On Tuesday, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors directed staff to create a plan that could launch a Guaranteed Income Program.
Staff is proposing an allocation of $5.7 million in Measure X funding (one-time money) to launch guaranteed income pilots countywide. The item did not come without debate as it was more than a 4-hour discussion as the Board of Supervisors received a report along with hearing other programs which included residents in the City of Concord and City of Antioch which aimed to provide a safety net. There were also many public comments.
According to Marla Stuart, Employment and Human Services Director, she shared both short-term and long-term outcomes of pilots.
Short-term benefits include:
- Income volatility reduced better able to cover unexpected expenses
- Positive effects on educational attainment
- Improved physical and mental health, brain development in children, and access to medical care
- Increased financial resilience
- Decreased anxiety and stress
- Feeling less isolated from others
- Spending more time with family
Stuart added that the “long-term” report card on guaranteed income is still incomplete. Full effects of the cash transfers on the recipients might not be clear for years.
She also highlighted that 13 cities, 15 counties, and 7 states are offering guaranteed income pilots.
Video: the following 15 min was of Supervisors Candace Andersen, Diane Burgis and Ken Carlson asking questions ahead of public comments and discussion.
Staff Recommendation:
Based on a careful analysis of local needs, gaps, and opportunities, this report recommends that the Board of Supervisors approves eight specific actions to advance the implementation of publicly-funded guaranteed income pilots in Contra Costa County:
- Allocate $5.75 million in Measure X one-time funds to plan and launch guaranteed income pilots countywide, using the following financial model:
-
- $4.5 million for direct payments of $1,000/month for 18 months for approximately 250 residents countywide $500,000 to Employment & Human Services Department for program oversight, grants selection and management, pilot evaluation, and community engagement
- $750,000 for community-based organizations to plan, launch, administer, and staff 3–4 guaranteed income pilots over 18 months
- Prioritize the following four populations to participate in the pilots: youth transitioning out of foster care, residents who are unhoused or unstably housed, residents returning to the community after incarceration, and families with young children (ages 0–6) who are experiencing significant financial hardship
- Structure the pilots to provide pilot participants with up to $1,000 per month for 18 months, based on local needs and best practices.
- Establish the following eligibility criteria: participants must be Contra Costa residents during the pilot, and they cannot concurrently participate in another guaranteed income programs.
- Create a process for County leaders and residents to collaborate on soliciting and selecting community organizations to implement the guaranteed income pilots.
- Obtain available income exemptions from the State to ensure that pilot participants avoid financial harm to the greatest extent possible during their participation.
- Join the Counties for Guaranteed Income (CGI) Coalition to access technical support and resources
- Designate the Board of Supervisors’ Equity Committee as the body to oversee and advise on the planning, implementation, and evaluation of the new pilots.
Supervisor Discussion / Direction
Supervisor John Gioia was ready to provide direction for the $1 million (AB 109) for those coming back from incarceration—as one of the four identified populations.
“I am supportive of the other populations; the question is how many does the board want to take on here. There are three other populations and we do have Measure X funds available. Do we want to include two other populations?” asked Gioia who encouraged getting more people enrolled in a system.
Supervisor Andersen stated her goal was to break the cycle of poverty and was not questioning helping those in need.
“I do not see guaranteed income as being the best vehicle for us to do this,” said Andersen. “This program will serve 250 people… I would much prefer us to leverage those same dollars and put them into the programs Marla has described where if we can bolster Calworks, 6,000 people would benefit. Or 12,000 people if we were focusing on Calworks and CalFresh.”
Andersen stated when asked what the pilot would achieve, they were getting, “well, it shows others that we care, it would show that we like pilots for guaranteed income, it would bolster maybe the state would come up with one. She also added for guaranteed income to continue, it would require the Federal Government and State to increase funding for these programs.
“Other concerns I have with guaranteed income is there is a cliff after 18-months, the people fall off,” said Andersen who called most of the benefits anecdotal but was not showing her what they need to justify spending $5.5 million on 250 people to demonstrate what seemed logical that someone will be happier and have a better quality of life when getting more money for a short period of time. “The other concern was there was no strings attached and guaranteed income does not require you to do some pretty basic things.”
Andersen proposed there should be a mandatory financial literacy class – learning fiscal responsibility and managing money and becoming a core requirement of guaranteed income to assist people. She also wanted folks to get new skills that will really help people.
Supervisor Carlson admitted he had struggled with Guaranteed Income but was on board with the AB 109 monies being used because its sitting there.
