Category: Stockton Economic Empowerment Demonstration

  • By Madeline Shannon

    Original article: https://www.mercedsunstar.com/news/local/article255486671.html#twt-evening-mer

    After a contentious public hearing over how to use money allotted by the federal American Rescue Plan Act, the Merced City Council on Monday reviewed a long list of proposals community members and youth advocates had pressed for in the last few weeks.

    The first of two public hearings resulted in a discussion among members of the City Council about how the city’s $27 million in ARPA funds will be used. 

    Some of the programs topping the list were the establishment of an affordable housing trust fund, the creation of jobs for high school students, a universal basic income program and premium pay for essential workers, especially farm workers.

    However, some city officials didn’t support some of the biggest expenditures community advocates suggested in recent weeks — particularly the establishment of a basic universal income program.

    Such a program would be similar to one established in Stockton, called the Stockton Economic Empowerment Demonstration.

    Launched by now-former Stockton mayor Michael Tubbs two years ago, the program paid $500 a month to city residents selected at random. The program was paid for by donations from private organizations.

    District 2 Councilmember Fernando Echevarria was the strongest supporter of such a program Monday night. Councilmember Jesse Ornelas has also previously spoken in support of establishing such a program.

    “Stockton is on point on this and their research is showing that it was successful,” Echevarria said.

    Echevarria supported funneling funds from $2.5 million toward sending out checks to program participants between ages 16-21 or 18-21 every month, saying he’d like the youth who get universal income to use the money productively, like spending money on clothes, shoes and food. 

    “That’s their money. If we give them money, they can spend it any damn way they please,” Echevarria said.

    Echevarria even went as far as to make a motion establishing a universal basic income program for youth, although the motion failed because only Ornelas and Councilmember Bertha Perez voted in support of the program. 

    Meanwhile, Mayor Matt Serratto and council members Kevin Blake, Sarah Boyle and Delray Shelton voted against it.

    “I’m 100 percent for job training,” said Boyle, who represents District 5. “There’s a lot of other resources out here in Merced we need to make sure we’re advertising about. Universal basic income, I’m not really for.

    Perez supported the idea, saying that every dollar the city invested in the youth would pay off in the long run. 

    Councilmember Delray Shelton said he didn’t know about giving residents “random, miscellaneous checks.” Serratto said he didn’t think there was enough money to make the program last long-term.

    “Giving people checks, no way,” Blake added during the meeting. “I don’t know if that’s beneficial.”

    Other possible uses

    Using that money to cover the backlog of unpaid water, sewer and garbage disposal bills to the city also came up on Monday night, something city officials previously discussed as the total amount of delinquent utility bills hovers around a half million dollars.

    “The city should look at ARPA funds to make sure they cover that portion of water, sewer and garbage bills,” said Sheng Xiong, a policy advocate for the Leadership Council for Justice and Accountability. 

    “This utility bill was not accepted when people applied for rental assistance with the programs here locally. It’s important we look at ARPA funds to make sure that is covered, especially since we know people were affected by this and couldn’t pay their bills.”

    In a previous demonstration to push for that ARPA money to be invested in programs that helped youth in the city, youth organizers said they wanted $2.5 million to be used to fund the guaranteed universal income program for youth in Merced, and $500,000 to be used to create new jobs for high school students.

    “We need youth investments. That money needs to go to the youth,” said Astrid Morales, a Merced youth activist who spoke at Monday’s City Council meeting.

    “You have $27 million, $3 million towards youth investment, housing, redistricting, we need that.”

    Others in previous weeks advocated for additional funding for affordable housing in the amount of $5 million, another big item pushed by many in the previous two public hearings over use of ARPA funds. 

    This and other priorities voiced by members of the community lined up with those of City Council members, who individually support priorities as diverse as youth services, affordable housing, zoo improvements, public safety, Yosemite Parkway beautification, street improvements, tourism, and infrastructure, among other priorities.

    Other areas of interest indicated on Monday night include construction of a youth center in south Merced to keep kids out of trouble, rental support, utility support, more services to the homeless, food bank support, eviction prevention and broadband internet expansion. 

    City staff will come back to the City Council during their next public hearing on ARPA funds to break down how members could vote to spend the city’s ARPA dollars.

    The post Could Merced, California, get a universal basic income program next? appeared first on Basic Income Today.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • We can’t be an anti-racist, just society until we have safe and stable families and communities. And for this we need cash. Let’s first provide a guaranteed income to stabilize every family, then we can get to the hard work of healing this nation together.

    By Natalie Foster

    • Natalie Foster is the cofounder of the Economic Security Project, a network dedicated to advancing a guaranteed income in America.
    • The following is an excerpt from her contribution to the anthology, The New Possible: Visions of Our World Beyond Crisis.
    • She says in the wake of COVID-19, economic resilience can be part of our reality through guaranteed income.

    Guaranteed income is a robust response to so many contradictions.

    We see the benefits of divorcing work from worth playing out in Stockton, California. Mayor Michael Tubbs, the first Black mayor elected to office at the ripe age of  26, is running a guaranteed income pilot. He makes the case that poverty comes from a lack of cash, not a lack of character.

    We knew providing a stable income was important pre-pandemic, but post-pandemic it is a lifeline for Stockton families. Guaranteed income helps these families weather the crisis with more resilience than their neighbors.

    I can’t help but imagine how this approach could have helped millions more if it had been part of our economic approach across the country.

    What would it mean to have this kind of an economic floor?

    Named the Stockton Economic Empowerment Demonstration (SEED), the program gives 125 families in Stockton an income floor of $500 a month for 18 months. The income is unconditional. This means there are no strings attached and no work requirements.

