Governments and charities across the U.S. and Canada are experimenting with guaranteed basic income (GBI) – steady, no-strings cash payments – to see if they can bolster struggling families and communities. The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted “the economic fragility of American households” and “the power of government to measurably reduce poverty through direct cash assistance”budgetequity.racepowerpolicy.org. Since then dozens of cities and counties have set up pilots using federal relief or local funds. For example, Cook County, Illinois launched a $42 million program (ARPA-funded) to give $500/month to 3,250 low-income families for two years, one of the largest in the nationbudgetequity.racepowerpolicy.org. Programs in Los Angeles, New York, Chicago and elsewhere have likewise moved millions of dollars directly to households. Early evaluations find these pilots are boosting recipients’ financial stability and well-being – often with hundreds of applicants turned away for each spotchicago.govcookcountyil.gov.
How do these pilots work? Participants are typically chosen by lottery or application, and receive monthly cash transfers – for example, Chicago’s Resilient Communities Pilot provided 5,000 households with $500 per month for 12 months (funded via American Rescue Plan Act)chicago.gov. Eligibility often targets families with incomes below a set threshold and a demonstrated hardship (e.g. impacted by COVID-19, housing loss, or unemployment). Unlike standard welfare, the cash is unconditional (no requirements on work or spending). Proponents say this “simple but powerful” approach helps “each of our residents, regardless of income or ZIP code, [to] support themselves and provide for their family”chicago.gov.
A Patchwork of Pilots
| Program (Location) | Years | Recipients | Payment ($/mo, duration) | Key Features |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chicago Resilient Communities (IL) | 2022–23 | 5,000 households | $500 × 12 months | City-funded via ARPA; income ≤250% FPL, COVID-impactedchicago.gov |
| Cook County Promise (IL) | 2022–24 | 3,250 families | $500 × 24 months | County ARPA-funded; low/moderate-income families, 2-year studycookcountyil.gov |
| Los Angeles BIG:LEAP (CA) | 2022 | 3,204 families (w/ children) | $1,000 × 12 months | City-funded (private endowment); below-poverty familiescalmatters.org |
| Stockton SEED (CA) | 2019–21 | 125 individuals | $500 × ~24 months | Philanthropy-funded; low-income residents; study found ↑employmentnpr.org |
| California Foster Youth GI (SF/Ventura) | 2023–25 | 300 youth (150 in SF; 150 in Ventura) | $1,200 (SF) / $1,000 (Vent) × 18 mo | State-funded pilots for former foster youthgov.ca.gov |
| Ontario Basic Income (ON) | 2018–19 | 4,000 individuals | Up to ~$1,415 (singles) × 18 mo (cancelled early) | Provincial pilot (Hamilton, Thunder Bay, Lindsay, Brantford)en.wikipedia.orgen.unesco.org |
| Manitoba Mincome (MB) | 1974–79 | Dauphin town (5,000+) & 1,200 Winnipeg households | ~$4,800–$5,800/yr (1970s) | Historic GAI experiment; saturated a small town; showed improved health, little work lossbroadview.orgbroadview.org |
Many other programs are underway or proposed (for example, pilots in San Francisco, Oakland, Minneapolis, and Atlanta). In the United States, roughly 30–40 jurisdictions have launched or funded cash transfer pilots since 2020budgetequity.racepowerpolicy.org. Canada’s most recent was Ontario’s now-defunct three-year pilot (announced 2017) for 4,000 people, which provided up to C$16,989 per year for singlesen.wikipedia.org. That program was canceled in 2018 by a new government (amid claims it discouraged work, though data later showed quitting jobs was “rare”broadview.org). In contrast, the idea has resurfaced in city halls: Hamilton’s council unanimously endorsed a guaranteed income policy in 2023, and community groups across Canada continue to pilot smaller cash transfers for low-income families.
