|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
A new California bill is proposing that young adults aging out of the foster youth system receive $1,000 no-strings-attached monthly checks from the state, providing stability to residents at high risk of homelessness and unemployment.
Authored by state Sen. Dave Cortese, D-San Jose, SB 739, if approved, would pilot a statewide universal basic income (UBI) program providing $1,000 per month to residents exiting the foster care system at age 21. The program would last for three years, and is intended to be a stop-gap measure for people who age out of foster care and lose social support services.
The program is hardly universal — about 3,000 people a year would be eligible — but it follows the same framework of UBI pilots that have gained traction across the country in recent years. The monthly checks can be spent however recipients see fit, and are intended to provide a reliable cash cushion for those who would otherwise be facing financial instability.
The bill targets former foster youth because the social services that they depended on for years are abruptly cut off at age 21. Many are unable to quickly gain financial independence and face serious problems along the way. Former foster youth are less likely to have stable housing, more likely to face significant mental and physical health problems, and are less likely to pursue higher education.
“During a time of such uncertainty, unconditional basic income will provide stability to our foster youth transitioning out of foster care and into adulthood,” Cortese said in a statement.
The bill closely mirrors a similar basic income pilot program in Santa Clara County, which was spearheaded by Cortese in his previous role as county supervisor. The county has been sending $1,000 checks to 72 former foster youth since last year, and has spent $339,000 so far.
The age of the recipients in Santa Clara County differs slightly from the proposed statewide bill, where former foster youth ages 21 to 24 can qualify, with older residents given priority.
Though the county pilot is ongoing and its effectiveness has yet to be studied, participation is skewed towards women, families with children and those reliant on food stamps. The checks may also be providing badly needed help during the coronavirus pandemic, as 29% of the recipients have lost their job due to COVID-19 and 17% have lost work hours, according to county staff.
The newly introduced state legislation comes just weeks ahead of a report showing promising results from a UBI program in Stockton. In that pilot, 125 randomly selected low and middle-income residents received $500 each month for two years, with a team of independent researchers taking a close look at the impact.
The preliminary report from the Stockton experiment, released last week, found numerous improvements in the lives of the participants. The $500 checks softened “income volatility,” or significant month-to-month changes in income, and participants were more likely to find work. In one year, the number of recipients with full-time employment increased from 28% to 40%. The group was also healthier, showing less depression and anxiety by the end of the pilot.
Other outcomes were more subjective. Some residents in the Stockton program reported they were more willing to set goals for themselves and take risks, and felt like they had more agency in their life choices. The $500 checks meant less dependence on others, the report found, and less of a need to ask for money from friends and family.
It’s unclear how much SB 739 would cost the state. Santa Clara County’s program is expected to cost about $900,000 for a cohort of 72 young adults, meaning the state program would likely cost tens of millions of dollars. County officials have sought to offset the costs with private funding, and have raised $95,000 so far — less than one-third of the costs to date.
Santa Clara County is expected to study the benefits of the local foster youth UBI program in the summer, the results of which could feed the effort for a statewide expansion. County staff are looking into whether the extra $1,000 per month is leading to increased financial stability, improved health and a rosier outlook among the participants, and whether the money shielded residents from the economic turmoil caused by COVID-19.
Kevin Forestieri writes for the Mountain View Voice, a sister publication of PaloAltoOnline.com.
Kevin Forestieri writes for the Mountain View Voice, a sister publication of PaloAltoOnline.com.
Kevin Forestieri writes for the Mountain View Voice, a sister publication of PaloAltoOnline.com.
Kevin Forestieri writes for the Mountain View Voice, a sister publication of PaloAltoOnline.com.
Where is the money going to come from to pay for this and other spending? California is losing the companies and big tax payers who have been paying the bills, yet keeps creating more and more dependency and big ticket spending like the bullet train.
the state has a reserve fund and it should used for programs such as this.
these are not entitlement initiatives but rather a safety net for those unprepared or unable to care for themselves.
assisting the homeless and undocumented immigrants in California is a step in the right direction.
