RISE UP ALAMEDA GUARANTEED
INCOME STUDY
Two-Year Insights
August 2026
Rise Up Alameda Guaranteed Income Study
Two-Year Insights—August 2026 i
CONTENTS
Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................... 1 Chapter 2: Context .......................................................................................................... 2 How were study participants selected? ..............................................................................................................3 Who participated in Rise Up? .............................................................................................................................4 Chapter 3: Evaluation Methods ...................................................................................... 5 Chapter 4: Key Findings after Two Years of Rise Up Alameda ..................................... 8 Rise Up participants saved more, were less likely to go into debt, and were less likely to use certain public benefits ......................................................................................................................................................... 8 Rise Up participants reported lower levels of psychological distress and perceived stress ................................9 Findings on sense of community engagement were mixed ..............................................................................11 No consistent impacts on housing and food security ........................................................................................ 12 Some impacts varied by baseline employment .................................................................................................14 Some impacts of Rise Up may vary by participants’ education level ................................................................ 14 Findings did not suggest that older Rise Up participants were affected differently from working-age Rise Up participants ................................................................................................................................................. 15 Findings did not suggest that Rise Up participants with children were affected differently from participants without children ...........................................................................................................................................15 Chapter 5: What do these results mean? ..................................................................... 16 Works Cited ................................................................................................................... 17 Rise Up Alameda Guaranteed Income Study
Two-Year Insights—August 2026 ii
Exhibit 1. Eligibility criteria for Rise Up Alameda .............................................................. 3 Exhibit 2. Rise Up Alameda participant characteristics at application (2023) .................... 4 Exhibit 3. Survey responses ............................................................................................. 6 Exhibit 4. Rise Up participants were more likely to build savings and less likely to report going into debt ................................................................................................. 8 Exhibit 5. Rise Up participants were less likely to use certain public benefit programs .....9 Exhibit 6. Household income ............................................................................................ 9 Exhibit 7. Rise Up participants reported lower levels of psychological distress ............... 10 Exhibit 8. Rise Up participants reported lower levels of perceived stress ........................ 10 Exhibit 9. Impacts on participating in volunteering or community activities ...................... 11 Exhibit 10. Impacts on Sense of Community ................................................................... 11 Exhibit 11. Rise Up participants and control group members had similar levels of work involvement ................................................................................................... 12 Exhibit 12. On average, Rise Up participants and control group members worked a similar number of hours per week ................................................................. 13 Exhibit 13. Rise Up participants were less likely to report working full time ..................... 13 Exhibit 14. Rise Up participants were more likely to report working part time ................. 14
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Rise Up Alameda Guaranteed Income Study
Two-Year Insights—August 2026 iii
AUTHORS & ACKNOWLEDGMENT
About This Report
This report summarizes findings from an evaluation of Rise Up Alameda, a guaranteed income program implemented by the City of Alameda from December 2023 to December 2025. Rise Up provided unconditional payments of $1,000 per month for 24 months to 150 eligible low-income applicants who were randomly selected to participate in the program.
Outcomes for program participants were compared to outcomes for a control group of applicants who were not selected to participate in Rise Up.
Findings show that guaranteed income allowed Rise Up participants to build savings, decreased their likelihood of going into debt, and lowered their levels of stress and psychological distress.
Rise Up Alameda Guaranteed Income Study
Two-Year Insights—August 2026 iv
AUTHORS & ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Contributors
Abt Global
Haisheng Yang, research scientist
Judy Geyer, research scientist
Adam Travis, research scientist
Zoe Greenwood, data analyst
Ed Prestera, data analyst
Sandra Hernandez, survey team
Michelle Kahmann, survey team
Terrence Ceranski, survey team
Wyatt Bush, survey team
Laura Blake, project manager
Hannah Thomas, project quality reviewer
Heinrich Hock, project quality reviewer
Photography
Maurice Ramirez, photographer, all photos
Suggested Citation: Abt Global (2026). Rise Up Alameda Guaranteed Income Study: Two-Year Insights.
