Last week, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors nearly approved the allocation of $5 million for a Guaranteed Income Pilot before seeking more information.
Under a proposal to the Board, the Guaranteed Income Program would fund 200 families at $1,000 per month for a period of 18-months. It is unclear who the county would target for the program or how families would be selected, nor what the reporting requirements, if any, would be.
The Board opted to instead request the Employment and Human Services Department to return in July with a full presentation on how they see the basic income program working and who would receive funding and possible measurables for both short-term and long-term goals.
The Board did approve the following for Measure X funds:
- $2.5 million for family justice Center
- $1.9 million for library deferred maintenance
- $1 million for seniors disabled residents
- $1.5 million for fire (zone-haven and vegetation managements)
- $7.5 million for African American Wellness Center
- $72,400 for elections equity
- $1 million for food insecurity
- $2 million for innovation fund
- $30k for MXCAB
The sticking point, was a Guaranteed Income Pilot, which was pulled from the motion and voted on separately after Supervisors Candace Andersen, Diane Burgis and Ken Carlson expressed concerns and wanted more information.
Supervisor John Goia shared he believed there had been a lot of work done on guaranteed income.
“This is a chance for us to show through a pilot of what could work,” stated Gioia.
Andersen was not so sure. She was not in favor of it at this point due to her many unanswered questions. She suggested a subcommittee or bring it back for a greater discussion.
Burgis also had many unanswered questions on the program and questioned if the money could be better spent helping more people–especially seniors and food insecurity around the county.
“I do have an issue starting pilot projects in the county because even John said sometimes we start something and then there is an expectations we continue it,” said Burgis who adding that others who did this were using grants or ARPA funds.
“The other issue I have with it, when talking to folks, they were asking for $5 million and asked them how much that would be. They wanted to do 18-months at $1,000 per month and that would have helped 200 people. That would have left $1.2 million to go to the administration and that is about 28% which seemed really high to me.
Gioia attempted to interrupt Burgis who shot him down stating she was speaking.
“My concerns is if we are going to do guaranteed income, if its only going to help 200 people when I did my math is less than 2/10 of a percentage point of people in Contra Costa County. But being more generous that would be less than ½ a percent point of all the households in the county,” said Burgis. “I wonder if $5 million could help more people. I think it was Caitlin Sly who said they help hundreds of thousands of people on $800k a month. So I am concerned by going into this area we are taking resources, that are limited, to help fewer people than more. I will go with my colleagues on this.”
Burgis noted as an advocate its really easy to go out and ask for something you believe in, but sitting on the dais that is looking at all the departments, all the responsibilities all they need to serve, the question was if this would serve the most people with the funding they have available.
Gioia invited staff back up to further explain the Guaranteed Income Pilot program.
Rachel Rosekind shared they were asking for $1,000 a month to support at least 200 households in the county for a period of 18 months.
“We did that because we knew that would be covered in the ask but also there would be a lot of additional $1.4 million above that,” explained Rosekind. “We did that because we knew there would be operational costs because the pilot is not set up and not clearly visible, but the intent is to maximize the reach of those funds into the pockets of those who need them.”
Rosekind further explained they would look at different models and ways to do disburse the money and reduce the amount for administrative funding needs.
She called the proposal a minimum threshold, but the intent is to make sure the bulk of the funding goes into the people who need it, not the partners for disbursement or evaluation or other critical tasks to the pilot.
“We want to make sure the money goes where it is intended to go which is to alleviate the pain, the suffering, reduce poverty and promote long-term outcomes that come out of short-term investment,” explained Rosekind.
Burgis asked who were the 200 families this would support.
“When we heard public comments today, there are a lot more people who would want to do this. I am hesitant to go there because we are not going to help every person who wants to do this,” said Burgis. “I feel like there are other ways we can help people.”
Burgis said this was her not arguing that staff was wrong, but her concern is finding the best way to spend limited resources the county has and who they would not include because that would be 277 families at $1,000 a month.
“How do we pick 277 families?,” asked Burgis.
Gioia then interjected by highlighting other pilot programs.
“Of course this is not enough to help everybody, but that is not a reason to say if we can’t help some, we are not going to help nobody,” stated Gioia.
