Berkeley City Council
January 23, 2024

Tuesday, January 23, 2024 AGENDA Page 1

PROCLAMATION

CALLING A SPECIAL ME ETING OF THE

BERKELEY CITY COUNCI L
In accordance with the authority in me vested, I do hereby call the Berkeley City Council in special session as follows:

Tuesday, January 23, 2024
6:00 PM
SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD ROOM - 1231 ADDISON STREET, BERKELEY, CA 94702 TELECONFERENCE LOCATION - 1404 LE ROY AVE, BERKELEY 94708

JESSE ARREGUIN, MAYOR
Councilmembers:

DISTRICT 1 – RASHI KESARWANI DISTRICT 5 – SOPHIE HAHN
DISTRICT 2 – TERRY TAPLIN DISTRICT 6 – SUSAN WENGRAF
DISTRICT 3 – BEN BARTLETT DISTRICT 7 – VACANT
DISTRICT 4 – KATE HARRISON DISTRICT 8 – MARK HUMBERT
T
his meeting will be conducted in a hybrid model with both in-person attendance and virtual participation. If you are feeling sick, please do not attend the meeting in person.

Li
ve captioned broadcasts of Council Meetings are available on Cable B -TV (Channel 33) and via internet accessible video stream at http://berkeley.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?publish_id=1244.

R
emote participation by the public is available through Zoom. To access the meeting remotely: Join from a PC, Mac, iPad, iPhone, or Android device: Please use this URL https://cityofberkeley-info.zoomgov.com/j/1613079321 To request to speak, use the “raise hand” icon by rolling over the bottom of the screen. To join by phone: Dial 1- 669-254-5252 or 1-833-568-8864 (Toll Free) and enter Meeting ID: 161 307 9321 If you wish to comment during t
he public comment portion of the agenda, Press *9 and wait to be recognized by the Chair. Please be mindful that the meeting will be recorded.

T
o submit a written communication for the City Council’s consideration and inclusion in the public record, email [email protected].

T
his meeting will be conducted in accordance with the Brown Act, Government Code Section 54953 and applicable Executive Orders as issued by the Governor that are currently in effect. Any member of the public may attend this meeting. Questions regarding public participation may be addressed to the City Clerk Department (510) 981-6900.

The City Council may take action related to any subject listed on the Agenda.

P
ursuant to the City Council Rules of Procedure and State Law, the presiding officer may remove, or cause the removal of, an individual for disrupting the meeting. Prior to removing an individual, the presiding officer shall warn the individual that their behavior is disrupting the meeting and that their failure to cease their behavior may result in their removal. The presiding officer may then remove the individual if they do not promptly cease their disruptive behavior. “Disrupting” means engaging in behavior during a meeting of a legislative body that actually disrupts, disturbs, impedes, or renders infeasible the orderly conduct of the meeting and includes, but is not limited to, a failure to comply with reasonable and lawful regulations adopted by a legislative body, or engaging in behavior that constitutes use of force or a true threat of force.

Tuesday, January 23, 2024 AGENDA Page 2

Preliminary Matters
Roll Call:

Action Calendar
The public may comment on each item listed on the agenda for action as the item is taken up. For items moved to the Action Calendar from the Consent Calendar or Information Calendar, persons who spoke on the item during the Consent Calendar public comment period may speak again at the time the matter is taken up during the Action Calendar.

The Presiding Officer will request that persons wishing to speak line up at the podium, or use the "raise hand" function in Zoom, to determine the number of persons interested in speaking at that time. Up to ten (10) speakers may speak for two minutes. If there are more than ten persons interested in speaking, the Presiding Officer may limit the public comment for all speakers to one minute per speaker. Speakers are permitted to yield their time to one other speaker, however no one speaker shall have more than four minutes. The Presiding Officer may, with the consent of persons representing both sides of an issue, allocate a block of time to each side to present their issue.

Action items may be reordered at the discretion of the Chair with the consent of Council.

1. Reimagining Public Safety Status Report (Item contains supplemental material.) From: City Manager
Recommendation:

1. Review and discuss the provided status report from the City Manager with the goal of demonstrating transparency and facilitating informed council discussion towards the advancement of the Reimagining Public Safety initiative in Berkeley.

2. Provide comments on the Gun Violence Prevention program model report for Berkeley with the goal of facilitating informed council discussion.

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Carianna Arredondo, City Manager's Office, (510) 981-7000 Adjournment
I hereby request that the City Clerk of the City of Berkeley cause personal notice to be given to each member of the Berkeley City Council on the time and place of said meeting, forthwith.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the official seal of the City of Berkeley to be affixed on this January 18, 2024.

Jesse Arreguin, Mayor
Public Notice – this Proclamation serves as the official agenda for this meeting.

ATTEST:

Date: January 18, 2024
Mark Numainville, City Clerk

Tuesday, January 23, 2024 AGENDA Page 3
NOTICE CONCERNING YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS: If you object to a decision by the City Council to approve or deny an appeal, the following requirements and restrictions apply: 1) Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6 and Government Code Section 65009(c)(1)(E), no lawsuit challenging a Ci ty decision to deny or approve a Zoning Adjustments Board decision may be filed and served on the City more than 90 days after the date the Notice of Decision of the action of the City Council is mailed. Any lawsuit not filed within that 90-day period will be barred. 2) In any lawsuit that may be filed against a City Council decision to approve or deny a Zoning Adjustments Board decision, the issues and evidence will be limited to those raised by you or someone else, orally or in writing, at a public hearing or prior to the close of the last public hearing on the project.

A
rchived indexed video streams are available at:
https://berkeleyca.gov/your-government/city-council/city-council-agendas.

Channel 33 rebroadcasts the following Wednesday at 9:00 a.m. and Sunday at 9:00 a.m.

Comm
unications to the City Council are public record and will become part of the City’s electronic records, which are accessible through the City’s website. Please note: e-mail addresses, names, addresses, and other contact information are not required, but if included in any communication to the City Council, will become part of the public record. If you do not want your e-mail address or any other contact information to be made public, you may deliver communications via U.S. Postal Service to the City Clerk Department at 2180 Milvia Street. If you do not want your contact information included in the public record, please do not include that information in your communication. Please contact the City Clerk Department for further information.

A
ny writings or documents provided to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection at the public counter at the City Clerk Department located on the first floor of City Hall located at 2180 Milvia Street as well as posted on the City's website at

https://berkeleyca.gov/.

Agendas and agenda reports may be accessed via the Internet at:
https://berkeleyca.gov/your-government/city-council/city-council-agendas and may be read at reference desks at the following locations:

City Clerk Department - 2180 M ilvia Street, First Floor Tel: 510-981-6900, TDD: 510-981-6903, Fax: 510-981-6901 Email: [email protected]
Li
braries: Main – 2090 Kittredge Street,
Claremont Branch – 2940 Benvenue, West Branch – 1125 University, North Branch – 1170 The Alameda, Tarea Hall Pittman South Branch – 1901 Russell CO
MMUNICATION ACCESS INFORMATION:

This meeting is being held in a wheelchair accessible location.

To request a disability-related accommodation(s) to participate in the meeting, including auxiliary aids or services, please contact the Disability Services specialist at (510) 981-6418 (V) or (510) 981-6347 (TDD) at least three business days before the meeting date.

Please refrain from wearing scented products to this meeting.

C
aptioning services are provided at the meeting, on B-TV, and on the Internet. In addition, assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are available from the City Clerk prior to the meeting, and are to be returned before the end of the meeting.