Pilots send money directly to participants’ bank or prepaid debit cards, no questions asked. The aim is to let recipients cover essentials (rent, food, transit) and fill gaps left by other programs. In Chicago’s model, for example, participants were required to earn below 250% of the federal poverty level and have suffered a pandemic-related hardshipchicago.gov. In Los Angeles, the BIG:LEAP program targeted families below the poverty line; one participant put her first $1,000 check toward a car down payment so she could safely commute to a new jobcalmatters.org. The payments bypass income caps on other benefits: California law even exempts GI payments from counting as income for CalWORKs or CalFresh eligibilitycdss.ca.gov. As one city official put it, “money may not solve every issue, but every issue is more solvable when folks have their basics taken care of”calmatters.org.
Early Findings: Impact and Voices
Despite limited duration and funding, pilot results to date are encouraging. Chicago’s Resilient Communities Pilot was just enrolling participants through early 2023, but its demographics were clear: median participant household income was only $14,000/yearchicago.gov, and fully 176,000 Chicagoans applied for 5,000 spots. In Cook County, preliminary survey data (April 2025) showed strong positive impactscookcountyil.gov. In the Cook pilot, 75% of respondents reported feeling more financially secure, 94% used the funds to manage emergencies, and majorities reported lower stress and improved mental healthcookcountyil.gov. President Toni Preckwinkle noted that the cash help allowed recipients to “live healthier, more stable lives,” validating the program’s missioncookcountyil.gov.
Independent studies mirror these findings. The Southern Ontario Basic Income study of Hamilton-area participants (1,000 households) found large improvements in well-being: 83% of surveyed recipients said their mental health improved, 79% reported better overall well-being, and 86% ate better fooden.unesco.org. Ninety percent said they felt less stressed or less depressed, and many paid off debts or built emergency savings. One participant commented that extra income enabled buying groceries regularly and even getting dental care.en.unesco.orgbroadview.org In Stockton’s SEED pilot, researchers found increased full-time employment among recipients (contrary to fears) and across-the-board boosts in financial, emotional and physical healthnpr.org. Former Stockton Mayor Michael Tubbs reflected that providing monthly cash gave people “the dignity to make their own choices, the ability to live up to their potential and improved economic stability”npr.org.
On the ground, families report concrete benefits. A Chicago participant told media she could finally afford groceries and rent on time. In Los Angeles, single mother Stephanie Drzymkowski described buying a car with her first $1,000 check and using the rest to pay the bills – a change that “got her to a new job”calmatters.org. Experts note these anecdotes align with theory: poverty causes chronic stress, which cash can alleviate. As Berkeley sociologist Dr. Zoila “Zea” Malawa (leading SF’s mothers’ GI project) explained, ensuring a baby is born “in loving, supportive, non-stressful situations” can improve outcomes for lifecalmatters.org.
Early evidence thus suggests GBI pilots increase recipients’ ability to cover basic needs and improve health and hope for the futureen.unesco.orgbroadview.org. No pilot has reported a population-level “dependency” effect. In fact, the original Manitoba Mincome experiment in the 1970s – often cited as a precedent – found that people typically did not quit work en masse (quit-working was “rare” in interviews)broadview.org. Researchers remark that when low-income people are assured rent and food, many can pursue education or better jobs: in Dauphin, “teenagers went back to school…instead of working to support their families”broadview.org. The overall tone of pilot reports is positive: one review noted pilots consistently yield higher economic security and a restored sense of dignity for participantsbudgetequity.racepowerpolicy.orgbudgetequity.racepowerpolicy.org.
Why Launch GBI Pilots?
Motivations are varied. Policymakers and advocates frame GBI as a tool for economic justice and poverty alleviation. Many pilots target groups that face systemic hurdles: for example, California’s new state grants provide $1,000–$1,200 for 18 months to former foster youth in San Francisco and Ventura, aiming to “break the cycle of poverty” for kids aging out of caregov.ca.gov. In Chicago, the Resilient Communities Pilot explicitly tied eligibility to COVID-19 harm and low incomechicago.gov, reflecting a goal of equitable pandemic recovery. In 2020, dozens of mayors and legislators cited the need to support workers dislocated by recession. Economist studies and news reports note that steady cash can buffer families against future shocks or job losses. As one policy brief summarized, the pandemic “revealed the power” of cash relief and sparked a surge of local interest in guaranteed incomebudgetequity.racepowerpolicy.org.