I would be more comfortable with rental or food assistance. Give a young person $1K cash monthly, and it could easily be spent on alcohol, drugs, cigarettes, etc.
I don’t know why I bother to work in this progressive state (the state of handouts).
“Give a young person $1K cash monthly, and it could easily be spent on alcohol, drugs, cigarettes, etc.”
^ Not all but some. Would Jesus make stipulations?
“I don’t know why I bother to work in this progressive state (the state of handouts).”
^ Because you are probably making a good salary and can afford to live comfortably.
It is morally wrong to deprive others of a decent existence when one is faring well in life.
That is the Republican mantra given the recent Senate vote on the stimulus package.
Being selfish is non-Christian and contributes to many of the social problems we are experiencing today.
Give and maybe you will actually feel good about it. You cannot take money with you when you die.
>> Give a young person $1K cash monthly, and it could easily be spent on alcohol, drugs, cigarettes, etc.”
^ Not all but some. Would Jesus make stipulations?
° According to some biblical scholars, Jesus used cannabis oil for ‘mystical purposes’ and of course he drank wine.
It is reputed that Jesus could even turn water to wine.
He did not smoke cigarettes or cigars as tobacco had not yet been discovered.
Tobacco is a New World crop and at the time, the fishermen toiling in the Sea of Galilee had not yet ventured across the Atlantic Ocean into the Carribean.
So it is safe to say (or assume) that the Savior would take not issue with a young person buying some wine or pot if provided the opportunity.
And since they did not have cars in those days, partaking in such activities would not have created any road-related endangerments.
Jesus was cool.
Have you ever noticed that the majority of the homeless people you see on the streets are usually white folks who are either mentally ill and/or chronic substance abusers?
And they all have smartphones.
Why is that?
According to the annual Homeless Assessment Report to Congress, 52% of homeless were African American, 35% white and 22% Latino. The article went on to that 77% of society is white, and 13% black. So blacks and Hispanics are over represented, and whites are under represented. Asians, etc. were not mentioned in the article — probably too small to count.
Single white men do seem to stand out more than families, other cultures, etc. Perhaps California has a higher percentage of white male homelessness, despite the diversity of our state. The article I read was for all of the country. Or maybe it’s mental illness that makes certain people stand out more.
Smartphones? Remember Obama phones? Anyone under a certain income limit could get a free cell phone, not just the homeless. And a lot of homeless people have a source of income (SSI, etc.). Homeless people probably need a cellphone more than the rest of us.
“Single white men do seem to stand out more than families, other cultures, etc. Perhaps California has a higher percentage of white male homelessness, despite the diversity of our state.”
California is a larger state than most others and has a higher population.
The % of ethnicity-related homelessness (including gender and transgender) depends on the locale.
Many of the white homeless males we encounter have substance abuse issues (i.e. meth) while others are mentally ill.
The African American homelessness is primarily due to unemployment and other economic factors.
The homeless drug abusers and mentally ill should be rounded-up and sequestered in state or county run public health facilities.
This is where our tax-payer dollars should go…to rid our streets and neighborhoods of the homeless people who harass others, steal to feed their drug habits and/or create public nuisances.
As reported in Forbes last September: “This year, the Golden State is home to 100 members of The Forbes 400 — one more than on last year’s list. Collectively, these Californians are worth $815.5 billion, an all-time high, up 18% from last year.”
Instead of worrying about how $1,000 checks to some of the worst-off people in the state might create “dependency” in some cases, we should recognize that inequality of wealth and opportunity has reached obscene levels in this country, especially in California.
Just taxing the billionaires a tiny bit more would go a long way to mitigating the pain that poor people face in California.
I fully support foster youth aging out of the system but not undocumented persons/illegal immigrants.