Guaranteed income returned to Pierce County this week. Why free money deserves a shot | Opinion

One of the few things Americans seem to agree on these days is the need for government to ground public policy in facts, objective analysis and data. The same holds true in Tacoma and Pierce County.

The problem? Too often, we don’t see eye-to-eye on the basics — like the difference between solid evidence and wishful thinking.

The debate surrounding universal basic income (UBI) — in layman’s terms, giving people money, no strings attached,to reduce poverty and lift families up — is no different. In some camps, UBI is viewed as part of the solution to reducing income inequality and generational poverty in America. Elsewhere, it’s a clear example of progressive socialism run amok, unbacked by research and ripe for abuse .

Amid the hyperbole and political posturing, 175 Pierce County families selected to participate in the Growing Resilience in Tacoma (GRIT) program received $500 checks this week . All of them qualify as what United Way of Pierce County describes as “ALICE” families , or Asset Limited, Income Constrained, Employed, meaning their household earns between 100% and 200% of the federal poverty line.

There’s no doubt these local families — the second local cohort to benefit from the GRIT program — need the money. They represent a growing population of Americans often identified as the working poor.

The question is whether providing unconditional cash accomplishes what proponents suggest, giving people the financial breathing room and security they need to improve their circumstances and permanently escape poverty.

The News Tribune Editorial Board met with supporters of the GRIT program last month, including Tacoma Mayor Victoria Woodards, who championed GRIT 1.0, and Pierce County Council Chair Ryan Mello, who helped expand GRIT 2.0 into areas of unincorporated Pierce County.

We share these elected leaders’ desire to improve outcomes and rethink how local governments respond to poverty and other societal failures, with a sincere, long-term focus on addressing root causes.

As an editorial board, we also consider it our responsibility to separate what’s politically popular from sober policy review, and the truth is unavoidable:

There’s not nearly enough data on guaranteed income yet to say for certain whether it’s genius or folly, no matter what side of the partisan divide you’re on.

For that reason, we’re excited about this week’s launch of GRIT 2.0. In 12 months, academics and wonks will have another valuable data set to review and analyze. Building a body of research is what it’s all about, and it’s the only way to accurately assess the merits and limitations of guaranteed income programs across the country.

Tacoma has more experience with guaranteed basic income than most places. Starting in December 2021, 110 families received $500 every month for 13 months as part of the GRIT 1.0 campaign .

Described as a “ research demonstration ,” the pilot project was a partnership between the city, United Way of Pierce County and the advocacy group Mayors for a Guaranteed Income , which includes Woodards as a founding member.

Funded by a private $15 million donation , participating families were selected through an application process and remained anonymous throughout the project. The data collected over the 13-month program was collected by the University of Pennsylvania’s Center for Guaranteed Income ; UPenn researchers provided a preliminary analysis of the results and have pledged to release their full findings later this year.

GRIT 2.0 is nearly identical aside from two key differences:

This time around, families from outside of Tacoma were eligible to participate.

Meanwhile, the funding isn’t private; instead, it arrives in Pierce County via the state Legislature, which provided money in the 2022 budget to extend the program for another term.

For obvious reasons, the second distinction gives The News Tribune Editorial Board pause. It’s one thing to study the value of guaranteed income programs with money provided by nonprofits and private donors like the former CEO of Twitter, it’s quite another to use public dollars.

At the same time, the findings from previous guaranteed income initiatives have been encouraging, including in Stockton, California, where a year-long program in 2019 resulted in a 12% increase in participants achieving full-time employment. There are other examples, from cities big and small across the nation .

According to Mello, guaranteed income programs like GRIT have generally operated with less administrative costs. Ideally, they serve as a support to the traditional social safety net, like unemployment and food assistance, he indicated.

“The boost of flexible cash can help people enrolled in other programs reach for goals beyond what they could with the cash alone,” Mello told the TNT Editorial Board. “It’s a helpful onramp for breaking the cycle of dependency, smoothing income volatility and enabling people to save for emergencies.”

In Tacoma, the effects of GRIT 1.0 aren’t fully known yet, which is inconvenient and frustrating, even if thorough academic analysis takes time. Early findings suggest the program was a success , and that Tacoma participants spent the bulk of the disbursement money in the broad category of “retail sales and services,” followed by “food and groceries,” and “housing in utilities.” Beyond that, the lasting impact of the pilot project is unknown.

This uncertainty can contribute to a sense that progressive leaders are getting ahead of themselves, pushing guaranteed income as a solution without the footing to make such claims — in essence, putting progressive politics above common sense.

Here’s the good news: Together, the results of GRIT 1.0 and GRIT 2.0 will help solve the great unknown. Is guaranteed income worth a shot?

Considering the severity of the problems guaranteed income programs aim to solve, it’s worth the time and investment to find an answer. The expense of GRIT 2.0 is minimal, in relation to the state budget and the crisis of poverty plaguing local communities.

No matter how the chips fall, Tacoma and Pierce County should commit to letting the evidence guide policy in the future, keeping emotional attachment and political identity at arm’s length.

The News Tribune Editorial Board is: Matt Driscoll, opinion editor; Stephanie Pedersen, TNT president and editor; Jim Walton, community representative; Amanda Figueroa, community representative; Kent Hojem, community representative.