Acknowledgment
The study team gratefully acknowledges the participants in the Rise Up Pilot, especially those who responded to the 12- and 24-month surveys. All statistics reported in this brief are aggregated to protect participants’ privacy.
The study team also thanks the City of Alameda and Operation Dignity for their support and coordination, including City of Alameda staff Jackie Keliiaa, Lois Butler, Eric Fonstein, and Walker Toma.
Rise Up Alameda Guaranteed Income Study
Two-Year Insights—August 2026 1
Chapter 1: Introduction
a The study also includes a short, three-question survey issued 6 months and 18 months into the program to track incremental impacts for certain outcomes and to maintain up-to-date contact information.
Guaranteed income (GI) programs provide direct financial assistance with no restrictions, unlike many means-tested assistance programs such as housing subsidies and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Participants can use GI payments to meet their individual needs rather than being limited to specific expense categories. This allows participants to make changes in their lives without the burden of repeated verification or risk of losing benefits. The absence of recertification requirements may also reduce administrative burden and stigma often associated with public assistance programs, offering a more dignified process for GI recipients and allowing them to determine what they need and how best to spend their money.
In September 2023, the City of Alameda, California, launched Rise Up Alameda, a GI pilot program funded by the American Rescue Plan Act. Rise Up Alameda served 150 residents aged 18 years and older in households with annual incomes at or below 50 percent of the County’s Area Median Income (AMI), adjusted for household size (e.g., $51,800 for a one-person household). Rise Up participants received $1,000 per month for 24 months, beginning in December 2023. The project’s primary goal was to reduce economic instability for program participants.
This report presents final findings from an evaluation of Rise Up Alameda that the City of Alameda partnered with Abt Global to conduct. The evaluation used a randomized controlled trial design and a comprehensive survey administered one year and two years after program launch to assess the impact of GI payments.a The impacts of Rise Up were estimated by comparing outcomes for Rise Up participants to outcomes for similar Alameda residents who were not offered payments. In June 2025, Abt Global published an interim report that described impacts after one year. This report presents findings on the effects of Rise Up Alameda over the full two-year period.
This report describes findings at the conclusion of the program. After two years of Rise Up Alameda, participants:
• Increased their savings rate.
• Were less likely to take on debt.
• Reported lower levels of stress and psychological distress. • Were less likely to use certain public benefit programs. • Pursued more flexible working arrangements with no detectable reductions in overall levels of work engagement or hours worked.
Rise Up Alameda Guaranteed Income Study
Two-Year Insights—August 2026 2
Chapter 2: Context
Alameda is a city in Alameda County, located in the East Bay region of California’s Bay Area. Among its approximately 80,000 residents, the median household income in 2023 was $132,015. [1] Alameda is a high cost-of-living area, with a median gross rent of $2,394 in 2023. [2] The high living costs contributed to the decision to set Rise Up Alameda’s guaranteed income payments at $1,000 per month.
As a waterfront city, Alameda was historically a middle-class community with a thriving maritime industry centered around the U.S. Naval Air Station Alameda until its closure in 1997. More recently, Alameda has emerged as a growing tech hub, with biotech and life sciences, clean-tech, and blue- tech firms setting up headquarters and attracting a higher-income workforce. [3] However, Alameda, like the broader Bay Area, has experienced a decline in middle wage employment alongside the growth of high-wage tech and biotech jobs. This shift has been particularly evident in manufacturing and service sectors and has contributed to increased income inequality. [4] Reflective of its high cost of living, Alameda sets its own minimum wage via local ordinance. At the time Rise Up launched in 2023, Alameda’s minimum wage was $16.52 per hour, slightly higher than California’s state minimum wage of $15.50. Minimum- and low-wage jobs in Alameda are often concentrated in sectors such as hospitality, retail, healthcare support (i.e., home health aides and medical assistants), and childcare.
