SEED paid $500 a month for 24 months, from February 2019 to January 2021, to randomly selected residents of Stockton census tracts at or below the city's median household income of $46,033; 131 were enrolled in treatment and 200 in control.[1]
Stockton Economic Empowerment Demonstration (SEED, 2019–2021)
A philanthropically funded guaranteed-income pilot in Stockton, California, that paid about 130 randomly selected residents of lower-income neighbourhoods $500 a month for two years, from February 2019. The peer-reviewed evaluation found lower income volatility and better mental health before the pandemic, and no significant employment effect.
- Location
- Stockton, California
- Operating since
- 2019
- Governance
- Hybrid
- Legal status
- Recognised
- Economy
- Mixed
- Autonomy level
- Program within an existing state
- Uses AI in governance
- No
Background
Stockton, an inland Californian city of about 300,000 people, declared bankruptcy in 2012 after the housing crash. In 2016 it elected Michael Tubbs, then 26, as mayor; he made a guaranteed-income pilot a signature project. SEED was launched in February 2019 with philanthropic money, notably from the Economic Security Project, rather than city funds, and with an independent evaluation team led by Stacia West and Amy Castro (Baker).
SEED was a guaranteed income, not a universal basic income: it went to a selected group, for a limited period, without conditions on use or work. Its aim was to test effects on financial stability, health and agency — and to change the national conversation.
How it is governed
- Eligibility and selection. Recruitment mailers went to 4,200 randomly selected households in census tracts at or below Stockton's median household income of $46,033. Among those who consented, participants were randomly assigned to treatment or control. The peer-reviewed analysis includes 131 people enrolled in the treatment group (110 in the intent-to-treat analysis) and 200 in the control group, plus an administrative control group; a small politically purposive cohort was excluded from analysis.
- Payments. Recipients received $500 a month on a debit card from February 2019 to January 2021, with no conditions.
- Governance. SEED was run by a non-profit organisation working with the mayor's office; the city did not appropriate funds. Researchers designed a mixed-methods randomised controlled trial with surveys, financial data and interviews.
- Benefit interactions. Because extra income can reduce eligibility for public benefits, organisers worked to limit losses; the evaluators note that fear of benefit loss may still have deterred some from participating.
Economy and public goods
The payments came from private donors and philanthropic organisations; the evaluation was funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation's Evidence for Action programme and the Economic Security Project. The money's use was tracked in aggregate and through interviews: recipients spent mainly on bills and basic needs, shared resources with relatives and neighbours, and covered costs such as childcare, transport and training that enabled job changes.
Conflict and disputes
- Politics. SEED drew national attention and criticism that unconditional cash discourages work. Tubbs lost his re-election bid to Kevin Lincoln in November 2020 (about 56% to 44%), and the pilot ended as planned without renewal.
- Preliminary versus peer-reviewed results. A first-year analysis released by the evaluators in 2021 reported increases in full-time employment among recipients, which was widely publicised. The later peer-reviewed analysis found no statistically significant employment effects.
- Pandemic confound. COVID-19 struck halfway through. The researchers split the data into pre-pandemic, pandemic and post-withdrawal periods and treat the pandemic as a threat to validity.
- Small sample and attrition. By endline, survey retention was about 55% in the treatment group and 35% in control, and the sample was too small for subgroup analysis.
Outcomes
The peer-reviewed results in the Journal of Urban Health report that in the first year month-to-month income volatility was lower for recipients (19% versus 26%); recipients had lower psychological distress and better scores on several physical and emotional health measures before the pandemic; and they were more able to cover an unexpected $400 expense. During the pandemic most differences disappeared, and no significant effects were found on a financial well-being scale or on employment. Interviews describe reduced anxiety, more capacity to take risks and less reliance on contingent work.
SEED's larger legacy was political. In June 2020 Tubbs founded Mayors for a Guaranteed Income, and dozens of US cities and counties launched pilots modelled on Stockton, several funded by public pandemic-recovery money.
Lessons for institution design
- Separate advocacy from evaluation. Pilots designed to change minds create pressure to publicise early results; pre-registered, peer-reviewed analysis is the test that counts.
- Small pilots answer narrow questions. Two years and about a hundred recipients can measure stress and volatility, not labour-market or community effects.
- Plan for benefit cliffs. Interactions with means-tested programmes shape who joins and what they gain.
- Philanthropic funding is agile but fragile. It allowed a fast start without city budget risk, and left nothing in place when the money and the mayor were gone.
Further reading
Timeline
- Feb 2019SEED begins paying $500 a month to randomly selected Stockton residents (February). [S1]Established
- Mar 2020COVID-19 strikes halfway through the pilot; researchers split their analysis into pre-pandemic and pandemic periods. [S1]Established
- Jun 2020Tubbs founds the Mayors for a Guaranteed Income network in June.Established
- Nov 2020Tubbs loses his re-election bid to Kevin Lincoln on 3 November.Established
- Jan 2021The last monthly payment is made in January, with a final disbursement in February. [S1]Established
- Apr 2023The peer-reviewed evaluation is published in the Journal of Urban Health. [S1]Established
Mechanisms in use
Outcomes & controversies
About 130 recipients got $500 a month from February 2019 to January 2021. Peer-reviewed results: lower income volatility in year one (19% vs 26%), lower distress and better health before the pandemic, no significant effects on financial well-being or employment.
Post-mortem
A time-limited philanthropic pilot that ended with its last payments in early 2021. It was not continued after the mayor who championed it lost re-election, but it inspired a national network of city guaranteed-income pilots.
Claims
Before the pandemic, recipients had lower income volatility (19% versus 26% in year one), lower psychological distress and better scores on several health measures; most differences disappeared during the pandemic, and no significant effects were found on financial well-being or employment.[1]