diff --git a/cash_transfer_studies.md b/cash_transfer_studies.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..222ba57
--- /dev/null
+++ b/cash_transfer_studies.md
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+Effects of restrictions to Income Support on health of lone
+mothers in the UK: a natural experiment study
+
diff --git a/other_simulations.md b/other_simulations.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..edc8302
--- /dev/null
+++ b/other_simulations.md
@@ -0,0 +1,5 @@
+# Bath study 2017
+
+Two cash transfer simulations were modelled in Martinelli (2017a; 2017b): Full Scheme 1 and Full Scheme 2. Full Scheme 1 features cash transfers at the same level as existing benefits, with a withdrawal of the majority of child, employment, and retirement benefits. The new weekely payments modelled were £67.01 per dependent child, £73.10 per working age adult, and £155.60 for pensioners. These new transfers, coupled with the elimination of most existing benefits, resulted in a revenue shortfall of £143 billion. This shortfall was made up by eliminating the personal allowance, abolishing the lower and upper limit for National Insurance Contributions (NIC) so that the contribution is 12% of all income, and increasing the income tax rate by 4% in all income bands. This scheme increased working age poverty by 7%, increased child poverty by 1%, and caused 42% of households to experience a drop in disposible income. Full Scheme 2 followed a similar pattern of replacing existing benefits with cash transfers, with the addition of disability supplements. Disabled adults received an additional £35.75 per week, while disabled children received £59.45 per week. Severely disabled adults received an extra £76.65 per week on top of the disability supplement, while for severely disabled children, the additional payment was an extra £24.07. These added disability supplements resulted in a revenue shortfall of £184 billion. This gap in funding was bridged with similar steps as in Full Scheme 1, the difference being that the income tax was raised by 8% in all income bands instead of 4%. Full Scheme 2 proved to be more successful, reducing both working age and child poverty by between 14% and 15%. However, 44% of households would experience a drop in disposable income.
+
+Partial schemes studied were Torry’s (2016a) Scheme β and Reed and Lansley’s (2016) Scheme 2. Scheme β featured a weekly £60 cash transfer to adults aged 25-64, £50 per week for ages 16-24, £30 a week for pensioners, and £20 per week for children. All previous benefits remained, with these cash transfers used in calculating means-tested benefits. The tax implications of this scheme required the elimination of the personal allowance, the standardization of NIC rates, and all tax bands going up 3%. Child poverty dropped 33%, adult poverty fell by 20%, and the disposable income losses for low income households were very limited. Scheme 2's weekley payments were £71 for adults 25-64, £61 for adults 16-24, £51 for pensioners, and £59 for children. All benefits remained as before, except for the removal of Child Benefit. The cash transfers were used in the recalculation of means-tested benefits. Similar to Scheme β, the personal allowance would have to be eliminated, NIC rates would have to be standardized, and all income tax bands would need to be raised, this time by 5%. After these measures, Scheme 2 would still carry a net cost of £8 billion. The results of this scheme were the fall of child poverty by 44%, the reduction of adult poverty by 14%, and a gain in disposable income for roughly three quarters of low-income households.
diff --git a/references.bib b/references.bib
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..66964e0
--- /dev/null
+++ b/references.bib
@@ -0,0 +1,131 @@
+
+@article{aizer_long-run_2016,
+	title = {The {Long}-{Run} {Impact} of {Cash} {Transfers} to {Poor} {Families}},
+	volume = {106},
+	issn = {0002-8282},
+	url = {https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/10.1257/aer.20140529},
+	doi = {10.1257/aer.20140529},
+	abstract = {We estimate the long-run impact of cash transfers to poor families on children's longevity, educational attainment, nutritional status, and income in adulthood. To do so, we collected individual-level administrative records of applicants to the Mothers' Pension program—the first government-sponsored welfare program in the United States (1911–1935)—and matched them to census, WWII, and death records. Male children of accepted applicants lived one year longer than those of rejected mothers. They also obtained one-third more years of schooling, were less likely to be underweight, and had higher income in adulthood than children of rejected mothers. (JEL I12, I14, I18, I32, I38, J16, N32)},
+	language = {en},
+	number = {4},
+	urldate = {2020-08-27},
+	journal = {American Economic Review},
+	author = {Aizer, Anna and Eli, Shari and Ferrie, Joseph and Lleras-Muney, Adriana},
+	month = apr,
+	year = {2016},
+	pages = {935--971},
+	file = {Aizer et al. - 2016 - The Long-Run Impact of Cash Transfers to Poor Fami.pdf:C\:\\Users\\bkhas\\Zotero\\storage\\F5ZB4WZ2\\Aizer et al. - 2016 - The Long-Run Impact of Cash Transfers to Poor Fami.pdf:application/pdf}
+}
+
+@article{katikireddi_effects_2018,
+	title = {Effects of restrictions to {Income} {Support} on health of lone mothers in the {UK}: a natural experiment study},
+	volume = {3},
+	issn = {2468-2667},
+	shorttitle = {Effects of restrictions to {Income} {Support} on health of lone mothers in the {UK}},
+	url = {http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2468266718301099},
+	doi = {10.1016/S2468-2667(18)30109-9},
+	abstract = {Background
+In the UK, lone parents must seek work as a condition of receiving welfare benefits once their youngest child reaches a certain age. Since 2008, the lower age limit at which these Lone Parent Obligations (LPO) apply has been reduced in steps. We used data from a nationally representative, longitudinal, household panel study to analyse the health effects of increased welfare conditionality under LPO.