In addition to the already high cost of living in the Bay Area, economic disruptions from the COVID-19 pandemic and price inflation amplified economic challenges for many Alameda residents. In response to these challenges, the City of Alameda has directed resources towards rebuilding economic opportunities for residents. The City used a portion of its American Rescue Plan Act funding to support the Rise Up Alameda program. It also established an economic recovery task force focused on addressing hardship among the City’s most vulnerable businesses, residents, and workers. Despite these efforts, many residents continued to experience economic challenges as of 2025. According to the Alameda County Community Food Bank, food insecurity increased by more than 50 percent and county-wide unemployment is three times higher than pre-pandemic levels. [5] Data from the Bay Area Equity Atlas indicate that communities of color and low-income populations have faced
Rise Up Alameda Guaranteed Income Study
Two-Year Insights—August 2026 3
slower economic recovery from the pandemic,
including persistent income loss and difficulty
covering basic expenses.[6]
How were study
participants selected?
On September 8, 2023, the City of Alameda
opened an online application for residents
interested in Rise Up. The application remained
open for 11 days, during which 2,368 residents
applied.
The online application had three components:
1. Questions to determine program eligibility;
2. A brief description of the study, including
a request for consent to participate in the
research; and
3. A survey collecting information on
age, race, ethnicity, education level,
employment status, financial status,
mental health, hopefulness, housing
status, health, and community
engagement.
Before and during the application period, the
City of Alameda, in partnership with Operation
Dignity, conducted outreach to raise awareness
of the program among potentially eligible
populations including:
• People experiencing or at risk of
homelessness.
• Immigrant, refugee, and limited English–
speaking communities.
• Historically disenfranchised groups
including Black, Indigenous, and other
communities of color.
• Low-income families, including senior
citizens.
• Affordable housing tenants and renters.
• People with disabilities.
• Alameda families with children and
youth, as well as College of Alameda
students.b
b Alameda’s public community college.
c After randomization, Operation Dignity staff contacted those selected to receive GI to verify their eligibility, answer questions about Rise Up, offer counseling on how receiving GI might affect other income-dependent public benefits, and confirm their desire to participate in the program.
The study team screened all applicants for
eligibility based on information provided in
their online applications. To participate in Rise
Up Alameda, applicants were required to be
at least 18 years of age, reside in the City
of Alameda, and have an annual household
income at or below 50 percent of the County’s
Area Median Income (AMI), adjusted for
household size (e.g., $51,800 for a single-
person household based on 2023 AMI).
From the pool of eligible applicants, Abt Global
randomly selected 192 people for the program
group and 180 people for the control group.
The program group included 42 people who
were not successfully onboarded because they
could not be contacted, were later determined
to be ineligible, or declined to participate.c
These 42 individuals were classified as
“inactive,” resulting in 150 participants who
ultimately received guaranteed income
payments.
Exhibit 1. Eligibility criteria for Rise Up Alameda
Rise Up Alameda Guaranteed Income Study
Two-Year Insights—August 2026 4
Who participated in Rise
Up?
Rise Up participants were a demographically
diverse group of Alameda residents (Exhibit
2). Two-thirds of participants (66 percent) were
women. At the time of application, about half
(49 percent) were between the ages of 25 and
50, and approximately one-quarter (26 percent)
were age 62 or older. Forty-three percent of
participants had attained education beyond high
school, compared to 93 percent of Alameda’s
overall population.
On average, participants reported a household
income of $31,836 at the time of application.d
This is substantially lower than the City’s
median household income of $132,015 in 2023.
d Despite the income ceiling for eligibility being 50 percent of AMI (for example $51,800 for a family of one), Rise Up participants’ incomes tended to be below that, with an average reported annual income of $31,836 across all households. The majority of participants (64 percent) also reported using public benefits including SNAP, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or housing assistance.
Less than half of participants were engaged
in paid or unpaid work, whereas 64 percent of
Alameda residents overall were employed in
2023.
The Rise Up sample has a larger proportion
of Black and Hispanic participants compared
to the Alameda’s overall population. Among
participants, 23 percent identify as Black, 20
percent as White, 29 percent as Asian, and 17
percent as Hispanic. In comparison, Alameda’s
population in 2024 was 43 percent White, 6
percent Black, 30 percent Asian, and 14 percent
Hispanic.
