Planning With a Basic Income

Abstract

Problem, research strategy, and findings The rapid growth of basic income programs in U.S. cities raises questions about the contributions of no-strings-attached cash payments to common equity planning goals. Drawing on a database of more than 100 basic income trials and interviews with 75 program designers and administrators, we evaluated basic income’s potential uses in planning. First, we analyzed evaluations of completed basic income trials, linking the policy’s effects to common equity planning goals. Second, we identified pathways from basic income trials to permanent policy and program reform. We found that large-scale, public basic income trials are likely to lead to reform in state-level social policy and that private and hybrid programs have multiple pathways for renewal, expansion, and replication. Takeaways for practice Planners can maximize the contributions of basic income programs to equity planning goals by distinguishing among the different capacities and scale-up options for public, private and hybrid programs. Practitioners focused on policy change and securing additional state resources for low-income households should prioritize publicly financed basic income trials and seek to translate basic income demonstrations into state-level policy change. Practitioners focused on “wicked” problems within narrowly defined subcommunities should focus on hybrid and private programs, which expand the capacities of community organizations and secure funding renewal from foundations. Important though these distinctions between programs are, all types of basic income programs contribute directly household resources, stability and capabilities, and all three types have led to either expanded basic income programs or the addition of no-strings-attached cash to other programs.