    Stockton is a city in the process of reinventing itself, with no shortage of challenges. It was the largest city to go bankrupt after the last financial crisis. It’s a city that is representative of America, with a majority of the population being people of color.

    One in four Stocktonians live in poverty; the median income is around $44,000.

    book 553x677
    The New Possible anthology. 

    The families participating in the guaranteed income pilot provide compelling data for how cash transfers allow families to remain resilient in the face of a pandemic. In these families, we see how no-strings-attached cash provides a way forward in economic uncertainty.

    That resilience is the promise of the SEED project in particular, and the promise of guaranteed income more broadly.

    To see the impact on people’s lives, let’s look at one recipient’s story.

    For Tomas, the outbreak happened as he was getting his security clearance for a job at the airport. As with many companies, the pandemic caused a hiring freeze and halted the application process at the airport.

    Suddenly finding himself out of work and without any jobless benefits, the guaranteed income became Tomas’ sole financial fallback.

    Tomas can’t live on $500 or even $1,000 a month, but the guaranteed income is not meant to be an income on its own. It supports resilience. It works to stabilize the erratic ups and downs and to help people through difficult times in times of widespread destabilization. This is something we should all have, and our current political and economic moment makes it a possibility. We can make this kind of economic care and resilience part of our reality in the wake of COVID-19.

    We are often asked, “What do people spend the money on?” The answer: People spend the money on food, general supplies, and utilities. But wanting to know exactly where the money goes misses the point. A more interesting question is: “What does the money do?”

    The evidence shows that meaningful psychological and emotional gains are embedded in providing people with the resources to take care of their basic needs.

    Researchers Dr. Amy Castro Baker and Dr. Stacia West, who are independently evaluating the Stockton program, understand this point. Beyond tracking the basics of where the money goes, they are evaluating questions of wellbeing, including stress levels, hope, and feelings of belonging. The two researchers define hope in the way that they ask the question: “Do you want to wake up in the morning?” Hope is about goals, pathways, and agency. As Dr. Castro Baker puts it, “Keep in mind — the opposite of hope is despair. Understanding how economic security is linked to hope is key. Many would argue that change and justice are simply not possible without hope.”

    They also ask interviewees, “Do you feel seen? Do you feel seen as a human being by institutions with power over your life?”

    If you don’t feel like you matter as a human, your capacity for hope is limited.

    Hope is one of the most significant predictors of whether or not you will engage with positive and healthy interventions when capitalism has already spit you out, or when it has communicated to you that you do not serve a purpose.

    According to Dr. Castro Baker, “Hope is about saying: To what degree can a justice-based intervention such as a guaranteed income serve as a financial vaccine in a prolonged stressful environment with an unknown end?”

    Early trends indicate that, with just $500 cash a month, people can move the needle on both hope and belonging. 

    Natalie Foster. Tyler Driscoll

    Better Ideas Aren’t Necessarily New Ideas

    It has been heartening to see guaranteed income percolate into Stockton society as a possible response to the pandemic and the treacherous economic insecurity experienced by so many Americans. Giving people cash works.

    It’s not a new idea; Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. also spoke and wrote extensively on the power of a guaranteed income. He was pushed in his thinking by activists such as Johnnie Tillmon, who played a critical role in the National Welfare Rights Organization.

    Nearly 50 years ago Johnnie Tillmon, a welfare rights advocate, wrote,

    “The truth is, a job doesn’t necessarily mean an adequate income. There are some ten million jobs that now pay less than the minimum wage, and if you’re a woman, you’ve got the best chance of getting one.” 

    Tillmon’s words are still true today. 

    As a result of the pandemic, more and more Americans experience low wages, income insecurity, degrading interactions with benefits offices, and lack of protections. While these have been the consistent experience of many Black Americans, the blacklight is exposing others to this harsh reality as well. The extraordinary economic disruption is now moving beyond the segregated zip codes, where it has lingered untended for far too long.

    While the impacts of the coronavirus mean that more people now experience economic inequality, people of color have been advocating for economic justice for decades.

    We now have an opportunity and a responsibility to advance new rules with old roots in a meaningful way right now.

    Even in a short amount of time, we’ve made tremendous strides. When I cofounded the Economic Security Project, guaranteed income struck people as a far-fetched idea and even a pipe dream. But that just isn’t the case anymore.

    The uncomfortable truth is that there will be future pandemics — whether they are the result of climate change, job automation, or something entirely unforeseen. We will find ourselves here again. But let’s make sure that, when that day comes, the economic realities of American families are in a very different place. Right now, we can begin to offer the economic resilience required to weather these changes and the turmoil they bring.

    As a nation, there is still much reckoning to be done. But we can’t be an anti-racist, just society until we have safe and stable families and communities. And for this we need cash. Let’s first provide a guaranteed income to stabilize every family. Then we can get to the hard work of healing this nation together.

    _____

    This excerpt is adapted from The New Possible: Visions of Our World Beyond Crisis, published by Cascade Books, an imprint Wipf and Stock Publishers.

    Natalie Foster is the president and cofounder of the Economic Security Project, a network dedicated to advancing a guaranteed income in America and reining in the unprecedented concentration of corporate power. 

    View original article: https://www.businessinsider.com/seed-program-stockton-california-guaranteed-income-benefits-marginalized-families-2021-3

    The post Excerpt About UBI from The New Possible: Visions of Our World Beyond Crisis appeared first on Basic Income Today.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • We can’t be an anti-racist, just society until we have safe and stable families and communities. And for this we need cash. Let’s first provide a guaranteed income to stabilize every family, then we can get to the hard work of healing this nation together.