Terry Taplin
Councilmember District 2
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 Tel: 510.981.7120 E-Mail: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTAL

AGENDA MATERIAL
for Supplemental Packet 2
Meeting Date: December 5, 2023
Item Number: 13
Item Description: Reimagining Public Safety Status Report Submitted by: Councilmember Taplin

RECOMMENDATION

1. Receive the Reimagining Public Safety Status Report from the City Manager’s Office;

2. Refer Alternative #3 (Problem Oriented Policing at Hot Spots + Street Outreach Workers + SNA [Social Network Analysis] Focused Deterrence + Social Services) in 2023 Gun Violence Prevention report to the City Manager for Gun Violence Prevention implementation.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
The Gun Violence Prevention Report (Verger 2023) recommends three Alternatives for “packaged components” in a Gun Violence Prevention Program for Berkeley. Of these alternatives, Alternative #3 is the most robust and most consistent with the Berkeley City Council’s stated policies and aims, and is also recommended by the author of the report:
“I recommend that the City of Berkeley and Berkeley Police Department implement Alternative #3: Problem Oriented Policing (POP) at Hot Spots + Street Outreach Workers + SNA [Social Network Analysis] Focused Deterrence + Social Services. As

long as the budget can make it work, I highly recommend doing the most programmatically that can be done as gun violence takes human lives.” 1

This Alternative is also consistent with the 2022 Reimagining Public Safety Final Report and Implementation Plan provided to the City of Berkeley by the National Institute of Criminal Justice Reform (NICJR).2 The Report recommended implementing a program similar to the Advance Peace program in the City of Richmond, citing in particular the Peacemaker Fellowships, which include “life coaching, mentoring, connection to needed services, and cultural and educational excursions to those deemed to be the very most dangerous individuals in the city.” The NICJR Report also recommended several police reform including Highly Accountable Learning Organization (HALO) and Ethical Policing Is Courageous (EPIC) standards, Project ABLE (Active Bystandership for Law Enforcement), and Early Intervention System (EIS), and Quality Assurance and Training (QAT) Bureau.

In brief, the components of Alternative #3 are:

● Problem Oriented Policing (POP) at Hot Spots: “…the [police] department would select a few (2-5) crime concentrations in specific places identified (7) in this research on which to focus. The police would need to incorporate the mapped gun violence incident data from this report but also possibly do their own crime mapping if it would be more up-to-date by the time this report is read.

● Focused Deterrence/Custom Notifications: “…If violence has just occurred, convene right away to determine the groups involved, key players, and instigating factors. Debrief all the same parties, review incident data, crosscheck lists of groups and their members, conduct criminal history reviews of active group members, perform social network analysis, and create a final list of impact players. Get input from street outreach workers and community members, and use social network analysis to focus resources strategically on those at highest risk of violence. Identify as many impact players as possible to notify.”

● Street Outreach Workers: “…identifying a CBO that is ready and willing to take on street outreach.”

● Social Services: “…identifying a CBO that is ready and willing to take on social services case management and checking with neighboring cities is the logical first step.”

Alternative #3 is consistent with the following adopted Council referrals included in the Reimagining Public Safety Process:

1 Verger, M. (2023). Gun Violence Prevention: Berkeley, CA. The Goldman School of Public Policy at UC Berkeley. Retrieved Dec. 1, 2023 from https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2023-12- 05%20Item%2013%20Reimagining%20Public%20Safety%20Status%20Report.pdf pp. 80-151.

2 Reimagining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan:
https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/BerkeleyReport_030722.pdf

● Berkeley Ceasefire: “a Gun Violence Intervention program with technical support from experienced consultants solicited by a Request For Proposals (RFP), community service providers including faith groups and violence intervention programs, hospital intervention programs, life coaching programs, Berkeley Housing Authority, Berkeley YouthWorks, Berkeley Police Department, Alameda County Workforce Development Board, Alameda County District Attorney’s Office, Alameda County Probation, California’s Office of the Attorney General, US Attorney’s Office, US Marshals Service, US Department of Justice, and other jurisdictions and agencies in the region as needed; and consider an alternate Urban Gun Violence Disruption Strategy such as the Peacemaker Fellowships program as implemented in the cities of Richmond, Stockton, and Sacramento” (November 2021)
● Community Policing: Flex Team for Problem-Oriented Policing Under the Scanning, Analysis, Response, and Assessment (SARA) Model and Other Applicable Community Engagement Models: Refer to the City Manager the establishment of a Flexible Team for Problem-Oriented Policing in the Berkeley Police Department, following the SARA model and other applicable community engagement models, including Berkeley Ceasefire. (April 2022) ● Office of Racial Equity: Re-Entry Employment and Guaranteed Income Programs: …Refer to the City Manager to establish evaluation processes and metrics for all social services programs recommended through the Reimaging Public Safety Process, including but not limited to violence prevention services, adult reentry programs, and mental health crisis response, and report evaluation outcome to the City Council. (December 2022) Alternative #3 is also consistent with recommendations that the District 2 Council Office received from Subject Matter Experts in a Ceasefire Ad Hoc Advisory Group, including: “…synergizing and streamlining rather than duplicating work. The broader the scope of a program, the greater the risk of path dependencies that could hinder the efficacy of service provision (e.g. narrower pool of qualified contractors or infeasible workloads).”3

ATTACHMENTS

1. Budget Referral: Berkeley Ceasefire (2021)

2. Community Policing: Flex Team for Problem-Oriented Policing Under the Scanning, Analysis, Response, and Assessment (SARA) Model and Other Applicable Community Engagement Models (2022)

3. Office of Racial Equity: Re-Entry Employment and Guaranteed Income Programs (2022)
3 District 2 Council Office. (2023). Memorandum: Berkeley Ceasefire Community Advisory:
https://www.terrytaplin.com/news/memorandum-berkeley-ceasefire-community-advisory/

2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981- ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981- E-Mail:

CONSENT CALENDAR
Nov. 9, 2021
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Councilmember Taplin (Author), Councilmember Bartlett (Co-Sponsor), Mayor Arreguin (Co-Sponsor) and Councilmember Wengraf (Co-Sponsor) Subject: Budget Referral: Berkeley Ceasefire

RECOMMENDATION

1. Refer to the Fiscal Year 2023 budget process $200,000 for consulting costs to develop a Gun Violence Intervention (GVI) program, commonly known as “Operation Ceasefire.”

2. Refer to the City Manager the development of a Gun Violence Intervention program with technical support from experienced consultants solicited by a Request For Proposals (RFP), community service providers including faith groups and violence intervention programs, hospital intervention programs, life coaching programs, Berkeley Housing Authority, Berkeley YouthWorks, Berkeley Police Department, Alameda County Workforce Development Board, Alameda County District Attorney’s Office, Alameda County Probation, California’s Office of the Attorney General, US Attorney’s Office, US Marshals Service, US Department of Justice, and other jurisdictions and agencies in the region as needed; and consider an alternate Urban Gun Violence Disruption Strategy such as the Peacemaker Fellowships program as implemented in the cities of Richmond, Stockton, and Sacramento.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
$200,000 one-time expenditure for Fiscal Year 2023; future operating costs to be determined. This may be a fiscally prudent investment when accounting for potential cost savings of reduced gun violence. According to the Everytown Economic Cost of Gun Violence Calculator Tool, a single gun homicide directly costs state taxpayers $1 million, and costs Californians $9 million when including externalities imposed on family members, survivors, and the community at large.1

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
Gun Violence Intervention is a Strategic Plan Priority Project, advancing our goal to create a resilient, safe, connected, and prepared city.

The City of Berkeley saw 36 reports of gunfire by the end of September 2021, 10 more than the same period in 2020—a 38% year-over-year increase. On October 27, 2021, the City Council passed a referral to the Community Engagement Process to Reimagine 1 https://everytownresearch.org/report/economic-cost-calculator/

Berkeley Ceasefire CONSENT CONSENT CALENDAR
Nov. 9, 2021

Public Safety to Create an Interjurisdictional Group Violence Intervention Program, or “Operation Ceasefire,” to Reduce Gun Violence. To date, the Reimagining Public Safety Task Force has not released recommendations for such a program. However, it is worth noting that Ceasefire programs are themselves defined by community engagement.

