������Ƶ

All around the United States, guaranteed income programs are taking shape as American cities are taking the safety net more seriously than ever. The COVID-19 pandemic has only exposed just how dire this need is—how many Americans are on the brink of experiencing poverty and losing the resources necessary to weather emergencies.

Guaranteed income is similar to universal basic income, but guaranteed income is a cash transfer policy aimed at creating by giving cash, no strings attached, directly to those who need it.

Recently, Pittsburgh announced its guaranteed income pilot, which would provide $500 a month to 200 low-income households, particularly households led by Black women. This pilot is one of many in cities across the nation, and will add to the growing number of families positively affected by this policy. But go further west and we see how these guaranteed income programs are not just limited to cities and can take shape throughout an entire state—California.

Cash payments for those in need might seem like a simple and direct policy, but many experts have argued for and against guaranteed income, as well as opportunities for its growth. California in particular has guaranteed income policies even before the COVID-19 pandemic drove up public interest and political will for revamping the safety net. Many of the founding members of are leading pilots across California, and with support. Unanimously approved, California set aside $35 million for the first state-wide guaranteed income program. California’s efforts on guaranteed income provide invaluable insight for future guaranteed income projects elsewhere in the country:

To reduce the potential for cultural stigma, partner with the community to share real stories of the ways guaranteed income affects families.

While there may be enough political will to fund a guaranteed income pilot, cultural stigma around accessing public support can still exist within a community. Narratives have the power to connect people and build understanding. In Stockton’s guaranteed income pilot, the (SEED) underscored the importance of creating rigorous quantitative data collection, but also pairing that with qualitative storytelling that shows the depth of the impact throughout recipients lives.

In a conversation ������Ƶ CA hosted with mayors piloting guaranteed income programs, Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf detailed the value of narrative work and data to inform public views. “The Stockton demonstration did a great job of debunking this myth that if you give people money, they won’t work. One of the most powerful pieces of data that came out of Stockton, was that if you give people money, they are actually twice as likely to become fully employed,” she said.

Several guaranteed income pilots, like program for young adults transitioning out of the foster system, have shown that connecting community members together through story can help debunk myths around who deserves cash and give insight to how people use it to create stability and better their lives. Since politics and culture sometimes move at different speeds, effective guaranteed income programs can diffuse this tension by bringing people together to share their experiences with public systems and the potential they see for access to guaranteed income to transform their lives.

Address Widespread Mistrust in Public Systems

Communities’ mistrust in public systems is rooted in years of systemic exclusion from welfare policy and systems that were shaped by , causing low in the government. Some guaranteed income programs, for example , target racial wealth inequality by building on the concept of reparations to make amends for the impact of slavery and racist systemic exclusion.

Even as these programs focus on minimizing income and race inequality, the marginalized communities they are working for still have negative perceptions of receiving public support. Mekie, a and a mother of six, articulated her community’s opinion about receiving public support. “I’m their mom, I’m supposed to take care of them. So asking for help from somebody… it’s just embarrassing,” she said. “I don’t want nobody to know, because when I was on Facebook, when they were first starting this [guaranteed income] program, people were just horrible about this program.” Many marginalized communities have negative opinions and/or experiences interacting with government systems, and policymakers must work toward building trust and transparency.

Fortunately, researchers have found some ways to build community trust and address misinformation. Some of these ways include creating transparent, well-documented research and consent processes, keeping participant data private, and preventing in case participants rely on other forms of public assistance. Another pilot, , emphasizes the importance of participants having a clear understanding of what level of anonymity they may or may not have, and works to keep participant data anonymous. The Compton Pledge amplifies the voices of cash recipients not only by sharing narratives, but by incorporating community and recipient feedback into the program, a process that helps ensure policies serving the community come from the community.

Move Away From Pilots and Toward Sustainable Policy Pathways

Those experiencing poverty in the United States need a better solution than temporary pilots. Guaranteed income could potentially reduce poverty and improve the long-term well-being of families, and the current social safety net doesn’t do enough to help lift people out of poverty and build an economic foundation. While some may perceive cash assistance as unfair or an expensive policy that might disincentivize employment, the reality is that costs of living are rising while and often people have no choice but to make financial trade-offs between work, family, leisure, and health. The policy building conversation must move from why we must reimagine the safety net to how. All things considered, alleviating poverty will take a significantly larger investment than what has been budgeted for these pilots.

Whether to the safety net remains a central question to researchers considering long-term policy pathways for guaranteed income. However, regardless of the extent and scope of guaranteed income, gathering more information on scaling the policy will be crucial to moving from short-term experiments to long-lasting life-changing policies. At the federal level, expansions to the , the , and the pandemic-related have shown the potential positive impact that cash assistance could have on working families. Local level demonstrations also have the power to inform federal policy-making, according to Mayor Schaaf, “Demonstrations in cities like ours are going to show that investing in people’s health and well-being and stability is the best investment we can make not just morally, which is first and foremost, but actually financially.”

Ensuring Financial Stability

With change comes growing pains, but renewing the safety net with equitable policies that efficiently reach the people who need it would be worth the work and investment over time. Whether the public moves toward guaranteed income or whether policymakers build a more robust safety net in other ways, it will be critical to involve the community voice, build trust, and find sustainable solutions. These guaranteed income pilots across the United States have provided plenty of evidence for how local governments, and potentially the federal government, could take a different approach to ending poverty. Monthly cash payments might allow people not only the financial resources necessary to find that next job, but also the flexibility, stability, and time to celebrate and enjoy life.