    By Natalie Foster

    • Natalie Foster is the cofounder of the Economic Security Project, a network dedicated to advancing a guaranteed income in America.
    • The following is an excerpt from her contribution to the anthology, The New Possible: Visions of Our World Beyond Crisis.
    • She says in the wake of COVID-19, economic resilience can be part of our reality through guaranteed income.

    Guaranteed income is a robust response to so many contradictions.

    We see the benefits of divorcing work from worth playing out in Stockton, California. Mayor Michael Tubbs, the first Black mayor elected to office at the ripe age of  26, is running a guaranteed income pilot. He makes the case that poverty comes from a lack of cash, not a lack of character.

    We knew providing a stable income was important pre-pandemic, but post-pandemic it is a lifeline for Stockton families. Guaranteed income helps these families weather the crisis with more resilience than their neighbors.

    I can’t help but imagine how this approach could have helped millions more if it had been part of our economic approach across the country.

    What would it mean to have this kind of an economic floor?

    Named the Stockton Economic Empowerment Demonstration (SEED), the program gives 125 families in Stockton an income floor of $500 a month for 18 months. The income is unconditional. This means there are no strings attached and no work requirements.

    Stockton is a city in the process of reinventing itself, with no shortage of challenges. It was the largest city to go bankrupt after the last financial crisis. It’s a city that is representative of America, with a majority of the population being people of color.

    One in four Stocktonians live in poverty; the median income is around $44,000.

    book 553x677
    The New Possible anthology. 

    The families participating in the guaranteed income pilot provide compelling data for how cash transfers allow families to remain resilient in the face of a pandemic. In these families, we see how no-strings-attached cash provides a way forward in economic uncertainty.

    That resilience is the promise of the SEED project in particular, and the promise of guaranteed income more broadly.

    To see the impact on people’s lives, let’s look at one recipient’s story.

    For Tomas, the outbreak happened as he was getting his security clearance for a job at the airport. As with many companies, the pandemic caused a hiring freeze and halted the application process at the airport.

    Suddenly finding himself out of work and without any jobless benefits, the guaranteed income became Tomas’ sole financial fallback.

    Tomas can’t live on $500 or even $1,000 a month, but the guaranteed income is not meant to be an income on its own. It supports resilience. It works to stabilize the erratic ups and downs and to help people through difficult times in times of widespread destabilization. This is something we should all have, and our current political and economic moment makes it a possibility. We can make this kind of economic care and resilience part of our reality in the wake of COVID-19.

    We are often asked, “What do people spend the money on?” The answer: People spend the money on food, general supplies, and utilities. But wanting to know exactly where the money goes misses the point. A more interesting question is: “What does the money do?”

    The evidence shows that meaningful psychological and emotional gains are embedded in providing people with the resources to take care of their basic needs.

    Researchers Dr. Amy Castro Baker and Dr. Stacia West, who are independently evaluating the Stockton program, understand this point. Beyond tracking the basics of where the money goes, they are evaluating questions of wellbeing, including stress levels, hope, and feelings of belonging. The two researchers define hope in the way that they ask the question: “Do you want to wake up in the morning?” Hope is about goals, pathways, and agency. As Dr. Castro Baker puts it, “Keep in mind — the opposite of hope is despair. Understanding how economic security is linked to hope is key. Many would argue that change and justice are simply not possible without hope.”

    They also ask interviewees, “Do you feel seen? Do you feel seen as a human being by institutions with power over your life?”

    If you don’t feel like you matter as a human, your capacity for hope is limited.

    Hope is one of the most significant predictors of whether or not you will engage with positive and healthy interventions when capitalism has already spit you out, or when it has communicated to you that you do not serve a purpose.

    According to Dr. Castro Baker, “Hope is about saying: To what degree can a justice-based intervention such as a guaranteed income serve as a financial vaccine in a prolonged stressful environment with an unknown end?”

    Early trends indicate that, with just $500 cash a month, people can move the needle on both hope and belonging. 

    Natalie Foster. Tyler Driscoll

    Better Ideas Aren’t Necessarily New Ideas

    It has been heartening to see guaranteed income percolate into Stockton society as a possible response to the pandemic and the treacherous economic insecurity experienced by so many Americans. Giving people cash works.

    It’s not a new idea; Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. also spoke and wrote extensively on the power of a guaranteed income. He was pushed in his thinking by activists such as Johnnie Tillmon, who played a critical role in the National Welfare Rights Organization.

    Nearly 50 years ago Johnnie Tillmon, a welfare rights advocate, wrote,

    “The truth is, a job doesn’t necessarily mean an adequate income. There are some ten million jobs that now pay less than the minimum wage, and if you’re a woman, you’ve got the best chance of getting one.” 

    Tillmon’s words are still true today. 

    As a result of the pandemic, more and more Americans experience low wages, income insecurity, degrading interactions with benefits offices, and lack of protections. While these have been the consistent experience of many Black Americans, the blacklight is exposing others to this harsh reality as well. The extraordinary economic disruption is now moving beyond the segregated zip codes, where it has lingered untended for far too long.

    While the impacts of the coronavirus mean that more people now experience economic inequality, people of color have been advocating for economic justice for decades.

    We now have an opportunity and a responsibility to advance new rules with old roots in a meaningful way right now.

    Even in a short amount of time, we’ve made tremendous strides. When I cofounded the Economic Security Project, guaranteed income struck people as a far-fetched idea and even a pipe dream. But that just isn’t the case anymore.