BACKGROUND
The National Network for Safe Communities defines GVI programs as “a partnership of law enforcement, community members, and social service providers with a common goal but distinct roles,” each role “conveying a powerful community message about disapproval for violence and in support of community aspirations; concrete opportunities for both immediate and longer term assistance and support; and clear prior notice of the legal risks associated with continued violence.”2
In the City of Stockton, the local police department established Operation Peacemaker in 1997, collaborating with federal law enforcement agencies, clergy members, and community groups. In the five years that the program operated, Stockton saw a 43% decrease in the average annual homicide rate.3
Intervention programs in neighboring cities of Oakland and Richmond are credited with enabling major reductions in homicide and gunfire rates. Oakland’s Ceasefire program was established in 2012, and by 2018, the city’s gun violence and homicides had fallen by 50%, the lowest rate in decades.4 Sadly, Oakland’s gunfire and homicide rates have increased substantially since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.5 2 https://nnscommunities.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/GVI-Issue-Brief-1.pdf 3 Braga, A. A. (2008). Pulling levers focused deterrence strategies and the prevention of gun homicide. Journal of criminal justice, 36(4), 332-343.
4 https://giffords.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Giffords-Law-Center-A-Case-Study-in-Hope.pdf 5 Neilson, S. (2021, Sept. 29). Homicides increased in Bay Area major cities in 2020. Are they coming down? San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved Oct. 15, 2021 from https://www.sfchronicle.com/crime/article/Homicides-increased-in-Bay-Area-major-cities-in-16494869.php

Berkeley Ceasefire CONSENT CONSENT CALENDAR
Nov. 9, 2021

Figure 1. Oakland Ceasefire model
Oakland Unite, a division of the City of Oakland’s Human Services Department, manages Oakland Ceasefire “through a public health and trauma-informed approach.” Further: “As a funder and direct service provider, Oakland Unite coordinates a network of 26 community-based organizations that provide comprehensive, culturally-responsive support services including Intensive Life Coaching, Employment and Education Support, Crisis Response, Violence Interruption/Street Outreach, and Community Engagement.”6
In addition to traditional services such as mental health, trauma care, education, and street outreach, these programs organize “call-ins” in which community leaders and local residents affected by gun violence can interface directly with group members to share their pain, explore paths to personal transformation, and discuss commitments to a safer community. These programs develop a framework to identify leaders with moral authority in affected communities to develop violence prevention strategies that build up collective autonomy and resilience. Law enforcement can also identify violent offenders in the community and compel them to attend call-ins as terms of their parole.

Alternatively, service providers can also schedule flexible in-person visits to address social determinants of violent crime.

In the City of Richmond, the Office of Neighborhood Safety (ONS) was established in 2007, precipitating a 61% reduction in gun violence over the following five years. By 2019, Richmond saw a 65% decrease in homicides and an 85% decrease in shootings resulting in injury.7 ONS works with the nonprofit Advance Peace to provide Peacemaker Fellowships, an eighteen-month program with wraparound services and 6 https://www.oaklandca.gov/topics/oaklands-ceasefire-strategy 7 https://www.advancepeace.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/AP-Richmond-Impact-2019.pdf

Berkeley Ceasefire CONSENT CONSENT CALENDAR
Nov. 9, 2021

street outreach for individuals involved in violent conflicts in the community, without law enforcement intervention. In contrast to Ceasefire programs, Advance Peace focuses on change through individuals by developing a LifeMAP (Management Action Plan), rather than group “call-ins” through peer networks. Advance Peace also hires formerly incarcerated individuals to work as Neighborhood Change Agents who provide violence interruption services, street outreach and service referrals directly in the community, rather than bifurcating violence interruption and case management.8 Advance Peace has successfully replicated the Fellowship model in the cities of Stockton and Sacramento, with funding of up to $500,000 over 4 years for implementation and evaluation.9

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
None.

CONTACT PERSON
Councilmember Taplin Council District 2 510-981-7120
8 https://www.advancepeace.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/ap-focused-deterrence-v1-1.pdf 9 https://www.advancepeace.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/1-OnePager-Media.pdf

2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981- ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981- E-Mail:

CONSENT CALENDAR
April 12, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Councilmember Taplin, Councilmember Wengraf, Councilmember Kesarwani, and Councilmember Droste
Subject: Community Policing: Flex Team for Problem-Oriented Policing Under the Scanning, Analysis, Response, and Assessment (SARA) Model and Other Applicable Community Engagement Models

RECOMMENDATION
Refer to the City Manager the establishment of a Flexible Team for Problem-Oriented Policing in the Berkeley Police Department, following the SARA model and other applicable community engagement models, including Berkeley Ceasefire.

POLICY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
On March 7, 2022, the Public Safety Committee adopted the following action: M/S/C (Wengraf/Kesarwani) to send the item, with a positive recommendation, to council to be considered as part of the reimagining public safety process. Vote: All Ayes

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
Staff time.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
Establishing a Flexible Team for Problem-Oriented Policing is a Strategic Plan Priority Project, advancing our goal to create a resilient, safe, connected, and prepared city.

By November 31, 2021, there were 47 confirmed reports of gunfire in Berkeley, with 19 solved cases. By the same time in 2020, there had been 37 confirmed gunfire reports with 23 solved cases. This represents a 22% Year-To-Date decline in the clearance rate for gun-related criminal investigations, from 62% in 2020 to 40% in 2021.

According to the City’s 2020/First Half of 2021 Crime Report, there were:
● 40 confirmed shooting incidents in 2020 versus 28 in 2019. ● 38 confirmed shooting incidents in the first nine months of 2021 versus 26 incidents in the same timeframe in 2020.
● Auto Thefts increased 64% from 492 cases in 2019 to 805 in 2020. Auto Thefts increased 52% from 339 cases in 2020 to 514 during the same timeframe in 2021.

27

[Flex Team] CONSENT CALENDAR
April 12, 2022

● Aggravated Assaults increased 20% in 2020, with 210 reports, compared to 175 in 2019. Aggravated Assaults decreased 13% in 2021, with 96 reports, compared to 111 in the same timeframe in 2020.
● Burglaries increased by 3% in 2020, with 797 reports as compared to 771 reports in 2019. Residential burglaries increased by 8% while commercial burglaries decreased by 7%.

While Part One Violent Crime decreased by 13% (81 crimes) and Part One Property Crimes decreased by 11% (738 crimes), the aforementioned categories of crimes saw marked increases.1 Despite these trends, 87% of all reported uses of force in 2021 resulted in neither injury nor complaint of pain. From October 2020 to September 2021, searches conducted by BPD saw a 44.23% yield rate, recovering 135 weapons and 31 firearms.

According to the Berkeley Police Department, Berkeley had 34 accidental deaths in 2020, of which 10 were from fentanyl (29.4%) whereas in Alameda County there were 732 accidental deaths, of which 138 were from fentanyl (18.8%). These deaths do not include poly drug incidents where fentanyl was present with other drugs.

In October 2021, the Berkeley Police Department had 149 officers on the roster, not including officers out due to injury or other types of leave. This is a lower level than in 2017-2018, when the department experienced a “staffing crisis.”2 In 2017, the Department was forced to disband its Special Enforcement Unit (known elsewhere as a Crime Suppression Unit) due to insufficient staffing.

In response to an increase in gun violence and certain categories of property crimes, the Berkeley City Council voted unanimously in June 2021 to fund a Bike Patrol for South and West Berkeley in the Fiscal Year 2022 budget. In November 2021, the City Council voted unanimously to fund the establishment of a Berkeley Ceasefire program in the Annual Appropriations Ordinance (AAO #1). The SARA model can be used to supplement bike patrols and a future Ceasefire program with long-term investigations, flexible interventions, and community engagement to solve serious crimes and improve community relations.

BACKGROUND
According to a quasi-experimental study in Boston conducted by Cook et al (2019), the higher clearance rate for gun homicides (43%) relative to nonfatal shootings (19%) was “primarily a result of sustained investigative effort in homicide cases made after the first 1 https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Clerk/City_Council/2021/10_Oct/Documents/2021-10- 19_Item_01_BPD_Annual_Report_pdf.aspx
2 Raguso, E. (2021, Oct. 20). Officials vow to increase police staffing, with available officers at historic low. Berkeleyside. Retrieved Nov. 1, 2021 from https://www.berkeleyside.org/2021/10/20/berkeley-police- staffing-increase-city-council-crime-report.

[Flex Team] CONSENT CALENDAR
April 12, 2022

2 days.”3 This suggests that long-term investigations can improve the clearance rate for solving violent crimes.

