Alameda Mayor Defends Guaranteed Income Pilot as Funding Ends
Alameda's Rise Up Alameda pilot gave 150 low-income households $1,000 a month for two years using federal pandemic relief funds. Mayor Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft calls it an effective anti-poverty tool, but the program has ended with no plan for permanent funding.
Alameda Mayor Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft is defending the city's guaranteed income experiment as a proven tool against California's affordability crisis, even as the program concludes without a funding path for the future. The Rise Up Alameda pilot, which provided 150 low-income households with $1,000 per month in no-strings-attached cash for two years, wrapped up after city staff presented its final evaluation report to the City Council on Oct. 6.
In an interview, Ashcraft said the program's documented outcomes justify its approach. «I believe that guaranteed income programs like our Rise Up Alameda pilot program are a valuable and effective tool to address the affordability crisis, based on the documented experiences of program participants,» she said. The mayor noted that the average participant age was 49, with 26% aged 62 or older, and that most participants were either employed or retired.
The pilot was financed with $4.6 million in federal pandemic relief funds from the American Rescue Plan Act. City documents describe its goals as reducing economic instability for participants, shifting local narratives around poverty and public benefits, and informing the national debate over anti-poverty policy. Because ARPA was a one-time federal allocation, the program has officially ended, and the city has no plans or budget set aside for a permanent continuation.
Ashcraft pointed to individual participants to illustrate the program's impact. One certified nursing assistant used the payments to cover medical bills, rent, gas and bridge tolls while caring for her father and ailing brother after her mother's death. A retiree in her 70s used the extra money to pay off credit card debt and build an emergency savings account. Other recipients included a rideshare and transit driver, a woman with a disability who bought mattresses, groceries and car tires after an eviction, and a Navy veteran and former truck driver who relied on the funds to cover medical bills and stabilize his housing.
Still, the mayor acknowledged that direct cash is not a complete answer to the state's economic pressures. «While guaranteed income is not a stand-alone solution to the affordability crisis, programs like Rise Up Alameda can provide meaningful support as we pursue longer-term solutions to the high cost of housing, health care, transportation, and other basic needs,» she said. She framed her role as advancing «practical, compassionate, and evidence-informed policies» that help residents meet basic needs and preserve their dignity.
Alameda's experience reflects a broader challenge for local governments nationwide. Many guaranteed income pilots were underwritten by temporary pandemic-era federal relief, and with spending deadlines approaching, mayors and advocacy groups are looking for ways to turn short-term experiments into permanent, taxpayer-funded programs. California leads the country with more than 60 pilot launches, according to the Economic Security Project, a group founded in 2016 that has helped support more than 100 pilots nationwide.
The organization says interest in cash programs remains strong. «We can say, however, that there's an active and growing movement for cash in hundreds of communities across the country,» said Shafeka Hashash, the group's director of cash initiatives. She added that the organization regularly hears from members of its Guaranteed Income Community of Practice, including researchers, nonprofits, local officials and community leaders interested in bringing cash programs to their neighborhoods, though it defers announcements to the localities themselves.
For Alameda, the immediate question is what comes next. The pilot's final report has been delivered, the federal money is spent, and no permanent funding has been identified. Ashcraft's comments suggest she views the model as worth preserving, but the decision now rests with a city budget process that has yet to take up the question.
8