    The uncomfortable truth is that there will be future pandemics — whether they are the result of climate change, job automation, or something entirely unforeseen. We will find ourselves here again. But let’s make sure that, when that day comes, the economic realities of American families are in a very different place. Right now, we can begin to offer the economic resilience required to weather these changes and the turmoil they bring.

    As a nation, there is still much reckoning to be done. But we can’t be an anti-racist, just society until we have safe and stable families and communities. And for this we need cash. Let’s first provide a guaranteed income to stabilize every family. Then we can get to the hard work of healing this nation together.

    _____

    This excerpt is adapted from The New Possible: Visions of Our World Beyond Crisis, published by Cascade Books, an imprint Wipf and Stock Publishers.

    Natalie Foster is the president and cofounder of the Economic Security Project, a network dedicated to advancing a guaranteed income in America and reining in the unprecedented concentration of corporate power. 

    View original article: https://www.businessinsider.com/seed-program-stockton-california-guaranteed-income-benefits-marginalized-families-2021-3

    The post Excerpt About UBI from The New Possible: Visions of Our World Beyond Crisis appeared first on Basic Income Today.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • The Bay Area is ground zero for UBI. More than anything, these pilots could help normalize the concept of guaranteed income, for the public and national political leaders. 

    by Benjamin Schneider

    “I’m hella proud of Oakland today,” Michael Tubbs said during a recent press event announcing one of the nation’s largest ever guaranteed income programs. Tubbs, the former mayor of Stockton who has become a national champion of guaranteed income, is starting to see his advocacy bear fruit downriver. Oakland is just one of several Bay Area cities or counties to announce a guaranteed income program in recent weeks, joining Marin, Santa Clara, and San Francisco. 

    For years, the Bay Area has served as the intellectual and financial epicenter of the movement for a universal basic income (UBI), which seeks to provide everyone, or almost everyone, with an unconditional payment every month — like a stimulus check that keeps on coming.

    Now, the Bay Area is rapidly becoming a hotspot for more targeted guaranteed income experiments. These programs provide a no-strings-attached monthly income to specific vulnerable populations, including pregnant women, artists and youth aging out of the foster care system.  

    But the boosters of these guaranteed income pilots are explicit in their desire to see them scale into something closer to UBI in the hopes that, someday, such policies could eliminate poverty altogether. These efforts could also intersect with other progressive policy goals, like reparations for Black people. A lot of work — and debate — remains before these revolutionary aspirations become a reality. But advocates in the Bay Area are planting the seeds. 

    Our vision is an Oakland that has closed the racial wealth gap, and where all families thrive,” Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf said when announcing the city’s guaranteed income program, which she views as a test case in a growing national movement.

    “Oakland joins with cities across this great nation to create a body of evidence that says guaranteed income is a policy that must be adopted at the federal level.”

    From Artists to Foster Kids

    If you take a look at the Stanford Basic Income Lab’s map of guaranteed income programs around the world, the Bay Area stands out as a crowd of colorful dots, each one representing a different experiment. 

    Oakland’s pilot is the largest in the region, providing $500 per month to 600 low-income families for at least 18 months. All applicants must make no more than 50 percent of Oakland’s median income, or about $59,000 for a family of three, although half of the spots will be reserved for people making a lot less — about $30,000 for a family of three. Applications will be released starting this spring for residents of a specific corner of East Oakland, and for residents citywide in the late summer. Eligible recipients will be selected at random.

    Marin County’s program will function similarly, giving 125 low-income women of color with children $1,000 per month for two years. Applications will be released sometime this year. 

    Meanwhile, down in Santa Clara County, a guaranteed income program that began in September 2020 has been providing 72 youth who have aged out of the foster care system $1,000 per month. State Senator Dave Cortese, who spearheaded Santa Clara’s guaranteed income pilot as a County Supervisor, has introduced legislation, SB 739, that would provide a guaranteed income to the approximately 3,000 youth who age out of the foster care system for three years.

    San Francisco is developing a smorgasbord of guaranteed income programs for different groups of people. Yerba Buena Center for the Arts (YBCA) will give $1,000 a month to 130 artists living in San Francisco for six months. Applicants must live in one of about a dozen zip codes that have been particularly hard-hit by the pandemic, and be considered “very low income,” which in San Francisco means earning less than $60,900 for a single person and under $87,000 for a family of four.

    The program encourages applicants whose artistic practice “is rooted in a marginalized community,” and welcomes teachers and craftspeople as well as fine arts professionals. Applications are out now on the YBCA website, and are due by April 15. 

    San Francisco’s Department of Public Health is currently working on a guaranteed income pilot called the Abundant Birth Project, specifically for pregnant Black and Pacific Islander women. The mothers will receive $1,000 per month while they are pregnant, and for another six months after their child is born. Yet another guaranteed income program is being planned as part of the Dream Keeper Initiative, programs designed to help the Black community with funds redirected from law enforcement. 

    Why Now?

    Guaranteed income is hardly a new idea. It was championed by Martin Luther King, Jr. at the end of his life, when he began to offer a more radical critique of capitalism. “The solution to poverty is to abolish it directly by a now widely discussed measure: the guaranteed income,” King wrote in his 1967 book Where Do We Go From Here: Chaos or Community? In the late ’60s and ’70s, the concept actually had bipartisan appeal. Before becoming architects of the Bush war machine, Nixon Administration officials Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney supported guaranteed income-esque programs, but were unable to get more far-reaching policies through Congress.

    Fast forward to the 21st Century, and two people stand out for reviving this idea.