Advocates also emphasize dignity. Unlike welfare stigmatized by strict rules, GBI treats recipients as trusted individuals. “I hope people learn that you can trust people with money,” said Stockton’s Tubbscalmatters.org. In Canada, researchers and faith groups argue that the pilot programs honor human rights by ensuring basic needs are met. Many supporters link GBI to the long-running debate on automation and inequality: they argue that as low- and mid-wage jobs face pressure from technology and global markets, a cash floor could address income gaps. Though full automation is still emerging, pilots help gather evidence for broader debates about the future of work.
“Households were living on the financial edge,” one Los Angeles official noted about her constituents, and basic income gave them stabilitynpr.org. In sum, programs have been launched under banners of pandemic relief, poverty reduction, racial and gender equity, and economic innovation. The use of federal ARPA funds in many U.S. pilots underscores their framing as urgent recovery measuresbudgetequity.racepowerpolicy.org. Even where political leaders may not endorse “universal income” as a permanent program, many see pilots as evidence-building experiments.
Concerns and Critiques
Despite the enthusiasm, critics have voiced concerns over GBI. Cost: Scaling up pilots to all low-income families would be expensive. For example, providing just $500/month to every adult below 200% of poverty in a large U.S. city could cost hundreds of millions annually. Some argue the pilots “tack” new cash benefits on top of existing welfare without reforming it, multiplying expensecalmatters.org. Libertarian think-tank analysts like Michael Tanner of the Cato Institute warn that expanded cash programs might not be affordable, asking “I’m not sure the answer should be spending any more than we already are”calmatters.org.
Work Incentives: A common critique is that guaranteed pay might discourage work or training. However, early data counters this: Stockton and Mincome saw no notable drop in labor force participation (Stockton even saw more full-time work among recipients)npr.orgbroadview.org. Nonetheless, opponents remain skeptical. They argue that any unconditional benefit might be abused by some and that public funds would be better spent on targeted services like job training. Labor leaders in California have also cautioned that broad cash subsidies could let employers evade paying living wages. Lorena Gonzalez Fletcher of the California Labor Federation notes that GI might relieve corporate wage pressure – “if you work 40 hours a week […] you should not live in poverty,” she said, implying wages should rise instead of relying on public assistancecalmatters.org.
Inflation and Fairness: Some economists warn that injecting large cash could push prices higher (particularly for housing). Higher demand from suddenly more spending money might not be matched by supply in the short term, leading to price inflation. However, opinions differ: some experts (like former Scotiabank economist Brett House) argue that UBI is no more inflationary than other welfare policies, especially if targeted to those below full employmenteconomicpossibility.org. (Key pilots themselves have not reported any inflation spikes attributable to the program.) Another fairness question is universality: these pilots are limited to the poorest households, so critics ask why give anything to middle-class families at all. Program designers acknowledge this trade-off; most pilots to date target low-income groups, not universal citizen payouts, to focus resources on those most in need.
Other Debates: A further point is context: Many critics want to see GBI evaluated against beefing up existing programs. Michael Tanner notes that some advocates propose GI as a supplement and as a replacement for welfare systems – a combination that still needs debatecalmatters.org. These pilots often allow recipients to keep other benefits, but if GBI were permanent it could overlap with health, housing or disability supports, complicating budgets. Finally, some argue for incremental solutions (like higher minimum wages or child allowances) rather than new entitlements.
In summary, supporters tout basic income pilots as a bold tool for justice and recovery, while skeptics warn of high costs and potential unintended effects. The pilots themselves are aiming to produce hard evidence: economists are studying labor markets, public health, and family budgets in pilot cities to see if concerns materialize. So far, early feedback is mixed but tilting positive – participants generally spend the money on essentials (food, bills, rent) and report improved security, with no obvious surge in unemploymentcookcountyil.govcalmatters.org.
As these trials conclude, results will guide policy debates. If findings hold up, we may see more jurisdictions consider GBI as part of their toolkit. If not, critics will argue the programs were always meant to fail. For now, North America’s experiment is in full swing, with cities and states learning by letting people literally put a guaranteed paycheck in their pocket.
Leave a Reply