Exhibit 2: Rise Up Alameda participant characteristics at application (2023)
Rise Up Alameda Guaranteed Income Study
Two-Year Insights—August 2026 5
e The tracking surveys were used to confirm participant contact information and also collected information on a small number of outcomes also measured in the complete follow-up surveys. The outcomes measured in the 6- and 18-month tracking surveys were: employment status, whether the respondent could cover a $400 emergency expense, and perceived stress. f Balance tests confirmed that there were no systematic differences between the program and control groups at baseline.
Chapter 3: Evaluation Methods
The Abt study team used an experimental research design to understand how the Rise Up Alameda program affected participants’ lives. Abt randomly selected 192 applicants for the Rise Up program group, and 180 applicants for the study’s control group. Of the 192 applicants selected for the program group, 150 were successfully onboarded to Rise Up and received GI payments. The 180 applicants selected for the study’s control group did not receive GI payments. All study participants completed a baseline survey at the time of application. They were then asked to complete follow-up surveys one and two years after the first GI payments were issued. Participants were also asked to complete brief tracking surveys at 6- and 18-months.e
To measure the effect of GI, the study team compared average outcomes for the program group with those for the control group. Because the two groups were very similar at the start of the study—except that the program group received GI—differences observed later the in study can be attributed to the impact of receiving GI.f
The study team used statistical tests to further assess whether differences in outcomes between the program and control groups were likely to reflect a real program effect rather than random variation that occurred by chance. Differences classified as statistically signi icant provide stronger evidence that the program affected the outcome. Differences classified as marginally significant also suggest a program
Rise Up Alameda Guaranteed Income Study
Two-Year Insights—August 2026 6
effect, but the evidence is weaker. Additional
details on the research design and analytic
methods are provided in the Analysis Plan.[7]
Exhibit 3 reports the number of survey
responses received for the 12- and 24-month
follow-up surveys and 6- and 18-month
tracking surveys. It also reports the number
of nonrespondents and inactive individuals.
The baseline survey was completed by all
individuals in the study sample during the
application process.
As described in the Analysis Plan, the study
makes statistical adjustments to account
for survey non-response and inactive study
participants.g Additional details on survey
response rates are provided in Appendix A.
The 6-, 12- and 18-month surveys were
administered while program group members
were actively receiving GI payments. The
24-month survey was conducted between
November 2025 and February 2026, meaning
that participants completed the survey around
the time they received their final GI payment
or within one to two months afterward. Final GI
payments were made in early November 2025.
g We also examined the baseline characteristics of the one- and two-year survey respondents and found that the program group respondents and control group respondents were similar.
Because the study examined a large number
of outcomes at both 12 and 24 months (and
therefore conducted many statistical tests),
the next chapter focuses on outcomes with
consistent, statistically significant (or marginally
significant) impacts across multiple survey
waves.
We also report findings on household
income, given its direct connection to the GI
intervention, and provide a high-level overview
for the two outcome domains where we found
no or little evidence of consistent, statistically
significant impacts: housing and food insecurity,
and community engagement.
For completeness, estimates for all outcomes
measured at 12 and 24 months are presented
in Appendix C. Estimates for outcomes
measured at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months are
presented in Appendix F.
Readers should interpret comparisons across
survey waves with caution. Changes over time
may reflect random variation, differences in
the composition of survey responders, or the
cessation of GI payments, rather than true
changes in program impact.
Exhibit 3. Survey responses
Note: During analysis, inactive program group members are treated as survey nonrespondents, as described in the Analysis Plan
Rise Up Alameda Guaranteed Income Study
Two-Year Insights—August 2026 7
The research team also examined whether
the impact of GI varied across subgroups of
participants defined by age, employment status,
education level, and whether participants had
minor children at the time they joined the study.
Given the large number of outcomes examined,
specific subgroup findings are highlighted
in the next chapter only when: (1) there was
statistically significant variation in impact by
subgroup for more than four of forty outcomes,
indicating more cross-subgroup variation
than would be expected by chance, and (2)
patterns of variation for a specific outcome
were consistent and statistically significant (or
marginally significant) across multiple survey
waves. Full subgroup results for all outcomes at
12 and 24 months are presented in Appendix D.
Above: View from the former Naval Air Station Alameda, westward.