    The first is Michael Tubbs, who, soon after being elected mayor of Stockton at the ripe age of 26, began developing a guaranteed income pilot for his hometown. In March, researchers released data on the first year of the two-year program. The results?

    Employment among the recipients increased by 12 percent, anxiety and fatigue decreased, and recipients spent most of their additional income on essentials.

    The 25-page analysis by social scientists from the University of Pennsylvania and the University of Tennessee found the program to be largely a success. 

    The second high-profile guaranteed income champion is the tech entrepreneur Andrew Yang, whose 2020 presidential campaign hinged upon his proposed “Freedom Dividend” — a monthly $1,000 stipend for every American adult. After gaining a cult following during his presidential bid, Yang is now the frontrunner in the race for mayor of New York City, with guaranteed income serving as a major plank of his platform. (Tubbs had no such luck: His success in drawing national media attention to UBI appears to have harmed him in his 2020 mayoral reelection campaign, which he lost to a Republican.)

    But for all of their agitation, Yang and Tubbs’ impact on people’s perception of guaranteed income might pale in comparison to recent actions by the federal government. Over the past year, the stimulus payments most Americans received likely did more to normalize guaranteed income than any prior advocate or program.

    “Once you give them that experience of what a guaranteed income or other kinds of cash assistance could look like, people start to be more open to it,” says Max Ghenis, CEO of the UBI Center.

    There used to be a lot of false stereotypes that poor people would misuse direct cash assistance, but when “COVID-19 hit that really went away for the most part,” says Grace Peter, director of national partnerships at Family Independence Initiative, one of the groups leading Oakland and Marin’s guaranteed income pilots. Government stimulus and other forms of mutual aid — like people contributing to GoFundMe drives for strangers — helped normalize “the belief that people are going to do the right thing” with their money.

    The pandemic and the racial justice protests this year also highlighted just how extreme inequality has become in America, and in the Bay Area in particular. “There’s a correlation between low income and communities of color and COVID impact,” says Deborah Cullinan, president of YBCA. The pandemic created a sense of urgency to explore new financial models that “reach the people that have been hardest hit and have not necessarily been funded in the past.” Clearly, there is a strong demand for this kind of assistance: Cullinan says YBCA’s guaranteed income program for artists has already received 1,600 applications for just 130 spots.

    Why Here? 

    While guaranteed income is gaining steam among local elected officials all over the Bay Area, the concept has long held sway in Silicon Valley. The animating concern of Andrew Yang’s UBI push was the threat automation and AI presented to the likes of store clerks, factory workers, and long-haul truckers. This continues to be a major fear in Silicon Valley, serving as an inspiration for Y Combinator’s 2016 UBI pilot in Oakland. 

    Guaranteed income easily fits with an “engineering mindset that emphasizes simplicity when you’re trying to solve a problem,” Ghenis says.

    “We have this problem of poverty, so the simplest thing that you can do to reduce that is give people money so that they’re not in poverty.” It’s also an innovative social policy — something that tech people, and Bay Area politicians, are attracted to. Hence the local pools of money that are available to fund these programs. 

    The Economic Security Project, which funded the Stockton pilot, was co-founded by Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes. San Francisco’s Abundant Birth Project is being funded in part by a $1.1 million gift from Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey. The Marin Foundation is funding the majority of Marin County’s guaranteed income program, while Oakland’s program will be fully funded by a philanthropy called Blue Meridian Partners. It’s a similar story to that of California’s recent cash assistance programs for undocumented people, which were funded by big philanthropies and tax windfalls from the IPO boom

    Perhaps the region’s extreme — and extremely visible — inequality is also pushing leaders to act.

    “The Bay Area and San Francisco have struggled with economic disparity in a major public and glaring way, with housing insecurity and affordability issues,” Cullinan says.

    “The pandemic brought that into such stark relief and I think that also has catalyzed the fact we had to solve this problem.”

    Piloting Reparations

    With their explicit focus on racial justice, several of the Bay Area’s guaranteed income programs point the way toward another policy idea that was once thought radical and now appears to be gaining traction. In an article about Oakland’s pilot, Los Angeles Times columnist Erika D. Smith wrote that its focus on people of color is “not that far off from providing Black Americans with financial reparations for slavery — an idea that, until fairly recently, had gone absolutely nowhere politically.” 

    This has already emerged as a complicating factor in the planning and promotion of the Bay Area’s guaranteed income pilots. During the initial announcement of Oakland’s program, Mayor Schaaf said it would only be open to people of color. The program has since changed its criteria, editing the language on its website to remove references to race in the eligibility requirements. Explicitly race-based criteria could pose legal challenges to government-supported guaranteed income programs in California, where affirmative action remains illegal. However, those laws wouldn’t affect Oakland’s pilot, which is being fully funded by non-profits. 

    “This pilot is targeting families with the greatest disparities, and a lot of those are based on our systems, which are rooted in structures that hold Black and brown families back,” Peter says.

    While racial justice is the guiding principle of Oakland’s guaranteed income pilot, Peter emphasizes that anyone who fits the income and geographic criteria can still apply. That’s also true for San Francisco’s guaranteed income pilot for artists.

    In all likelihood, beneficiaries of these programs will be people of color. The median income for white households in Oakland is three times that of Black households. Across the country, Black and Latino people have about one-tenth the wealth of white people. These economic disparities, combined with continued racial discrimination, contribute to disparities in areas like health, education, housing, and the workforce. The Bay Area’s guaranteed income pilots come as California begins to assemble a task force to study reparations for Black people.

    While Ghenis sees the value of explicitly targeting racial groups for guaranteed income, he’s concerned about how that could affect the momentum for UBI at the federal level.