Contemporary proposals for police reform include best practices for law enforcement officers focused on solving crimes. The National Institute for Criminal Justice Reform (NICJR)’s New and Emerging Models of Community Safety and Policing Report, submitted to the Reimagining Public Safety Task Force,4 includes the following description of the SARA model for Problem Oriented Policing (Scanning, Analysis, Response, Assessment):

The Scanning, Analysis, Response, and Assessment (SARA) model was created in Virginia in 1987 to facilitate the problem-oriented policing procedure. The cornerstone of this model is a priority on outcomes; the model outlines four steps that are necessary for a proper police response to problems within their jurisdictions. To ensure proper implementation, a significant facet of this method is that officers must be ready to build trust between the community and the police department through the establishment of interpersonal relationships.

Scanning. This step consists of pinpointing and then triaging repeated issues that necessitate a response from the police department. Frequent problems that occur in the community are given priority. Relevant outcomes of the problem are matched to their corresponding cause. For example, examining which properties in a given area have the highest number of calls for service in a year or given time period is an important initial step in the SARA model.

Analysis. Here, law enforcement officers examine the root causes of the issue, community sentiment regarding the problem, and gather needed contextual data. This step also involves assessing the status quo response to the problem and identifying the shortcomings of that strategy. Ultimately, the cause of the problem and potential solutions are determined during this phase.

Response. Officers utilize collected data to ascertain potential intervention strategies. When determining strategies, a thorough review of implemented interventions in different areas with comparable issues is critical. Once a strategy is selected, clear goals must also be established. Execution of the chosen plan is the last part of this step.

Assess. After a plan is implemented and officers have attempted to address a problem, the police department must analyze the efficacy of their strategy. Continued evaluation of the intervention is necessary to guarantee lasting success. Alternatives or additions to the strategy are considered as well.

Many police departments have incorporated the SARA model into their interventions. In San Diego, the police department reported that a trolley station was the location of gang fights, violent crimes, and narcotic activity. A squad of officers collected information to show the local transit board that the design of the station contributed to crime. Based on 3 Cook, P. J., Braga, A. A., Turchan, B. S., & Barao, L. M. (2019). Why do gun murders have a higher clearance rate than gunshot assaults?. Criminology & Public Policy, 18(3), 525-551. 4 https://berkeley-rps.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/New-and-Emerging-Report-10.29.21-FNL-2.0.pdf

[Flex Team] CONSENT CALENDAR
April 12, 2022

the information provided by the officers, the transit board agreed to provide funds to redesign the station.

The Berkeley Police Department has a long history of targeting high-level crimes with a Special Investigations Bureau (SIB) and Special Enforcement Unit (SEU). The Special Investigations Bureau dates back to the early 1960s, when the unit was only staffed with 2 officers. The operations and community partnerships of the Special Investigations Bureau evolved over the years in response to local concerns and regional trends. At its peak in 1989, the SEU was staffed with 25 officers, including a Drug Task Force (DTF).

The DTF was disbanded in 2016.In the 1960s, the Special Investigations Bureau was responsible for coordinating investigations into gambling, prostitution, alcoholic beverage, and narcotic offenses that were prevalent in the community in that era. In 1968, the BPD Special Investigations Bureau logged over 2,000 narcotics arrests. This was a year that saw collaboration with the State Bureau of Narcotics Enforcement (Formerly known as Bureau of Narcotics Enforcement, which disbanded in 2012), and the Federal Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drug Control (the predecessor agency to the Drug Enforcement Agency).

In the 1970s, the Special Investigations Bureau quantified their successes by the street value of narcotics seized. In the early 70’s nearly every year the Bureau would seize roughly a million dollars in illicit narcotics. In 1983, Annual Crime Reports begin to highlight the growing presence of open-air drug markets with individuals congregated on street corners selling narcotics. In 1987 the Annual Report mentions the rapid increase in the use and sales of crack cocaine, most notably in South and West Berkeley. In April of 1987, the Berkeley Police Department’s Drug Task Force (DTF) was created. During this time, nearly all of the actions taken by DTF were based on calls from citizens. The Special Investigations Bureau augmented DTF by serving over 110 search warrants. 1989, the department completed a reorganization, which now included the Special Enforcement Unit, which contained a SEU commander, Special Investigations Bureau which had a Sergeant and six detectives, a Narcotics Admin Unit which contained an Inspector (supervisor) and two detectives, and two DTF teams, both containing a Sergeant and six officers. This unit was fully staffed with 25 Berkeley Police Officers.

In the early 1990s, the SEU began to focus on drug “hot spots” wherein their approach was more narrowly focused. The Unit also now moved more towards a community- based response with the creation of the Citizens Against Rock Sales (C.A.R.S) which was a successful partnership with community members seeking an improved quality of life. 1993 SEU members partnered with Community and Merchant Associations to help take back their communities, this included cleaning up the streets, and graffiti abatement. This effort helped mobilize and unify the community and police efforts to confront these challenging times.

In the 2000s, the Special Investigations Bureau (SIB) detectives began relying on confidential reliable informants to further narcotic investigations. By 2001, the SEU was staffed with one Lieutenant, one administrative Sergeant, three field Sergeants, and nine officers for a total of 14 BPD Officers, down from the 25 officers in 1989.

[Flex Team] CONSENT CALENDAR
April 12, 2022

After 2010, the SEU further reduced staffing to a Lieutenant, one officer in Narcotics Admin, SIB Sergeant and three detectives, DTF Sergeant, and four officers for a total of 11 officers. During the next seven years, the SIB would continue to target the drug dealers, and work to disrupt the supply of narcotics that were feeding Berkeley drug users. However, detectives quickly adapted to the reality that drug dealers would often be involved in other crimes that would further exploit unsuspecting victims, often in various types of fraud. By 2015, the DTF only had one Sergeant and two officers, and the narcotics admin was staffed with one officer. Eventually the DTF was disbanded in 2016. In 2017 the last SIB Sergeant and two detectives were loaned to robbery, property crimes, and sex crimes as SIB was completely disbanded. After this, the entire SEU was no longer in existence.

The Berkeley Police Department currently does not have staffing resources to conduct special investigations to address violent crime and drug trafficking as it did before, despite shootings and drug overdoses rising. By using problem-oriented policing models in NICJR’s New and Emerging Models of Community Safety and Policing Report, including the SARA model and a Ceasefire program, the City of Berkeley can increase its capacity to address violent crime with compassionate and data-driven best practices that are responsive to the manifold needs of a diverse community in the 21st Century.

Pursuant to Article VII Section 28(c) of the Charter of the City of Berkeley, the City Manager has the authority to establish a Flex Team for Problem-Oriented Policing in the Berkeley Police Department.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
None.

CONTACT PERSON
Councilmember Taplin Council District 2 510-981-7120

2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7120 ● E-Mail: [email protected]

CONSENT CALENDAR
December 6, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Councilmember Taplin, Councilmember Harrison (co-sponsor), Councilmember Hahn (co-sponsor), Councilmember Robinson (co-sponsor) Subject: Office of Racial Equity: Re-Entry Employment and Guaranteed Income Programs

RECOMMENDATION
(1) Refer to the City Manager to Strengthen Adult Criminal Justice Re-Entry Employment Programs in Berkeley by studying re-entry programs, supports, and systems already available for Berkeley residents, strengthening linkages, and identifying gaps. Report findings back to the Health, Life Enrichment, Equity & Community Committee during 2023.
(2) Refer $50,000 to the Budget Process to engage a consultant to recommend a Universal Income Pilot for Berkeley. Recommendation to include evaluation of:
● Potential funding sources
● Appropriate and recommended models for Berkeley
● Target population(s) to be supported by Pilot
● Program delivery models
● Evaluation
● Any and all other elements/factors to establish an effective Universal Income Pilot for Berkeley.

Considerations for target populations may include local Equity Indicators measuring racial justice and social equity outcomes such as poverty and financial health, educational disparities, environmental and mental health, housing quality, infrastructure, and public safety.
(3) Refer to the City Manager to establish evaluation processes and metrics for all social services programs recommended through the Reimaging Public Safety Process, including but not limited to violence prevention services, adult reentry programs, and mental health crisis response, and report evaluation outcome to the City Council.