Rise Up Alameda Guaranteed Income Study
Two-Year Insights—August 2026 8
Chapter 4: Key Findings after Two Years of
Rise Up Alameda
After two years of Rise Up Alameda, results indicate that participants consistently experienced lower stress, were more likely to build savings, and were less likely to go into debt. Findings also suggest that some participants used the additional income to pursue more flexible work arrangements, shifting from full-time to part-time work. Overall levels of engagement with full or part-time work remained similar to those of the control group throughout the study period, as did the number of hours worked per week.
Key findings are summarized below.
Key findings are organized across five outcome domains: (1) financial well-being; (2) mental, emotional, and physical health; (3) community engagement; (4) housing and food security; and (5) employment.
We focus on outcomes for which we observed consistent, statistically significant or marginally significant impacts across survey waves.
Rise Up participants saved more, were less likely to
go into debt, and were less likely to use certain public benefits
GI payments increased savings and decreased the likelihood of going into debt among Rise Up participants relative to the control group (Exhibit 4). A larger share of the program group accumulated savings over time. At 12 months, 21 percent of participants reported having more than $500 in savings, compared to 12 percent of the control group. At 24 months, Rise Up participants were nearly three times as likely as the control group to report savings above $500 (35 percent versus 12 percent).
Consistent with increased savings, Rise Up participants were less likely to report going into debt. At 12 months, 15 percent of participants reported going into debt compared to 42 percent of the control group. At 24 months, 16 percent of participants reported going into debt compared to 27 percent of the control group.
Note: Stars indicate level of statistical significance. *** = p-value less than or equal to .01, ** = p-value between .01 and .05, and * = p-value between .05 and .10
Exhibit 4. Rise Up participants were more likely to build savings and less likely to report going into debt Rise Up Alameda Guaranteed Income Study
Two-Year Insights—August 2026 9
At both 12 and 24 months, Rise Up participants
were also less likely than members of the
control group to report having used any of
the following public benefits programs in the
preceding 12 months (Exhibit 5): Social Security
Insurance (SSI), Supplemental Nutation
Assistance Program (SNAP), Women, Infants
& Children Nutrition Program (WIC), or Social
Security Disability Insurance (SSDI). At 12
months, 58 percent of Rise Up participants
reported having used one of these programs
compared to 73 percent of the control group (a
15 percentage point difference). At 24 months,
57 percent of participants reported having used
one of these programs compared to 68 percent
of the control group (an 11 percentage point
difference).
On average, Rise Up participants had higher
household incomes than members of the
control group, but differences in household
income were only statistically significant at the
12-month timepoint. At 12 months, the average
household income for Rise Up participants
(including GI payments) was $32,353,
compared to $24,132 in the control group, an
$8,221 difference. At 24 months, the average
household income for participants was $33,147,
compared to $29,545 in the control group.
The difference of $3,602 was not statistically
significant. The smaller difference at 24-months
appeared to be driven by an increase in
average household income for the control
group, rather than by changes to income levels
in the program group.
Rise Up participants
reported lower levels of
psychological distress and
perceived stress
Prior research shows that improved financial
well-being is associated with better mental
health.[8] This study adds causal evidence that
increased income can improve mental health
outcomes among low-income households.
Mental well-being was measured using the
Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10) and
the Perceived Stress Scale. K10 scores range
from 10 to 50, with lower scores indicating less
distress.[9] The Perceived Stress Scale (4-item
Exhibit 5: Rise Up participants were less likely
to use certain public benefit programs
Note: Stars indicate level of statistical significance. *** = p-value less than or equal to .01, ** = p-value between .01 and .05, and * = p-value between .05 and .10
Note: Stars indicate level of statistical significance. *** = p-value less than or equal to .01, ** = p-value between .01 and .05, and * = p-value between .05 and .10
Exhibit 6: Household Income
Rise Up Alameda Guaranteed Income Study
Two-Year Insights—August 2026 10
version) ranges from 0 to 16, with lower scores
indicating less stress.