    “The polling for something like reparations, which is really what this gets at, is a lot less favorable than it is for more universal or at least race-neutral policies like cash assistance as part of the American Rescue Plan.”

    Another variable for these programs is the way they interact with government benefits. Guaranteed income can usually be classified as a gift, and therefore not be taxed. However, these payments may affect participants’ ability to access other benefits. Oakland and San Francisco’s programs will have benefits counselors who will help participants navigate these issues. 

    Community Benefits 

    But getting through these logistical headaches will be well worth it, researchers believe. Ghenis is particularly excited that many of the Bay Area’s guaranteed income programs are focused on families with children. “There’s a ton of evidence that reducing poverty has really important effects for child development,” he says. “As they grow older, they have higher earnings, they have better health and better mental health, they have even longer life expectancy.” 

    Researchers are also considering how these programs affect the communities that guaranteed income recipients are a part of.

    “What happens when you shift from a destabilized community to an economically more stable community?” Cullinan asks.

    “We’re trying to understand not only what are the impacts in the artist’s life, but also what’s the increase in creative output, what’s the positive impact in the community?”

    The Oakland pilot is designed to specifically measure neighborhood-level effects. With one half of participants concentrated in East Oakland, and the rest scattered throughout the city, researchers will be looking to see if there’s a noticeable difference in the economic, public safety, educational, and health outcomes in the community where many people are receiving guaranteed income. 

    San Francisco District Attorney Chesa Boudin has voiced his support SB 739, the state law that would extend Santa Clara’s guaranteed income for foster youth across the state, highlighting its impact on criminal justice.

    “Transitional age youth without familial support far too often end up victimized or arrested and incarcerated for committing crimes to support themselves,” he said in a statement.

    “Providing all people — especially our most vulnerable — with economic stability promotes public safety.”

    While researchers are eager to see the results of these experiments, the fact is there’s already been a lot of research on cash assistance and guaranteed income programs. It turns out that when you give poor people money, their lives get a lot better. More than anything, these pilots could help normalize the concept of guaranteed income, for the public and national political leaders. 

    “Research is important and data helps us to learn, what works and what doesn’t work,” Peter says. “But it’s really narratives that are going to shift hearts and minds and ultimately policies.”

    _____

    To see original article please visit: https://www.sfweekly.com/news/the-bay-area-is-ground-zero-for-ubi/

    The post From Stockton to Oakland, Santa Clara to San Francisco, basic income is gaining traction and proving effective appeared first on Basic Income Today.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • A new report on the California’s city’s no-strings-attached money experiment shows that the $500 monthly stipend did more than improve recipients’ well-being: It helped them find work.

    By Sarah Holder

    In 2019, 125 people in Stockton, California, started receiving $500 a month, no strings attached. The privately funded program, known as the Stockton Economic Empowerment Demonstration (SEED), was designed not only to boost a handful of low-income residents in this struggling city of 300,000 in the Central Valley. It was a rigorous, randomized-control study, meant to evaluate whether, and how, doling out a localized basic income could work, and what happens to those who receive free money.

    This week, a report on the first year of the two-year study was released. Some results document the experiment’s physical and emotional effects:

    People who received the cash reported less pain, anxiety and fatigue, and spent more time with their kids.

    But perhaps the most significant change associated with the program was its effect on their work status:

    Among recipients, the rate of full-time employment leaped 12 percentage points over the course of just one year.

    “The last year has shown us that far too many people were living on the financial edge, and were pushed over it by Covid-19,” said former Stockton Mayor Michael Tubbs, in a statement. “SEED gave people the dignity to make their own choices, the ability to live up to their potential and improved economic stability going into the turmoil of the pandemic.”

    The report released this week was authored by Stacia West, an assistant professor at the University of Tennessee College of Social Work, and Amy Castro Baker, an assistant professor at the University of Pennsylvania in the School of Social Policy and Practice. It draws from data spanning November 2018 through February 2020.

    Given that the pandemic had not yet started, this first report chronicles the effects of “one year of guaranteed income when the economy was somewhat normal but not working” for people, said West, in a Clubhouse conversation on Wednesday evening.

    A second report, due in 2022, will explore how the program fared in a very different economic environment. 

    In an interview with Bloomberg Businessweek last year, Martin and Baker both stressed that the point of an experiment like this wasn’t to magically cure the other social problems that create barriers to housing stability or economic mobility. Their goal wasn’t to get more people working nor let more people quit. And though they tracked how recipients spent their money (mostly on food and necessities, and less than 1% on alcohol or tobacco) they didn’t restrict that spending the way other welfare programs do. The main question they wanted to answer, Baker said, was:

    “To what degree does guaranteed income serve as a financial vaccine?” 

    Based on qualitative and quantitative data pulled from a control group and the treatment group, the researchers found that the $500 a month had a profound impact on the people who received it. Unsurprisingly, income volatility, already above the average baseline for many participants in the study, was 1.5 times higher in the control group than the treatment group. The monthly payments allowed people to absorb unplanned economic shocks, like a car repair or an unpaid sick day. Using the Kessler Psychological Distress scale, which measures anxiety and depression, researchers found that the mood of the cash recipients improved more than that of the control group; fatigue and physical pain dropped, too. 

    Rather than discourage work, the $500 bought the recipients more time to find better work.

    People’s feelings of agency and control over their lives also improved. 

    Participants like Tomas Vargas and Zohna Everett shared stories of finding new employment opportunities and re-opening bank accounts. Lorrine Paradela started sleeping better. In the report, one woman described acquiring a new sense of “chosen vulnerability,” which “included the ability to reduce asking for money or resources from friends and family that people had strained or difficult relationships with, and to limit time in and with relationships they remained in under duress.”