“The direction we need to give is a firm dollar number. Here is the budget and go make a plan that fits within the dollar budget this board decides to give,” said Carlson. “It would help us identify the population, identify enrollment eligibility requirements.”
He had some concerns over the overhead and costs but wanted to hear more from the Board.
Supervisor Diane Burgis again highlighted her concerns over helping a limited amount of people. She also said her constituents, many have stopped her to say they “don’t like it”.
“I’ve said over and over, I really want to leverage these dollars to help the most people. And I do recognize that a $1,000 can help 250 households, it really could. But I am not sure it’s the best use of our money. I do like the idea of engaging with those who are getting services and trying to lift them up and keep those services for them,” stated Burgis.
Burgis questioned the amount of jobs created for the non-profits which stood not to create any.
Carlson said again he was struggling with this from many perspectives but wanted to offer a compromise. He wanted to adjust the funding allocation to the following:
- $1 million for AB 109 implementation
- $3 million to direct Guaranteed income payments
- $2 million to empowering enrollment (social safety net)
- $750k to address expenses/overhead
“This is not direction in the sense of the plan I want to create, if you were to do $750 for 12-months, you are going to reach 350 people. If you did that for 18-months, you would be in that 225-250 range,” said Carlson. “I think by lowing amount, adjusting times, looking at eligibility on some of these things, it is still a pilot but we will see impact.”
Burgis again asked why seniors were not included.
Staff stated there were many “priority populations” including seniors being impacted by housing. They justified it by looking at the county as a whole and package it with potential helping many vulnerable populations.
Burgis responded the seniors were a growing population and segment of the county that were showing a need.
Carlson said his goal was to create a firm direction of budget and create it, not create target groups.
Andersen wanted the AB 109 program to include requirements as well as benchmarks. She was not in favor of a general Guaranteed Income and called for a separate vote.
Three motions made:
- Gioia made the motion: Provide $1 million in Guaranteed Income for AB 109 monies. Staff would create program and bring it back to the board. Supervisors approved 5-0.
- Glover made the motion: Provide $2.5 million in Guaranteed Income (tied to CalWorks/CalFresh): Supervisors approved in 5-0 vote.
- Carlson made the motion: remainder of $5.7 million be allocated to a Guaranteed Income program w/hope to approach $3 million in direct payments. Supervisors voted 4-1 with Andersen dissenting.
Staff will bring back a plan to the Board of Supervisors at a future meeting to approve.
Documents:
- EHSD Guaranteed Income Presentation 10222024 v5.pdf (34 pages)
- CCC EHSD Options to Strengthen the Safety Net 10222024 v2.pdf,(5 pages)
- CA Public Sector GI Pilots v2.pdf, (5 pages)
- CC GI Coalition Presentation 10.22.24_.pdf, (59 pages)
- FINAL_Implementing Guaranteed Income in Contra Costa_BOS Report_COMPLETE_10.16.2024.pdf (184 pages)
Related Stories:
- April 30 – Contra Costa County to Look at $5 Million Guaranteed Income Program
- Nov 3, 2023 – California Launches First State-Funded Guaranteed Income Pilot Programs
- Aug 15, 2023 – County Supervisors to Receive Guaranteed Income Presentation
6 comments
Okay… so giving people who don’t work money, off the backs of people who actually work. Great!
Vote people… it matters..
Yep, just one more step closure to Socialism.
$1000 a month to “unhoused” people. You mean homeless people? This is a great plan. Let’s give junkies drug money on the backs of grants and taxpayers. JFC, people.
This is such BS…. When we voted for Meassure X nothing like this was proposed for those tax dollars to fund. There are plenty of things, like animal services, that could really use additional funding and it is something all citizens benefit from, not just 250 people like this program
We’re not called “Komifornia” for no reason. Throw Seniors under the bus, and welcome in ex-cons and druggies. I do agree with helping kids aging out of Foster care, they hit 18 and out you go. I’ve had experience with this when my wife was contacted by Foster care asking us to “take in” her Grand Daughter who was being discharged from Foster care. We couldn’t, we’re both Seniors on Social Security, couldn’t afford it and to old to be raising a teen.
One thing I’ve been saying for a long time is; there are a lot of empty buildings in this county, that belong to cities, county & state, that could be used to repurpose. Divide into smaller units, have the people you want to house there, learn a trade, while they help creating the living spaces (within reason). Make it part of the conditions of receiving GI. As well as being drug free. I know tiny house are kind of small, but there are many families around the country making them work. It can also be a way to have more people involved in learning a trade, especially foster kids being purged from the system.
Comments are closed.