+Methods
+From the Understanding Society survey, we used data for lone mothers who were newly exposed to LPO when the age cutoff was reduced from 7 to 5 years in 2012 (intervention group 1) and from 10 to 7 years in 2010 (intervention group 2), as well as lone mothers who remained unexposed (control group 1) or continuously exposed (control group 2) at those times. We did difference-in-difference analyses that controlled for differences in the fixed characteristics of participants in the intervention and control groups to estimate the effect of exposure to conditionality on the health of lone mothers. Our primary outcome was the difference in change over time between the intervention and control groups in scores on the Mental Component Summary (MCS) of the 12-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-12).
+Findings
+The mental health of lone mothers declined in the intervention groups compared with the control groups. For intervention group 1, scores on the MCS decreased by 1·39 (95\% CI −1·29 to 4·08) compared with control group 1 and by 2·29 (0·00 to 4·57) compared with control group 2. For intervention group 2, MCS scores decreased by 2·45 (−0·57 to 5·48) compared with control group 1 and by 1·28 (−1·45 to 4·00) compared with control group 2. When pooling the two intervention groups, scores on the MCS decreased by 2·13 (0·10 to 4·17) compared with control group 1 and 2·21 (0·30 to 4·13) compared with control group 2.
+Interpretation
+Stringent conditions for receiving welfare benefits are increasingly common in high-income countries. Our results suggest that requiring lone parents with school-age children toseek work as a condition of receiving welfare benefits adversely affects their mental health.
+Funding
+UK Medical Research Council, Scottish Government Chief Scientist Office, and National Health Service Research Scotland.},
+	language = {en},
+	number = {7},
+	urldate = {2020-08-27},
+	journal = {The Lancet Public Health},
+	author = {Katikireddi, Srinivasa Vittal and Molaodi, Oarabile R and Gibson, Marcia and Dundas, Ruth and Craig, Peter},
+	month = jul,
+	year = {2018},
+	pages = {e333--e340},
+	file = {ScienceDirect Snapshot:C\:\\Users\\bkhas\\Zotero\\storage\\4J87TUVH\\S2468266718301099.html:text/html;ScienceDirect Full Text PDF:C\:\\Users\\bkhas\\Zotero\\storage\\CJSQMU8J\\Katikireddi et al. - 2018 - Effects of restrictions to Income Support on healt.pdf:application/pdf}
+}
+
+@article{torry_static_2019,
+	series = {{EM13}/19},
+	title = {Static microsimulation research on {Citizen}’s {Basic} {Income} for the {UK}: a personal summary and further reflections},
+	url = {https://www.euromod.ac.uk/publications/static-microsimulation-research-citizen%E2%80%99s-basic-income-uk-personal-summary-and-further},
+	abstract = {A Citizen’s Basic Income, sometimes called a Basic Income, a Universal Basic Income, or a Citizen’s Income, is an unconditional and nonwithdrawable income paid to every individual. The purpose of this paper is to summarise the results of microsimulation research on Citizen’s Basic Income schemes undertaken by this author during the past fifteen years; to update recent research; and to reflect on the journey taken by that research. The paper explores the ways in which the contemporary policy context and constructive criticism of previous research projects have resulted in changes to the methods employed, discusses ways in which the research has influenced the policy process, and draws comparisons with the work of other microsimulation researchers. The increasingly lively debate on Citizen’s Basic Income has generated a wide variety of questions relating to Citizen’s Basic Income’s feasibility, and the penultimate section of this paper addresses some of the most pressing of those questions. A final section draws lessons from the research journey recounted in this paper, and suggests avenues for future research activity.},
+	language = {en},
+	journal = {EUROMOD Working Paper Series},
+	author = {Torry, Malcolm},
+	month = jul,
+	year = {2019},
+	pages = {50},
+	file = {Torry - Static microsimulation research on Citizen’s Basic.pdf:C\:\\Users\\bkhas\\Zotero\\storage\\PMKKF3TW\\Torry - Static microsimulation research on Citizen’s Basic.pdf:application/pdf}
+}
+
+@article{waldfogel_tackling_2010,
+	title = {Tackling {Child} {Poverty} \& {Improving} {Child} {Well}-{Being}:},
+	url = {https://www.fcd-us.org/tackling-child-poverty-and-improving-child-well-being-lessons-from-britain/},
+	language = {en},
+	author = {Waldfogel, Jane},
+	month = dec,