    Such findings won’t surprise anyone following basic income experiments in the U.S. or elsewhere.

    (In a tweet about the report, West characterized the study results, via a paraphrase from her mentor, as “piercing insights into the obvious.”) Results from a trial in Manitoba designed to address rural poverty in the 1970s took years to be analyzed, but eventually a researcher found that recipients were less likely to be hospitalized, and teens who got the cash were more likely to complete high school. Finland’s short-lived UBI program determined that participants reported a happier life. In 2019, Ontario canceled a three-year trial after only two years but found that doctors’ office visits decreased and social relationships were strengthened. The U.S. ran a series of negative income tax experiments in the late 1960s and early ’70s that were also phased out when political tides shifted.

    Still, results on employment effects have tended to be considered inconclusive, or too small to indicate a difference one way or the other. That’s where Stockton’s program breaks new ground: The results show a statistically significant shift in employment prospects for those who participated in the study compared to the control group.

    When the experiment started, in February 2019, 28% of recipients reported having full-time employment. By the next year, that percentage had jumped to 40%.

    The control group, meanwhile, only saw their employment rates rise 5% over that same period, from 32% to 37%. 

    Rather than discourage work, as critics of cash programs like it fear, the $500 bought the recipients more time to find better work, West said: time to apply for a new job, to buy a nice suit for the job interview, to find childcare and transportation. And the statistics don’t account for the recipients who have long been doing work that doesn’t get counted as income, like care work in the home — or the people who got the benefit of freedom to quit a job with volatile hours and poor pay. Cities are changing fast. Keep up with the CityLab Daily newsletter.

    Matt Zwolinski, the director of the Center for Ethics, Economics and Public Policy at the University of San Diego, sounded a more cautionary note about the results, telling the Associated Press that “Tubbs’ claim that this experiment proves that a basic income doesn’t negatively affect employment is overstated,” because of the limited duration of the study: Knowing that the $500 payments were finite could deter people from exiting the labor market entirely. 

    Stockton’s experiment ended in January 2021,and so did Tubbs’ time in City Hall — he lost his reelection bid in November.

    But the organization he started in 2020, Mayors for a Guaranteed Income, now has 40 mayors on board, half of whom have committed to starting pilots in their communities and to advocating for federal action.

    SEED has already been eclipsed in duration and scope by the Magnolia Mothers’ Fund, which is starting its third cycle, giving a new group of Black mothers in Jackson, Mississippi $1,000 a month. 

    Advocates hope that the other findings that will trickle out of these basic income-piloting cities over the coming months will push the idea further into the national conversation. Tubbs definitely sees a role for it now, as Congress argues over minimum wage and considers a pared-down Covid aid bill that narrows eligibility requirements

    “The data proves that, particularly in a pandemic, it’s not wise policy to make less people eligible for what we know is necessary and needed,” Tubbs said in a press conference. 

    _____

    To see original article please visit: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-03-05/what-did-500-a-month-buy-in-stockton-jobs

    The post The Biggest Payoff From Stockton’s Basic Income Program: Jobs appeared first on Basic Income Today.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Biden’s stimulus plan contains an experiment in Universal Basic Income. The bill’s child tax credit has the potential to change the way that the United States addresses poverty.

    By Sheelah Kolhatkar

    On Tuesday, March 9th, Amy Castro Baker stood on her front porch and watched as her two teen-age children boarded a bus and went off to school together for the first time in a year. Her sense of relief was profound. Baker, a researcher of economic mobility and an assistant professor at the University of Pennsylvania’s School of Social Policy & Practice, had been through a challenging period familiar to most parents—and especially to working mothers. For the past year, she had balanced the demands of a full-time job with overseeing her kids’ online schooling, while also cooking, cleaning, and running the household as a single parent.

    “We’re at the point in my home where it’s a choice between what’s higher risk, covid or my kids’ mental health,” Baker said. “I’m not sure I could have handled another month.”

    These are the kinds of difficulties that the American Rescue Plan, the $1.9-trillion pandemic-relief bill recently passed by Congress, was designed to address. Benefits in the bill could help millions of families who are facing similar challenges and are living under much greater financial precarity.

    The bill, which was signed by President Joe Biden on Thursday, offers a variety of benefits intended to address economic hardship caused by the pandemic.

    No Republicans voted for the legislation, largely based on the argument that the pandemic will end soon and the economy doesn’t need the help. And it’s true that some aspects of the legislation go beyond the demands of the pandemic, addressing economic disparities that existed before covid-19 hit. The bill includes provisions to give one-time, fourteen-hundred-dollar payments to individuals earning fewer than eighty thousand dollars a year, and to increase unemployment insurance by three hundred dollars per week until early September.

    But it is the plan’s expanded, fully refundable child tax credit—which is worth thirty-six hundred dollars for each child under age six and three thousand dollars for those aged six to seventeen—that has the greatest potential to change the way that the United States addresses poverty.

    _____

    Sheelah Kolhatkar is a staff writer at The New Yorker, where she writes about Wall Street, Silicon Valley, economics, and politics. She is the author of “Black Edge: Inside Information, Dirty Money, and the Quest to Bring Down the Most Wanted Man on Wall Street.”