On average, Rise Up participants had lower
K10 scores at both 12 and 24 months (Exhibit
7). At 12 months, participants’ average score
was 3.72 points lower than that of the control
group (a 14 percent reduction in average K10
score). At 24 months, the difference was 2.37
points (a 10 percent reduction in average K10
score).
On average, participants also reported lower
perceived stress at 6, 12, and 18 months
(Exhibit 8). At 6 months, the average stress
score for Rise Up participants was 0.72 points
lower than that of the control group (a 9
percent reduction). At 12 months, participants’
average stress score was 0.84 points lower
(an 11 percent reduction), and at 18 months
participants’ average stress score was 1.36
points lower (a 16 percent reduction). Although
participants also reported lower perceived
stress scores at 24 months, this difference was
not statistically significant.
Overall, the clear pattern of differences across
both measures indicates that GI reduced stress
and improved mental well-being.
Note: Stars indicate level of statistical significance. *** = p-value less than or equal to .01, ** = p-value between .01 and .05, and * = p-value between .05 and .10
Exhibit 7: Rise Up participants reported lower
levels of psychological distress
Note: Stars indicate level of statistical significance. *** = p-value less than or equal to .01, ** = p-value between .01 and .05, and * = p-value between .05 and .10
Exhibit 8. Rise Up participants reported lower levels of perceived stress Rise Up Alameda Guaranteed Income Study
Two-Year Insights—August 2026 11
Findings on sense of
community engagement
were mixed
The evaluation also examined whether
participation in Rise Up influenced community
connection. Improved financial well-being may
contribute to greater feelings of connection,
and participation in the program itself may also
influence perceptions of support from the City.
Community engagement was measured by
participation in activities such as volunteering,
religious groups, parent-teacher associations
(PTAs), parent groups or classes, social clubs,
and professional associations. The surveys
also used the Brief Sense of Community
Scale (BSCS),[10] which measures feelings of
belonging and connection to their community.
It asks whether the respondent agrees or
disagrees with statements such as, “I have a
good bond with others in this neighborhood.”
BCBS scores range from 8 to 40.
At 12 months, GI likely had a positive effect
on engaging in community activities. However,
there was no clear evidence of impact at 24
months (Exhibit 9).
Similarly, participants reported higher BSCS
scores at 12 months, indicating a stronger
sense of community. However, participants in
the program and control groups reported similar
overall BCBS scores at 24 months (Exhibit 10).
Although overall BSCS scores did not differ
at 24 months, program group members
reported higher levels of neighborhood needs
fulfilment than members of the comparison
group, one of the four BSCS subdomains. No
differences were detected across the other
three BSCS subdomains (Sense of Belonging,
Neighborhood Influence, or Emotional
Connection to Neighborhood).
Note: Stars indicate level of statistical significance. *** = p-value less than or equal to .01, ** = p-value between .01 and .05, and * = p-value between .05 and .10
Exhibit 9: Impacts on participating in
volunteering or community activities
Note: Stars indicate level of statistical significance. *** = p-value less than or equal to .01, ** = p-value between .01 and .05, and * = p-value between .05 and .10
Exhibit 10. Impacts on Sense of Community
Rise Up Alameda Guaranteed Income Study
Two-Year Insights—August 2026 12
No consistent impacts on
housing and food security
The evaluation examined five outcomes
related to housing and food security, including
food insecurity, housing situation (i.e.,
homeowner, renter, living in public housing,
homeless, staying with friends or family),
eviction, mortgage default, and household
chaos. The study did not find clear evidence of
impacts across these measures. For example,
consistently high rates of food insecurity in
both the program and control groups at 12 and
24 months (60% vs. 63% at 12 months; 62%
vs. 67% at 24 months) suggest that, even with
the additional income, low-income households
continued to face trade-offs related to food
spending.
Rise Up participants
pursued more flexible
working arrangements
Overall, GI payments did not affect whether
participants were engaged in paid or unpaid
work, nor did GI payments affect the number of
hours participants worked per week. The share
of individuals reporting any work involvement
was similar across the program and control
groups at all survey waves, with no statistically
significant differences between the groups
observed (Exhibit 11).