POLICY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
On November 14, 2022, the Health, Life Enrichment, Equity & Community Committee adopted the following action: M/S/C (Bartlett/Kesarwani) to forward the item to Council with a positive recommendation that the City Council approve the item with the Author’s substitute recommendations as follows:

Office of Racial Equity CONSENT CALENDAR
Dec 13, 2022

(1) Refer to the City Manager to Strengthen Adult Criminal Justice Re-Entry Employment Programs in Berkeley by studying re-entry programs, supports, and systems already available for Berkeley residents, strengthening linkages, and identifying gaps. Report findings back to the Health, Life Committee during 2023. (2) Refer $50,000 to the Budget Process to engage a consultant to recommend a Universal Income Pilot for Berkeley. Recommendation to include evaluation of:
• Potential funding sources
• Appropriate and recommended models for Berkeley
• Target population(s) to be supported by Pilot
• Program delivery models
• Evaluation
• Any and all other elements/factors to establish an effective Universal Income Pilot for Berkeley.

Considerations for target populations in may include local Equity Indicators measuring racial justice and social equity outcomes such as poverty and financial health, educational disparities, environmental and mental health, housing quality, infrastructure, and public safety.
(3) Refer to the City Manager to establish evaluation processes and metrics for all social services programs recommended through the Reimaging Public Safety Process, including but not limited to violence prevention services, adult reentry programs, and mental health crisis response, and report evaluation outcome to the City Council.

Vote: All Ayes.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
The City Council’s omnibus budget referral for Reimagining Public Safety passed on May 5, 2022 included $1M for staffing the Office of Racial Equity, and $100,000 for Grant Writing Services. Implementing this recommendation would be contingent on those funds.

Additionally, the National Institute for Criminal Justice Reform recommended $1,250,000 in funding one year after council approval, from “5% of County Criminal Justice Realignment funds allocated to community services for Berkeley residents.”

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
Studying employment and poverty reduction programs in the Office of Racial Equity is a Strategic Plan Priority Project, advancing our goal to create a resilient, safe, connected, and prepared city.

Adult Re-entry and Municipal Employment
The population of adults on parole or probation has declined over the past two years in Berkeley, reflecting countywide trends. In the most recently available dataset, the Alameda County Probation Department (ACPD)1 reports 223 adult probationers in 1 https://probation.acgov.org/data.page

Office of Racial Equity CONSENT CALENDAR
Dec 13, 2022

Berkeley in Q3 2021, down from 312 active adult clients in March 2020.2 In spite of this decline, independent assessments had previously identified needs for further progress.

In 2019, the Alameda County Board of Supervisors approved an updated Adult Reentry Strategic Plan for the county, which includes performance measures for workforce development & employment.3 This program includes subcontractors with both subsidized and unsubsidized employment. The evidence has shown marginal effectiveness of these programs in reducing recidivism, which warrants consideration of supplemental programs at the municipal level to alleviate poverty and further reduce recidivism.

With the signing of Assembly Bill 109 (the Public Safety Realignment Act) in 2011, responsibility for incarceration and supervision of many low-level inmates and parolees transferred from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) to the county level, with the intent of reducing the incarcerated population. According to a 2020 evaluation of Alameda County’s AB 109 implementation by Research Development Associates, “Alameda County’s AB 109-funded services and Behavioral Health Care Service programs reduce the likelihood of recidivism and reduce the rate at which individuals recidivate.” However, the report also warns that “findings about AB 109-funded service receipt should be read with some caution. A relatively small proportion of individuals received AB 109-funded services...it appears service expansion could reduce recidivism rates among Alameda County’s probation population moving forward.”4 [emphasis added]
In June 2020, the City Council passed a budget referral authored by Councilmember Rashi Kesarwani to establish a framework for a new Office of Racial Equity within the Office of the City Manager.5 This is consistent with best practices in neighboring cities, such as Oakland and San Francisco, which have recently established such an office.

The duties of such an office can be manifold, but a primary responsibility should be to support CBOs and programs advancing the Reimagining Public Safety framework, including those that provide cash assistance, workforce development and employment opportunities for the formerly incarcerated to reduce recidivism (either a municipal program similar to Berkeley YouthWorks, or supplementing county services).

On May 5, 2022, the Berkeley City Council passed a budget referral to advance Reimagining Public Safety initiatives, which included $100,000 for grant writing 2 https://www.bscc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/Alameda-FY-20-21-CCP-Update.pdf 3 https://probation.acgov.org/probation-
assets/files/Reentryandpublicsafetydocs/AC_Adult%20Reentry%20Strategic%20Plan_Road%20to%20R eentry_2019%20Update.pdf
4 https://probation.acgov.org/probation-
assets/files/Reentryandpublicsafetydocs/RDA_AB109OverviewAndOutcomes_7-20.pdf 5 See Attachment 4.

Office of Racial Equity CONSENT CALENDAR
Dec 13, 2022

services, and slightly over $1 million for staffing a new Office of Racial Equity.6 These services could assist in researching and soliciting funding for these and other promising programs to improve public safety and advance economic justice.

The National Institute for Criminal Justice Reform (NICJR)’s Report on Reimagining Public Safety in Berkeley provided recommendations on a Guaranteed Income pilot and workforce development, the latter with a focus on “community beautification” services.7 These recommendations were accepted with modifications by the Reimagining Public Safety Task Force (RPSTF) in their Response and New Recommendations to NICJR’s Report:

Members are very interested in increasing job skills and opportunities. However, programs should be centered on the interests of the target group. The Task Force therefore rejects the idea of a ‘beautification’ program but fully supports programs that focus on professional development, and serve as a pipeline to employment, especially for those who face additional barriers like a criminal record. Any program should have the goal of being transformative.8
While the emphasis in these reports is on a municipal employment program, the Task Force’s focus on professional development is consistent with Chicago’s Green ReEntry program managed by the nonprofits Chicago CRED and the Inner-City Muslim Action Network, which provides vocational training for skilled trades, weekend programs, and housing assistance for formerly incarcerated individuals.9 NICJR’s Report recommended funding workforce development through 5% of County Criminal Justice Realignment funds allocated to community services for Berkeley residents. In contrast to municipal workforce development proposals, Alameda County focuses on public-private partnerships, and the Alameda County Probation Department currently procures employment services with one lead contractor, the nonprofit Building Opportunities for Self Sufficiency (BOSS). This contract provides services including:

Employability Assessments, Job Readiness Training, Transitional Work Programs, Subsidized/Unsubsidized Employment, and Job Retention Services.

According to the Community Corrections Partnership Executive Committee (CCPEC)’s Year Seven Status Update on Public Safety Realignment Alameda County, BOSS’s employment program saw an increase in clients enrolled in recent years, but job 6 https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-05/2022-05- 05%20Special%20Item%2001a%20Fulfilling%20the%20Promise%20of%20Berkeley_0.pdf 7 https://berkeley-rps.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/BerkeleyReport_032422FNL.pdf 8 RPSTF report final draft is included in appendices: https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/2022- 05/2022-05-05%20Special%20Item%2001c%20Discussion%20and%20Possible%20Action_0.pdf 9 ABC7 Chicago. (2020). Chicago Re-Entry Program Rebuilds Lives with Hands-On Training. ABC News.

Retrieved from https://abc7chicago.com/iman-inner-city-muslim-action-network-job-training-reentry- program/5988288/

Office of Racial Equity CONSENT CALENDAR
Dec 13, 2022

retention languished: “During FY 17/18, there was a significant increase in the number of clients, in all the aforementioned benchmarks, from the previous year.

Notwithstanding these increases, the decline in the proportion of clients reaching subsequent benchmarks after being referred, depicts the challenges facing participants to remain stable (in terms of housing, substance use, etc.) in order to proceed through the employment process and reach 180 days of employment.”10 While the NICJR Report recommended a program employing “at least 100” individuals, the Office of Racial Equity may consider a smaller initial scope by focusing on the adult re-entry population to expand opportunities where the need is most acute.

Guaranteed Income
The NICJR report recommended $1,800,000 for a Guaranteed Income Pilot Program, from local, federal, or philanthropic funding sources. The RPSTF accepted the recommendation with conditions:

Members strongly support this type of program and note that other communities have implemented these programs successfully. More information is needed to understand how families would be selected, and the city should consider whether other groups, like the AAPI or Indigenous community, should be included in this program.