Both Burgis and Carlson simultaneously responded together “nobody is saying that”.
Gioia continued, “the idea is to come back with details with all these really good points being discussed and figure out the target population we want to go after.”
Andersen stated this appears very short-term and what happens after noting people were benefiting from short-term infusion of money but wanted to understand where its spent. She was also was concerned about who the target population is and who would receive the funding.
“I don’t feel like we as a county have taken a deep enough dive to look at the short-term effects, but really the longer terms. Is this the best way to help the most people,” said Andersen. “My concern with allocating money now, we are setting an expectation to the county that we will be releasing a program. I am not there yet to say I embrace a program. I am at the point where I want to learn more.”
Andersen again stated she was not at a point where she would even make that placeholder allocation.
Carlson voiced some of the same concerns as Andersen and Burgis.
“Are we maximizing the impact we can have with this kind of investment. I will temper that with the long-term impacts,” said Carlson. “I will temper my position if we can show the long-term impacts from better jobs, better living conditions which save us investments in other programs… I am anxious to see more of a presentation to alleviate some of my fears.”
Supervisor Federal Glover shared he believed a presentation would make greater sense because they needed to make sure who was involved in the program that they do it with guiding principles—diversity, equity, inclusion and access.
“I look forward to this coming back to us,” said Glover. “These dollars do not get out of the gate unless its approved by this board.”
Glover suggested they approve the allocation of funding but it comes back for approval after a presentation.
Gioia made the motion to conditionally allocate $5 million funding to EDHD and they would make a presentation before the board makes a final vote. Carlson offered a substitute motion that they simply bring back a presentation and then vote because the money was not going anywhere anyway arguing they needed to make a more informed decision before allocating money–the funding source will be decided at a later date.
Staff said they could bring back a workshop on both short-term and long-term outcomes of Guaranteed Income. Who would they prioritize? How much and how long? And expected outcomes based on research and priorities. What does the overhead and evaluation look like. Could there be any matching funds be included. Staff said that bringing back this report prior to the budget approval in May was optimistic—but could get back by June/July timeline.
Andersen suggested they come back in July before the summer break.
It was approved in a 5-0 vote.
To watch the meeting, click here
Related
- Dec 12, 2023 – Contra Costa Board of Supervisors to Consider Measure X Allocations
- Nov 3, 2023 – California Launches First State-Funded Guaranteed Income Pilot Programs
- Aug 15, 2023 – County Supervisors to Receive Guaranteed Income Presentation
- Feb 8, 2023 – Bill Would Create Guaranteed Income for Homeless High School Seniors
- Dec 8, 2022 – Program Providing Basic Income to Black Pregnant Women Expands Across California
7 comments
Well, comrades. Line up for your handout. No need to work. The politburo has decided what is best for you. Take from the workers and distribute to the lazy. No need to take that $20 an hour fast food job.
Making program that subsidizes families when you can’t even define “Family”, “Woman”, or “Man” without using circular logic, means you’ve really just made a glorified “Human Fund”. More commie bs that surely won’t come back to bite us in the end.
Ehh…work smerk. Why work when I can live of the backs of others. Diversity, inclusion, equity=DIE. Code word for where people need not apply. So sick of this BS. My tax dollars are meant to provide me,the tax payer, necessary services like fire and sheriff. Or animal control. How about securing necessary broadband services in rural east county areas that can’t get internet or cable services? How about funding to fix our roads. Or how about fixing the public school system that is nothing but a joke in this county? I could think of many ways to spend this money in ways that serves ALL COUNTY RESIDENTS, not just the bottom of the barrel 200 or so that are too lazy to get a job and support themselves like responsible people do. Perhaps I should just quit my job and demand other county residents take care of me instead of having to deal with getting up in the morning, doing something that holds value, and being paid. Like I said, work smerk. Who needs it??
Ummm…. and where is the money to fund this handout??? Oh that’s right, it’s the average worker who works 60 hours a week or has two jobs. They can pay for it.
More liberal handouts of tax dollars. I don’t understand how these actions are not a gift of public funds. This BOS is the absolute worst.
The gift that keeps on giving. Hardwork and pride are overated.
Just using the word “income” is an insult. An income is earned by definition. This is how they change the meaning of words and hence culture. The proper word would be handout.