Additionally, the average number of hours
worked per week was similar for the program
and control groups at both 12 and 24 months
(Exhibit 12). The modest reductions in the
average number of hours worked for the
program group (1.4 hours per week at 12
months; 2.4 hours per week at 24 months)
were not statistically significant. Together, these
Note: Stars indicate level of statistical significance. *** = p-value less than or equal to .01, ** = p-value between .01 and .05, and * = p-value between .05 and .10
Exhibit 11. Rise Up participants and control group members had similar levels of work involvement Rise Up Alameda Guaranteed Income Study
Two-Year Insights—August 2026 13
findings suggest that GI payments did not have
a meaningful impact on the overall level of work
involvement for members of the program group.
However, GI appears to have influenced
how participants worked. Participants were
less likely to report working full time at 12
and 24 months (Exhibit 13) and were more
likely to report working part time at 6 and
24 months (Exhibit 14). These findings
suggest that participants may have used the
additional income to pursue more flexible work
arrangements.
Note: Stars indicate level of statistical significance. *** = p-value less than or equal to .01, ** = p-value between .01 and .05, and * = p-value between .05 and .10
Exhibit 12. On average, Rise Up participants
and control group members worked a similar
number of hours per week
Note: Stars indicate level of statistical significance. *** = p-value less than or equal to .01, ** = p-value between .01 and .05, and * = p-value between .05 and .10
Exhibit 13. Rise Up participants were less likely to report working full time Rise Up Alameda Guaranteed Income Study
Two-Year Insights—August 2026 14
Some impacts varied by
baseline employment
At 24 months, the impacts of GI differed for
participants who were employed at the start
of the study (i.e., at the time they completed
the baseline survey) for seven outcomes. Of
these seven outcomes, we observed consistent
patterns at both 12 and 24 months for the
following two outcomes:
• For those employed at the start of the
study, GI may have been more effective
in enabling a shift to flexible work
arrangements by decreasing the share
of those working full time and increasing
the share of those working part time.
This impact was not observed for
participants who were not employed at
the start of the study (those individuals
were not working full time).
• Among those employed at the start
of the study, GI may have been more
effective at increasing participation in
community activities, compared to those
not employed at the start of the study.
Complete impact estimates for study
participants who were employed or not
employed at the start of the study are provided
in Appendix Table D1.
Some impacts of Rise Up
may vary by participants’
education level
At 24 months, we found differences in Rise
Up impacts by participant education for six
outcomes in our statistical tests. This is slightly
more than would be expected due to random
chance. However, there was no consistency in
the pattern of findings for these six outcomes at
24 months compared to 12 months.
Therefore, there is not clear evidence of
systematic differences in Rise Up impacts by
participant education. As a result, we do not
report specific findings here. Complete impact
estimates for study participants with more than
a high school diploma or a high school diploma
or less are provided in Appendix Table D2.
Note: Stars indicate level of statistical significance. *** = p-value less than or equal to .01, ** = p-value between .01 and .05, and * = p-value between .05 and .10
Exhibit 14. Rise Up participants were more likely to report working part time Rise Up Alameda Guaranteed Income Study
Two-Year Insights—August 2026 15
Findings did not suggest
that older Rise Up
participants were affected
differently from working-
age Rise Up participants
At 24 months, we found differences in Rise
Up impacts by participant age for just four
outcomes in our statistical tests, no more than
might be observed due to random chance.
Therefore, we do not report specific subgroup
findings here. Complete impact estimates for
study participants over 62 or under 62 are
provided in Appendix Table D3.
Findings did not suggest
that Rise Up participants
with children were affected
differently from participants
without children
At 24 months, we found differences in Rise
Up impacts by whether the participant had
a child at baseline for just four outcomes in
our statistical tests, no more than might be
observed due to random chance. Therefore,
we do not report specific subgroup findings
here. Complete impact estimates for study
participants with and without children at
baseline are provided in Appendix Table D4.
Rise Up Alameda Guaranteed Income Study
Two-Year Insights—August 2026 16
Chapter 5: What do these results mean?
After two years of providing $1,000 per month to 150 Alameda residents, this evaluation finds that guaranteed income (GI) led to several improvements in participants’ lives. This study examined 40 outcome measures and found evidence of improvements in 17 outcomes at 12 months (42 percent) and 10 outcomes at 24 months (25 percent).
