two groups. The high-cash group received $333 per month, while the low-cash group received $20 per month. These unconditional cash gifts were loaded onto debit cards every month for the first four years of the children’s lives, with no restrictions on how the money could be spent.
When the children reached four years of age, the researchers collected saliva samples from both the mothers and the children. The final sample for the DNA methylation analysis included 735 children and 777 mothers. The research team used the saliva samples to calculate each participant’s DunedinPACE score to measure their pace of biological aging. They also calculated Epigenetic-g scores to estimate aging-related cognitive differences.
In their statistical models, the team controlled for several baseline factors to isolate the effect of the cash transfers. These factors included the mother’s age, education level, race, household income before the study, and the infant’s birth weight. They then compared the epigenetic scores of the families receiving the high cash amounts with those receiving the nominal amounts.
The results suggest that the higher cash gifts slowed the children’s pace of biological aging. Children in the group receiving $333 per month had a DunedinPACE score that was lower than the children in the $20 per month group. This difference provides evidence for a small but detectable deceleration in cellular aging among the children whose families received the larger financial support.
“The study demonstrates that larger cash transfers directly slowed children’s biological aging, as measured by epigenetic clocks,” Raffington said. “Because this study used a rigorous, randomized controlled design, we can confidently conclude that reducing financial strain caused this healthier biological trajectory.”
While the statistical effect size is modest, it carries weight for public health policy. “In medicine and social science, small individual effects can compound into large societal benefits when scaled across a whole population,” Raffington added. “These findings show that poverty leaves a biological footprint—and that providing direct financial support to families is a powerful public health intervention.”
However, the researchers found no evidence supporting their expectation that the higher cash gifts would increase the children’s Epigenetic-g scores. The results for this cognitive biomarker were ambiguous and did not show a consistent improvement linked to the financial assistance. The team also checked two other measures of biological age acceleration, known as GrimAge and PhenoAge, but found no group differences for these metrics.
The findings are generally in line with research covered by PsyPost in 2023, which found that generous state-level anti-poverty programs mitigated the negative impacts of low income on children’s development. While that earlier study looked at brain volumes and mental health in 9- to 11-year-olds rather than epigenetic markers of biological aging in 4-year-olds, both indicate that financial assistance can buffer against the biological toll of childhood poverty.
When looking at the mothers in the study, the cash gifts had no observed impact on their epigenetic indices. Neither the pace of aging nor the cognitive biomarkers differed between the high-cash and low-cash groups for the adults. The authors noted that while the extra income helped the families financially, it did not seem to alter major adult environmental stressors, such as housing quality or food insecurity, which are typically associated with adult biological aging.
The team also explored whether the children’s epigenetic scores correlated with their concurrent behavior, brain activity, or physical health. The pace of biological aging was not associated with the children’s body mass index, executive functioning, vocabulary, or overall health as reported by their mothers.
“I was surprised to see that the epigenetic measures were not related to the children’s measured body mass index (BMI), cognitive task performance, or mother-reported socioemotional behaviors,” Raffington said, noting that prior studies found these associations. She suspects the young age of the participants plays a role in this discrepancy. “Epigenetic clocks at this early stage may be capturing subtle biological underpinnings that lay the groundwork for long-term adult health, even before they manifest as visible differences in standard childhood development or behavioral metrics,” she explained.
The lack of behavioral deficits also highlights the families’ strength. “These children are developing well because they and their families are resilient despite limited financial means,” Raffington told PsyPost. “The biological differences we observe suggest that accelerated aging may be a hidden, under-the-skin cost of that resilience.”
As with all research, there are a few things to keep in mind. “First, while these population-level effects are scientifically significant, they do not apply uniformly to every individual,” Raffington clarified. “Many people who grow up in financially strained families do not show accelerated epigenetic aging; population trends do not dictate an individual child’s destiny.” She also noted that epigenetic clocks are a population-level research tool and have not received scientific consensus support as an individual clinical diagnostic tool.
The children in this study are still very young, and it is unknown whether these early changes in the pace of biological aging will persist into adulthood. The cash gifts ended shortly after the children turned six, and it remains to be seen if the cellular benefits endure without ongoing economic support. “We don’t know if these differences will persist as children get older, nor do we know yet whether slower biological aging in early childhood predicts subsequent improvements in health or longevity,” Raffington said.
Additionally, scientists still disagree on exactly how to interpret epigenetic aging in young children. These epigenetic clocks were originally developed using blood samples from older adults. While they can be applied to saliva samples in children, some accuracy might be lost when translating the algorithms across different tissues and age groups.
The algorithms were also primarily developed using genetic data from populations of European descent. Expanding these epigenetic tools to be more globally representative is an ongoing priority for researchers in the field. Despite these limitations, the study offers a rare look at how a direct economic intervention can influence human biology in early childhood.
Looking ahead, the researchers are continuing to track the families to answer remaining questions. “Will we still see these epigenetic differences when the children are six and eight years old? Do they persist even after the cash transfers have ended? And, do these early epigenetic effects actually translate into tangible differences in health later in life?” Raffington asked.
She is also interested in exploring what would happen if financial support began even earlier. She pointed to a study evaluating the Rx Kids program in Flint, Michigan, which showed that providing unconditional cash support starting during pregnancy improved birth outcomes. “If the biological embedding of environmental conditions is most pronounced early in life, pregnancy is precisely the window where financial relief could yield the greatest long-term benefits,” she explained.
Reflecting on the work so far, Raffington praised the extensive collaboration required to conduct the trial. “The Baby’s First Years study is unique in its scope and scientific rigor,” she said. “It stands as a testament to the utility of team science—supported by a mix of research grants and philanthropy—and underscores the immense value of slow, careful science that requires some patience and long-term funding resources.”
The study, “Effects of a randomized controlled trial of unconditional cash transfers on epigenetic measures of ageing and cognition in children and mothers,” was authored by Laurel Raffington, Yayouk E. Willems, Jessica F. Sperber, Sepideh Zarandooz, Molly A. Costanzo, Daniel A. Notterman, Colter Mitchell, Elliot M. Tucker-Drob, Greg J. Duncan, Nathan A. Fox, Lisa A. Gennetian, Katherine A. Magnuson, Sonya V. Troller-Renfree, Hirokazu Yoshikawa, Elisabeth B. Binder, K. Paige Harden, and Kimberly G. Noble.
Leave a comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.