The California Guaranteed Income Pilot Program was established in the Governor’s Fiscal Year 21-22 Budget to provide grants for guaranteed income pilot programs through the California Department of Social Services (CDSS). The department states that it “will prioritize funding for pilot programs and projects that serve California residents who age out of the extended foster care program at or after 21 years of age or who are pregnant individuals.”11
While the City of Berkeley would seek to leverage state and county resources as needed, this proposal would direct the Office of Racial Equity to study a municipal public works program for adult reentry (and/or municipal support for county services), in addition to a “guaranteed income” cash transfer pilot program that may indirectly reduce recidivism without being strictly targeted for the adult reentry population. To the extent that services are operated with City funding, the Office of Racial Equity would also be directed to evaluate outcomes, objective performance metrics and fiscal sustainability of programs under its auspices, as well as associated services provided by third-party contracting entities.
10 https://probation.acgov.org/probation-
assets/files/Public%20Safety%20Realignment_Y7%20Status%20Update.pdf 11 https://www.cdss.ca.gov/inforesources/guaranteed-basic-income-projects

Office of Racial Equity CONSENT CALENDAR
Dec 13, 2022

BACKGROUND
Poverty, crime, and racial inequality are deeply interconnected phenomena throughout US history. In particular, educational disparities and the lack of employment opportunities for the formerly incarcerated increases recidivism, fueling a vicious cycle of repeated offenses, high crime and poverty for Black people and other people of color in the criminal justice system.12
Studies have found causal relationships between unemployment13141516 and crime, and there is recent evidence showing that sharp unemployment shocks during the COVID- 19 pandemic may be related to increased gun violence and homicides.17 Empirical evidence and structural models suggest that unemployment can incentivize criminal behavior by lowering “the opportunity cost of choosing illegitimate work over legitimate work.”18 The evidence is also clear that a lack of stable employment contributes to recidivism–when formerly incarcerated individuals commit new offenses that bring them back into the criminal justice system. Research has generally found that high-quality jobs with good wages are most effective at reducing recidivism, particularly for those who have served prison sentences for property crimes.19 In addition to re-entry programs, cash transfer programs can raise the “opportunity cost” of crime by providing reliable liquidity to households so they can settle their balance sheets without resorting to “illegitimate” sources of cash. Experiments from Kenya to California with cash transfers (colloquially dubbed “basic” or “guaranteed income”) have repeatedly been shown to successfully reduce the social and psychological impacts of poverty, and a new guaranteed income pilot program in Alachua County, Florida is specifically aimed at reducing recidivism.20
12 Lockwood, S. K., Nally, J. M., Ho, T., & Knutson, K. (2015). Racial disparities and similarities in post- release recidivism and employment among ex-prisoners with a different level of education. Journal of Prison Education and Reentry, 2(1), 16-31.
13 Bianchi, G., & Chen, Y. (2021). Testing effects of hospitality employment on property crime in the United States. Tourism Economics, 13548166211001180.
14 Raphael, S., & Winter-Ebmer, R. (2001). Identifying the effect of unemployment on crime. The journal of law and economics, 44(1), 259-283.
15 Lin, M. J. (2008). Does unemployment increase crime? Evidence from US data 1974–2000. Journal of Human resources, 43(2), 413-436.
16 Nordin, M., & Almén, D. (2017). Long-term unemployment and violent crime. Empirical Economics, 52(1), 1-29.
17 Schleimer, J.P., Pear, V.A., McCort, C.D. et al. Unemployment and Crime in US Cities During the Coronavirus Pandemic. J Urban Health 99, 82–91 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-021-00605-3 18 Melick, M. D. (2003). The relationship between crime and unemployment. The Park Place Economist, 11(1), 30-36.
19 Yu, T. (2018). Employment and Recidivism. Evidence Based Policy Society. Retrieved from https://www.ebpsociety.org/blog/education/297-employment-recidivism 20 McDonough, S. (2022). A bold new experiment out of Florida: Guaranteed income for the formerly incarcerated. Vox. Retrieved from https://www.vox.com/22911023/ubi-guaranteed-income-prison-florida

Office of Racial Equity CONSENT CALENDAR
Dec 13, 2022

Cities across the country have seen remarkable success with programs that provide legitimate work and/or cash assistance. The City of Chicago supports capital investment for a Green ReEntry program managed by the nonprofits Chicago CRED and the Inner- City Muslim Action Network, which provides vocational training for skilled trades, weekend programs, and housing assistance for formerly incarcerated individuals.21 In 2019, former Mayor Michael Tubbs launched the Stockton Economic Empowerment Demonstration (SEED) pilot program. SEED provides $500 per month for two years to 125 randomly selected residents of Stockton in neighborhoods with below median income. In a one-year follow-up study, recipients reported improved mental health, financial stability, and employment opportunities.22
The City of Oakland’s Guaranteed Income pilot23 provides monthly cash payments to a randomly selected pool of low-income residents, and is funded entirely through private philanthropic donations, with collaborative management by the City and nonprofit agencies. Currently in its second phase, the pilot selected 300 applicants by random lottery “in a roughly one square mile area of East Oakland living with incomes below 50% of Area Median Income and at least one child under 18, a target area identified according to the Oakland Equity Index.24
The City of Compton raised an initial $8 million for its Guaranteed Income pilot program, the Compton Pledge, in partnership with the Jain Family Institute, which launched in December 2020. The program launched with 800 low-income Compton households receiving regular payments of varying sizes, with participants able to choose between payment options (e.g. direct deposit, Venmo, prepaid card) on a customized online platform (See Attachment 3). More recently, the City of Long Beach adopted the Long Beach Recovery Act in March 2021, which included funding for the Long Beach Guaranteed Income Pilot, with recommendations later made by a Community Working Group to inform a Request for Proposals (RFP) for a two-year contract (see Attachment 1).

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
None.

CONTACT PERSON
Councilmember Terry Taplin Council District 2 510-981-7120 21 ABC7 Chicago. (2020). Chicago Re-Entry Program Rebuilds Lives with Hands-On Training. ABC News. Retrieved from https://abc7chicago.com/iman-inner-city-muslim-action-network-job-training- reentry-program/5988288/
22 West, S. et al. (2020). Preliminary Analysis: SEED’s First Year. Stockton Economic Empowerment Demonstration. Retrieved from
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/6039d612b17d055cac14070f/t/603ef1194c474b329f33c329/16147 37690661/SEED_Preliminary+Analysis-SEEDs+First+Year_Final+Report_Individual+Pages+-2.pdf 23 https://oaklandresilientfamilies.org/about
24 http://www2.oaklandnet.com/oakca1/groups/cityadministrator/documents/report/oak071073.pdf

Office of Racial Equity CONSENT CALENDAR
Dec 13, 2022

ATTACHMENTS

1. City of Long Beach RFP

2. Guaranteed Income Toolkit - Jain Family Institute

3. Compton Pledge - April 2021 Press Release

4. Annotated Agenda - Berkeley City Council - Tuesday, June 9, 2020

LBGI Implementation & Administrator | ED22-023 | Template v6.9.21 | 1

sign
City of
Long Beach
Request for Proposals Number ED22-023
Long Beach Recovery Act (LBRA) Guaranteed
Income Pilot Program Implementation &
Administrator

LBGI Implementation & Administrator | ED22-023 |
Template v6.9.21 | 1

Overview
Summary
The City of Long Beach (City), Department of
Economic Development , seeks proposals from
qualified vendor(s) to implement and administer t he
Long Beach Guaranteed Income Pilot Program.

The selected vendor shall provide for the full
implementation of the Pilot, including pre-pilot
planning, launch preparation , implementation and
administration, and other services as specified.

Key Dates
Release Date: February 14, 2022

Questions Due to the City: 11:00am February 22, 2022
Proposals Due: 11:00 p.m. March 7, 2022
The City reserves the right to modify these dates at
any time, with appropriate notice to prospective
Contractors.

Proposal Information
Instructions for what to include in your proposal and
how to submit it are detailed in Section 4.

Proposals must be submitted electronically via the
City’s PlanetBids portal, available at
https://pbsystem.planetbids.com/portal/15810/portal-
home.

