I wrote an op-ed for Bridge Michigan about a year ago that explained the benefits of direct cash subsidies compared to conventional government welfare programs. I highlighted Rx Kids as an example, but not as a blanket endorsement of the program. Rx Kids is a promising alternative to the state’s welfare programs, but it is too early to tell if it is a good use of taxpayer money.

From an economic perspective, cash payments can be more efficient and effective at alleviating poverty than the typical welfare programs managed by government bureaucracies. Direct cash programs should require less administrative overhead, which means taxpayers’ resources are used more directly for their purpose.

Existing welfare programs rely on the assumption that politicians and bureaucrats know what low-income households need most. Cash payment programs, on the other hand, let the recipients decide how these resources can be put to best use. They assume that most people in poverty know how to improve their condition and can do so if they receive financial assistance.

Some argue that giving cash to the needy is a poor use of public money, because recipients will spend it badly. A person’s poverty, the argument goes, is evidence of their incompetence at managing financial resources. There may be some truth to this, but letting politicians and bureaucrats decide what low-income families need does not solve the problem. A better approach would be to boost financial literacy among the poor — teaching them how to better help themselves.

Despite the benefits of direct cash programs, there are several concerns with Rx Kids. The first is that the state already spends millions on multiple welfare programs for the same population — pregnant women and mothers — that Rx Kids targets. No one can deny that having a child can be stressful in many ways, including financially. But is spending more through Rx Kids the best use of taxpayer funds if it duplicates other efforts?

Another concern is the administrative costs of Rx Kids. According to The Detroit News, Rx Kids has higher administrative costs than many would expect: a 10% fee goes to GiveDirectly, the organization that operates the program, and another 10% fee is taken by Michigan State University, which provides marketing services and research. Perhaps these costs could be reduced once the program is more firmly established, but 20% in administrative fees is what one might expect from a conventional, bureaucrat-run welfare program.

A final concern is the program’s rapid growth. When I first wrote about Rx Kids, it was a small pilot project serving low-income mothers in Flint. Now it’s operating in dozens of cities across the state. It distributed $6 million to Flint residents in 2024. The next year, though, it received $270 million from state taxpayers. That’s more than double what GiveDirectly, which runs similar programs in 11 countries, distributed in 2024 across its whole operation, according to The Detroit News. Scaling up this quickly may have made it more difficult for the program to operate efficiently and effectively.

These concerns do not negate the promise of Rx Kids. There are early signs that it helps in the communities where it operates. As a direct cash program, it has many advantages over conventional welfare systems. But lawmakers should continue to scrutinize the program and answer these concerns before expanding it again.

Permission to reprint this blog post in whole or in part is hereby granted, provided that the author (or authors) and the Mackinac Center for Public Policy are properly cited.