As noted in the previous chapter, this report documents consistent and sustained impacts across five outcomes related to savings, debt, employment flexibility, psychological distress, and perceived stress.
The key findings from this evaluation are:
• GI payments helped Rise Up Alameda participants increase their savings, with more participants reporting having at least $500 in savings.
• GI improved financial resilience, with fewer participants reporting that they were going into debt. • GI payments may have enabled participants to pursue more flexible part-time work arrangements without causing detectable reductions to participants’ overall engagement in work or their average number of hours worked per week.
• GI payments improved some aspects of mental health and wellbeing, with participants reporting lower levels of psychological distress and perceived stress. • GI payments decreased utilization of certain public benefits, with participants less likely to report receiving SSI, SNAP, WIC, or SSDI benefits in the preceding 12 months.
Findings on the relationship between GI payments and community engagement were mixed. At 12 months, participants were more likely to report engaging in community activities and to feel a sense of belonging in their community. However, those differences were not clearly evident at 24 months.
Additional research is needed to better understand how GI may influence community engagement over time.
The study did not find consistent evidence of impacts on housing or food security outcomes. Although GI payments increased savings, these gains may not have been sufficient to support a change in housing status, such as purchasing a home or moving out of a shared living arrangement. Similarly, comparable rates of food insecurity in both the program and control groups suggest that, even with the additional income, low-income households continued to face trade-offs related to food spending.
Subgroup analyses suggest that the impact of GI may vary by certain demographic groups, but few clear and consistent patterns emerged. Future research with larger sample sizes is needed to better understand how GI impacts differ across populations.
Rise Up Alameda Guaranteed Income Study
Two-Year Insights—August 2026 17
Works Cited
1 U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Department of Commerce. “Selected Economic Characteristics.” American Community Survey, ACS 5-Year Estimates Data Profiles, Table DP03, https://data.census.gov/table/ ACSDP5Y2023.DP03?q=DP03:+Selected+Economic+Characteristics&g=160XX00US0600562.
Accessed on 22 Jun 2026.
2U.S. Census Bureau. (n.d.). QuickFacts: Alameda city, California. U.S. Department of Commerce.
Retrieved June 4, 2025, from https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/alamedacitycalifornia/ INC110223/
3 East Bay Economic Development Alliance. (2024, May 31). Alameda embraces role as hub for biotech, cleantech and other advanced industries. https://eastbayeda.org/alameda-advanced- industries/
4National Equity Atlas. (2016, October 18). Can the Bay Area tech economy embrace equity before it’s too late? https://nationalequityatlas.org/blog/bay-area-tech-economy-new-economy-week 5Alameda County Community Food Bank. (n.d.). Health and safety. https://www.accfb.org/health-and- safety//
6Bay Area Equity Atlas. (2023, January 25). Economic security. https://bayareaequityatlas.org/recovery- tracker/economic-security
7Juras, J., A. Jefferson, H. Yang, H. Thomas, T. Kappil, S. West, A. Castro, & N. Tandon. (2023). Mayors for a Guaranteed Income Pilot Evaluations: Data Analysis Plan. Abt Global. https://static1.squarespace. com/static/5fdc101bc3cfda2dcf0a2244/t/664deac7c3cb3a0abf257de0/1716382408024/MGI_data_ analysis_plan.pdf
8 Hassan, N. M., Kassim, E. S., & Said, Y. M. U. (2021). Financial wellbeing and mental health: A systematic review. Studies of Applied Economics, 39(4). 9Anderson, T. M., Sunderland, M., Andrews, G., Titov, N., Dear, B. F., & Sachdev, P. S. (2013). The 10- item Kessler psychological distress scale (K10) as a screening instrument in older individuals. American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 21(7), 596–606. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jagp.2013.01.009 10Peterson, N. A., Speer, P. W., & McMillan, D. W. (2008). Validation of a brief sense of community scale: Confirmation of the principal theory of sense of community. Journal of Community Psychology, 36(1), 61–73. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.20217