RFP Official Contact
Tommy Ryan
[email protected]
562-570-5664

LBGI Implementation & Administrator | ED22-023 |
Template v6.9.21 | 2
Contents
1 The Opportunity

1.1 Project Summary

1.2 Background

1.3 Goals

1.4 Award Terms
2 Scope of Work

2.1 Description of Services

2.2 Performance Metrics & Contract Management

2.2.1 Performance Metrics

2.2.2 Contract Management

2.2.3 Contract Payment
3 How We Choose

3.1 Minimum Qualifications

3.2 Evaluation Criteria

3.3 Selection Process & Timelines
4 Proposal Instructions & Content

4.1 Proposal Timelines & Instructions

4.2 Proposal Content

4.3 Narrative Proposal Template
5 Terms & Conditions

5.1 Acronyms/Definitions

5.2 Solicitation Terms & Conditions

5.3 Contract Terms & Conditions

5.4 Additional Requirements

5.5 Protest Procedures

LBGI Implementation & Administrator | ED22-023 | Template v6.9.21 | 3

1 The Opportunity

1.1 Project Summary
The City is seeking proposals from qualified vendors to implement and administer the Long Beach Guaranteed Income Pilot Program (Pilot). The selected vendor will be responsible for making direct payments to participants over the course of the 12-month Pilot. The City anticipates the direct payments to total approximately $1.5 million, though the scope of the Pilot may be expanded pending future funding availability.

1.2 Background
The COVID-19 pandemic has created an economic recession that has further intensified existing economic inequities. The economic impacts of the COVID -19 recession have been unequal and have impacted specific sectors, business owners, workers, property owners, nonprofit organizations, geographic areas, and racial groups differently. The sudden and unanticipated public health emergency necessitated the immediate restrictions (through State and local Health Orders) and, in many cases, closure of specific businesses and customer activities. Following these Health Orders, unemployment rapidly increased from a pre-pandemic low of 4 percent to a high of 21 percent during the peak summer months of 2020, affecting businesses and workers in sectors most impacted by the health restrictions such as retail, hospitality, and services.

Recognizing the inordinate economic impacts that the pandemic has had on Long Beach residents, workers, and business owners, on December 15, 2020, the City Council requested that staff develop an Economic Recovery Strategy to address the economic impacts of COVID19. Staff have initiated five economic equity studies, conducted more than 30 listening sessions with over 350 community leaders and representatives, and received City Council input at numerous steps in the process of drafting this plan.

Incorporating this diverse input and existing City Council -adopted recommendations the Economic Recovery Strategy (Strategy), including proposals for the economic development strategies needed to create equitable economic opportunities for residents, workers, investors, and entrepreneurs in Long Beach for sustained economic recovery.

In March 2021, the City adopted the Long Beach Recovery Act ( LBRA), a plan to fund economic and public health initiatives, including the Strategy, as a response to individuals and businesses critically impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. The LBRA has dedicated funding to support the City’s Economic Recovery which includes funding for the Long Beach Guaranteed Income Pilot (Pilot).

LBGI Implementation & Administrator | ED22-023 | Template v6.9.21 | 4 Guaranteed Income
Guaranteed Income (GI) is an innovat ive approach to supporting people in a rapidly changing economy by providing a minimum amount of income to supplement the basic costs of living. GI is a cash transfer program that provides regular, unrestricted and unconditional direct payments to individuals or entire households. These payments help offset basic living expenses so that program participants can pay for housing, food, healthcare, and transportation among other living expenses; so that they can work and care for their families without falling into poverty or losing their jobs.

A common overarching theme of GI programs is to lift working people and their families out of poverty over time and start to reduce economic inequalities that exist in communities where people live and work together bu t some cannot afford the basic cost of living. These supplemental payments can also take the cost burden off of local small business owners, who cannot afford to pay workers more to live in high-cost areas like Long Beach or Southern California. Supplemental GI payments can also provide the added benefit of stimulating the local economy by boosting access to discretionary spending for goods and services in the surrounding community.

Community Working Group
In April 2021, a Community Working Group, composed of eight representatives selected for their extensive background in the Long Beach community was convened to make recommendations for a potential GI program in Long Beach. The Working Group began its review of more than two dozen GI pilot programs from other municipalities that have either launched or are in planning stages for roll out of their own GI programs. Over the course of five bi-weekly meetings, the Working Group members reviewed and discussed in-depth the impact and investment of these program as through detailed analysis of GI program studies, research questions, participant selection criteria, control and treatment groups, outreach and marketing, self -application, and income distribution processes.

After extensive review of Long Beach-specific research, the Working Group identified a number of Key Performance Indicators (KPI) to focus the development of recommendations about the GI pilot program. The following provides a summary of the KPI recommended by the Working Group for City Council consideration:
• COVID-19 Impacts: Data provided by HHS showed the highest concentration of COVID-19 cases occurring in the five Zip Codes of 90804, 90805, 90806, 90810, and 90813.
• Median Household Income: Though the Median Family Income in Long Beach exceeds $85,000, all household incomes in the targeted Zip Codes fall well below that with income in 90813 being less than half of the citywide median.

LBGI Implementation & Administrator | ED22-023 | Template v6.9.21 | 5

• Impact: More than half of all families residing in Long Beach live within the five zip codes most impacted by COVID-19. The Working Group then turned to looking at the number and percentage of families in poverty.
• Poverty: According to the analysis, 80 percent of all Long Beach households living in poverty reside within the five targeted Zip Codes. The highest concentration of poverty is found within 90813 - as close to one out of every four families fall within the United States Department of Health and Human Services Federal Poverty Level Guidelines.

Long Beach Guaranteed Income Pilot (Pilot)
Based on the recommen dations of the Working Group and other considerations, such as funding availability, the Pilot program will include the following key elements:
• Direct Payments: The initial allocation funded by the Recovery Act will provide up to 250 participants with $500 per month for 12 months.
• Participants: Program participants will be Single Headed Households with incomes below the poverty line.
• Geographic Focus: Direct payments should focus on the highest concentrated area of family poverty within the targeted five Zi p Codes, which is in 90813. This will allow for the greatest potential for community impact and will provide documentable results that can be included within the national experiment and research currently underway throughout the United States.

According to departmental analysis based on available US Census data there are 58,380 residents of the 90813 zip code with 65% identifying as Hispanic or Latino, 11.5% Black or African-American, 12.5% as Asian, 0.4% as Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander, and 0.2% as American Indian or Alaska Native.

According to the California Hard-to-Count Index 72% of all residents live within a multi-unit structure, 87.8% live in housing units that are renter -occupied, 46.5% have income below 150 percent of the poverty line, and 41.9% of those aged 25 and older are not high school graduates.
• Support Services: In addition to the direct cash assistance program, participants will receive the offer of additional services including digital technology packages, assistance with accessing childcare, job placement and job training access, and other identified support services to expand upon the initial $500 investment. • Reporting: Consistent with other pilot programs, no additional reporting will be required for participants beyond the completion of a monthly survey. In addition to the treatment group there will be a yet -to-be-determined number of participants who will be included in the control group. • Incentives: The control group will also be incentivized to complete a monthly survey but will not receive the direct cash payments.

LBGI Implementation & Administrator | ED22-023 | Template v6.9.21 | 6 Note, if additional matching funds are secured, t he Pilot may be expanded to serve additional cohort participants in other high-need Zip Codes.

1.3 Goals
The goal of the Pilot is to increase the monthly income of the City’s most vulnerable residents with the highest unemployment, highest rates of violence and whom have had the greatest continued impact from COVID-19.

In one year or less, the Pilot will distribute $1.5 million in direct cash assistance in the form of guaranteed income to 250 families living at or below the poverty line in the 90813 zip- code. Using data collected as part of the Pilot, the City hopes to contribute to the discourse around local, regional and national guaranteed income policy and its efficacy.

Over the course of the Pilot, the program will have achieved the following:
1) 250 or more households will have participated within the treatment group; a. Program participants will be Single Headed Households with incomes at or below the poverty line in the 90813 zip-code;
2) Each participating household will have received $500 a month for a period of twelve months;
3) Each participating household will have access to multiple payment options; 4) Each household will have access to expert financial benefits counseling to ensure that zero impact will be had on any participant’s local, county, State or federal public benefits;
5) City will have received viable recommendations on ho w to fund, sustain and expand Guaranteed Income within the City.