+	year = {2010},
+	pages = {15},
+	file = {Waldfogel - 2010 - Tackling Child Poverty & Improving Child Well-Bein.pdf:C\:\\Users\\bkhas\\Zotero\\storage\\JGKTV8PB\\Waldfogel - 2010 - Tackling Child Poverty & Improving Child Well-Bein.pdf:application/pdf}
+}
+
+@techreport{martinelli_exploring_2017,
+	title = {Exploring the {Distributional} and {Work} {Incentive} {Effects} of {Plausible} {Illustrative} {Basic} {Income} {Schemes}},
+	url = {https://www.bath.ac.uk/publications/exploring-the-distributional-work-incentive-effects-of-plausible-illustrative-basic-income-schemes/},
+	language = {en},
+	institution = {Institute for Policy Research},
+	author = {Martinelli, Dr Luke},
+	month = may,
+	year = {2017},
+	pages = {72},
+	file = {Martinelli - Exploring the Distributional and Work Incentive Ef.pdf:C\:\\Users\\bkhas\\Zotero\\storage\\Q2ZH2AP8\\Martinelli - Exploring the Distributional and Work Incentive Ef.pdf:application/pdf}
+}
+
+@techreport{martinelli_fiscal_2017,
+	title = {The {Fiscal} and {Distributional} {Implications} of {Alternative} {Universal} {Basic} {Income} {Schemes} in the {UK}},
+	url = {https://www.bath.ac.uk/publications/the-fiscal-and-distributional-implications-of-alternative-universal-basic-income-schemes-in-the-uk/},
+	language = {en},
+	institution = {Institute for Policy Research},
+	author = {Martinelli, Dr Luke},
+	month = mar,
+	year = {2017},
+	pages = {72},
+	file = {Martinelli - The Fiscal and Distributional Implications of Alte.pdf:C\:\\Users\\bkhas\\Zotero\\storage\\H9A5CVCK\\Martinelli - The Fiscal and Distributional Implications of Alte.pdf:application/pdf}
+}
+
+@article{torry_evaluation_2016,
+	series = {{EM5}/16},
+	title = {An evaluation of a strictly revenue neutral {Citizen}’s {Income} scheme},
+	url = {https://www.euromod.ac.uk/publications/evaluation-strictly-revenue-neutral-citizen%E2%80%99s-income-scheme},
+	abstract = {A Citizen’s Income – an unconditional and nonwithdrawable income for every individual –would offer many advantages: but because the UK’s current benefits and tax systems are complex, transition to a benefits system based on a Citizen’s Income could be difficult to achieve. Two previous EUROMOD working papers have studied some of the effects and financial feasibilities of a variety of Citizen’s Income schemes.2 The advent of EUROMOD G3.0, and the availability of new FRS data, has made possible a more up to date evaluation of one of the schemes discussed in the second of the earlier working papers: a strictly revenue neutral scheme that could be paid for by raising Income Tax rates by 3\%, by abolishing Income Tax Personal Allowances, and by making adjustments to National Insurance Contributions, and that would leave in place the existing social security structure and reduce households’ means-tested benefits by taking into account their Citizen’s Incomes. The earlier working papers show that such a scheme would impose almost no disposable income losses on low income households at the point of implementation, and would impose only manageable losses on households in general. This new working paper updates the previous research on such a scheme, offers a variety of additional evaluations, and studies the possibility of paying a Citizen’s Income to a single year cohort as a first step in rolling out such a Citizen’s Income scheme to the entire working age population.},
+	language = {en},
+	journal = {EUROMOD Working Paper Series},
+	author = {Torry, Malcolm},
+	month = jun,
+	year = {2016},
+	pages = {13},
+	file = {Torry - An evaluation of a strictly revenue neutral Citize.pdf:C\:\\Users\\bkhas\\Zotero\\storage\\6XTTQQ2X\\Torry - An evaluation of a strictly revenue neutral Citize.pdf:application/pdf}
+}
+
+@techreport{reed_universal_2016,
+	address = {London},
+	title = {Universal {Basic} {Income}: {An} idea whose time has come?},
+	url = {https://www.compassonline.org.uk/publications/universal-basic-income-an-idea-whose-time-has-come/},
+	institution = {Compass},
+	author = {Reed, Howard and Lansley, Stewart},
+	month = may,
+	year = {2016}
+}
+
+@techreport{lansley_basic_2019,
+	address = {London},
+	title = {Basic {Income} for {All}: {From} {Desirability} to {Feasibility}},
+	language = {en},
+	institution = {Compass},
+	author = {Lansley, Stewart and Reed, Howard},
+	month = jan,
+	year = {2019},
+	pages = {40},
+	file = {Lansley and Reed - Basic Income for All From Desirability to Feasibi.pdf:C\:\\Users\\bkhas\\Zotero\\storage\\7W6VB4IT\\Lansley and Reed - Basic Income for All From Desirability to Feasibi.pdf:application/pdf}
+}