    To see original article please visit: https://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/joe-bidens-stimulus-plan-contains-an-experiment-in-universal-basic-income?utm_source=nl&utm_brand=tny&utm_mailing=TNY_Daily_031521&utm_campaign=aud-dev&utm_medium=email&bxid=5bd66f832ddf9c6194388f0d&cndid=21862528&hasha=4b8351c39eab9a607e0729efcc51c26d&hashb=f76512918a8feeca6884ef8539e55ed2daa041a9&hashc=89b19f33b8b780fe458223e541d60addc12272dcbac4e272bb9cfbcd8ddd1214&esrc=AUTO_PRINT&mbid=CRMNYR012019&utm_term=TNY_Daily

    The post Child Tax Credit Opens the Door for UBI appeared first on Basic Income Today.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • For too long people in need have been stereotyped as lazy and dependent. Cash payments give them the breathing room to chart a better life course.

    Opinion by Noah Smith

    Biden’s $1.9 trillion Covid-19 relief bill has passed the Senate, clearing the way for it to become law. Much of the legislation is dedicated to handing out cash to individual Americans. This is a sign post for a tectonic shift that’s underway in U.S. policy thinking toward unconditional money transfers as the optimal way to help people in need.

    When I was a kid in the 1980s and 1990s, everyone was talking about “a hand up, not a handout.” This was the mantra of workfare—the idea of using government programs to incentivize labor and self-betterment.

    In 1996, President Bill Clinton signed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act, which turned the old Aid to Families with Dependent Children welfare program into a state-administered block grant with work requirements. Meanwhile, the flagship next-generation welfare programs touted by economists and so-called “third way” reformers were the Earned Income Tax Credit and the Child Tax Credit, which only give people money if they also manage to earn some income for themselves.

    A quarter century later, America is reevaluating this approach. One reason is that workfare just didn’t seem to be that effective. Mothers were the main group who were supposed to be pushed toward work by welfare reform and the EITC-style programs.

    But more than two decades later, the prime-age employment-to-population ratio for women is basically the same as in 1996:

    Not Working Out So Well

    Job-focused welfare reform hasn’t done much to improve women’s participation in the workforce.

    Source: Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

    In a recent paper, economist Henrik Kleven reviewed the evidence that EITC encourages work, and found it was pretty shaky. It seems that the old saw that welfare recipients choose to live off of government benefits instead of getting a job was never particularly accurate, and instead the number of people who work is mainly limited by the available job opportunities.

    In fact, evidence is starting to pile up in favor of cash transfers. A 2018 literature review by Ioana Marinescu finds that various unconditional transfer programs tend to boost incomes, as well as health and education. And despite the widespread belief that welfare benefits encourage people not to work, that outcome appears small. For programs that give out cash unconditionally — like the payouts from the Alaska Permanent Fund, which distributes natural resource revenues to the people of Alaska — the reduction in employment is negligible.

    In fact, some new evidence shows that unconditional cash handouts might even encourage work. In a recent experiment, some philanthropists randomly selected 125 residents of poor neighborhoods in the city of Stockton, California, to receive $500 a month in cash. Instead of working less, the people who got the cash actually worked more!

    This result dovetails with a new understanding of how poverty keeps people down. The old theory that poverty is caused by a culture of dependency just doesn’t seem to hold water. Instead, poor people seem to be weighed down by a whole host of small risks and hassles. Those day-to-day difficulties make it very hard for poor people to better their situations; to go to school to become a nurse instead of a cashier, to move to a better neighborhood, to look for a better job. Instead of working on their futures, poor people are trapped by the need to pay the bills of the moment. 

    In this theory, cash helps boost people out of poverty by helping them fend off daily troubles; by greasing the wheels of life and giving them a cushion against risks. Helping them afford the essentials provides more breathing room to think about the next step in life.

    Interviews with the Stockton residents who received the $500 a month spent it almost entirely on necessities like food and utilities. In interviews, they reported feeling more confident, engaged and entrepreneurial — which fits with the observation that they were more likely to go get full-time jobs. It also fits with the substantial body of evidence that a strong social safety net encourages people to start more businesses.Opinion. Data. More Data.Get the most important Bloomberg Opinion pieces in one email.EmailSign UpBy submitting my information, I agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Service and to receive offers and promotions from Bloomberg.

    In other words, a handout, more often than not, is actually a hand up. This realization is fueling a growing consensus that cash benefits are the way forward for the U.S. Popular books and political campaigns are starting to advocate universal basic incomes. Think tanks like the Washington Center for Equitable Growth, with strong ties to the Biden administration, are advocating more cash benefits as the first line of defense against poverty.

    And the Biden administration is listening. The new Covid relief bill — poised to be the administration’s first major legislative success — has no less than five major cash-transfer programs.

    These include $1,400 checks to Americans making up to $75,000, an additional $300 a week in unemployment benefits through Sept. 6, and assistance for rent and health care.

    But most importantly, the bill includes a child allowance of $250 to $300 a month per child (depending on age). That adds up to $6,000 a year for a family with two kids older than age 6 — a very substantial boost to income. And it comes with no work requirements. If the benefit becomes permanent after this year, as many expect, it will transform the U.S. welfare system.

    That’s a good thing.

    For too long, low-income Americans have been forced to scrabble constantly just to stay afloat, denied cash by politicians who stereotype them as lazy and dependent.

    The new child allowance will give them the breathing room they need to work for a better tomorrow. And it will serve as a test run for even more unconditional cash programs, like a universal basic income. When it comes to boosting people out of poverty, it seems that cash really is king.

    _____

    Noah Smith is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist. He was an assistant professor of finance at Stony Brook University, and he blogs at Noahpinion.

    To see original article please visit: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-03-09/covid-relief-cash-may-be-the-welfare-of-the-future

    The post Cash Is Turning Out to Be the Most Effective Welfare appeared first on Basic Income Today.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.