1.4 Award Terms
This contract will be for a period of two years with the option to renew for three additional one-year periods. The total contract term will not exceed five years.

LBGI Implementation & Administrator | ED22-023 | Template v6.9.21 | 7

2 Scope of Work

2.1 Description of Services
This opportunity is for qualified vendors to implement and administer the Pilot. The selected vendor shall provide for the partial implementation and administration of the Pilot including, but not limited to : creating and operating a digital payment solution to pay Pilot participants, creating and maintaining a Pilot website/portal , providing financial counseling services and identifying potential funding for the expansion and/or sustainment of the program.

As a part of the Pilot, the City will also contract with a Pilot Research and Evaluation Partner to design the Pilot, engage the community, identify pilot participants and evaluate the program. The Research and Evaluation Partner will be selected through a separate process. The selected Implementation & Administration vendor will be required to collaborate with the City’s selected Pilot Research and Evaluation vendor throughout the Pilot to conform with the Pilot design and to ensure appropriate data collection and information sharing in support of the overall evaluation of the program.

Specific services for the Pilot shall include, but are not limited to, the following:
• Creating and operating a customizable digital (electronic) payment solution capable of supporting multiple p ayment distribution types for maximum flexibility of participants;
• Providing for the enrollment of selected Pilot participants, as needed, to facilitate receipt of payments;
• Creating and maintaining an overall Pilot website and/or portal to promote the program and serve as a live public dashboard for performance metrics; o This website should be compatible and connected to the City’s Recovery website, for use by participants, City staff and the City’s Pilot Research and Evaluation vendor;
o Should include both Pilot and City branding;
o Be compatible with mobile communications devices;
o Website content should be made available in English, Spanish, Khmer and Tagalog, in accordance with the City’s Language Access Plan • Providing case management services, including:
o Resolution of any issues related to payment distribution; o Financial benefits counseling to ensure that zero impact will be had on any participant’s local, county, State or federal public benefit; • Providing support for ongoing data collection and information sharing to City staff and the City’s selected Pilot Research and Evaluation Partner; o Assisting the City in identifying additional financial resources, including grants, fundraising opportunities or other strategies to grow the Pilot.

LBGI Implementation & Administrator | ED22-023 | Template v6.9.21 | 8 o Providing documentation and audit trail that meets program requirements that will be clearly defined before Pilot launch, including but not limited to the following:
o Providing all information that the City deems necessary, including but not limited to weekly funding obligati on amounts, expenditures, and projections;
o Managing a technology-driven duplication of benefits process that ensures compliance with Federal law;
o Facilitating issuance of 1099 Miscellaneous Tax forms tax process for any payments deemed taxable;
o Transferring data, files, and records to the City to be retained for future audits;
o Having o rganizational capacity to scale the Pilot if additional funding becomes available. This may include (but is not limited to) the following:
o the ability to increase the number of participants;
o the ability to track separate cohorts of participants; o the ability to invoice separately based on the funding source; o the ability to flexibly modify program elements to meet the requirements of new funding, including record keeping, reporting and audit requirements.

2.2 Performance Metrics & Contract Management

2.2.1 Performance Metrics
The table below highlights the targets that will be tracked and reviewed collaboratively with the awarded contractor during the contract. This list is an indica tion of the performance metrics of interest to the City and is not exhaustive or final. As a part of a response to this RFP, Proposers may propose additional or alternative performance metrics to be tracked on a regular basis. The final set of performance metrics and frequency of collection will be negotiated by the successful Proposer and the City prior to the finalization of an agreement between parties and may be adjusted over time as needed.

METRIC DESCRIPTION TARGET DATA SOURCE

1. Number of
participants
enrolled
The total number of
Pilot participants
that receiving the
guaranteed
income
2501 Monthly report

2. Number of
payments issued
on time
The total number of
payments issued
on a monthly basis
100% Monthly report

LBGI Implementation & Administrator | ED22-023 | Template v6.9.21 | 9

3. Percentage of
payment issues
resolved
The percentage of
participant
payments issues
that are resolved
100% of issues
resolved on a
monthly basis
Monthly report

4. Impact on
Public Benefits
Number of
participants whose
public benefits are
decreased as a
result of Pilot funds
Zero participants'
benefits are
impacted
Quarterly report

5. Funding Options Number of viable
funding options
presented to the
City to expand the
program
Minimally, present
funding solutions to
increase the
number of
potential
participant
households to
1,000+
Monthly report

1. 250 is the minimum number of participants expected to be served during the Pilot based on current available funding. This me tric will be reevaluated should the program be expanded to serve additional participants.

2.2.2 Contract Management
The selected vendor will receive consistent support and communication from a City liaison throughout the process. This liaison will be the main contact for providers and will send out reminders to providers before reporting, invoice, and narrative metrics are due to provide clarification about deadlines and answer any questions. These efforts are to ensure that any issues can be openly shared, solved early and any funds that may not be expended may be redirected.

Kick Off Meeting
The selected vendor shall participate in project kickoff meeting to introduce lead project staff, review project scope, review project timelines, review vendor invoicing and reporting requirements, and create regular project meeting and project reporting schedule.

Milestones/Approval from City on Key Program Decisions
The s elected vendor shall submit the following deliverables to City staff by the designated deadline and receive approval before implementing . Final deadlines shall be negotiated and agreed upon during contract negotiations. • Recommendations on program design;
• Website/portal design;
• Participant payment enrollment process;

LBGI Implementation & Administrator | ED22-023 | Template v6.9.21 | 10 • Payment resolution procedure;
• Sample reports for required data, including number of participants, number of payments issued, number of payment issues resolved, and others to be determined;
• Process for creating an escrow account and a schedule of deposits made by the City to said account to process payments to Pilot participants (if applicable).

Communications and Reporting
Vendor and City staff shall meet regularly during the start of the engagement to review project status, address project issues, assess opportunities to improve effectiveness and efficiency, and actively work toward the launch of the Pilot.

After the Pilot has launched, the vendor and staff shall meet regularly to review project status and performance, address project issues, assess opportunities to improve effectiveness and efficiency, and review service data and monitor performance.

The vendor shall identify a lead project manager that will be available to speak and answer questions from City staff as needed.

2.2.3 Vendor Invoicing & Payments
The City issues payment based upon services rendered. After a contract is finalized and work is performed, the Contractor s hould invoice the City. The City will remit payment within 30 calendar days of being billed.

To process payments efficiently, the vendor is encouraged to use an invoice template provided by the City but may also use their own and, at minimum, include the following information on their invoices:
• Invoice
o Amount applied to administrative costs
o Amount remitted to participants
o Monthly Payroll Registers and receipts to coincide with admin costs reported
o Monthly listing of participants to whom payment was remitted o Monthly reporting attesting to participants’ eligibility • Invoice number
• Date of invoice
• Purchase Order (PO) number
• Identify name of department, program, and program lead • Summarize title of services performed and service period

LBGI Implementation & Administrator | ED22-023 | Template v6.9.21 | 11

3 How We Choose

3.1 Minimum Qualifications
• Qualification to conduct business in the City
• Not having been debarred by Federal, State or local government • Verifiable e xperience in designing, implementing, and administering a cash transfer program within the last 36 months with a minimum of 50 concurrent participants.
• Financial stability and staff capacity to effectively deliver service within the Pilot’s 12-month timeframe.
• Ability to keep records according to Federal Single Audit standards, respo nd to federal audit requests, and regularly self-report on contract performance.

3.2 Evaluation Criteria
Proposals shall be consistently evaluated based upon the following criteria:

CRITERION
Organizational Capacity & Experience
• Experience serving comparable demographics to those selected for the Pilot. • Organizational capacity to successfully deliver, develop, and implement services.
• Organizational capacity to scale the Pilot if additional funding becomes available. This may include (but is not limited to) the following: 1) the ability to increase the number of participants, 2) the ability to track separate cohorts of participants 3) the ability to invoice separately based on the funding source, 4) the ability to flexibly modify program elements to meet the requirements of new funding, including record keeping, reporting and audit requirements. • Demonstrated experience with recommended payment solution and participant portal.
• Language access capacity.
• Availability, experience, and qualifications of key personnel. • Conformance to the terms of the RFP.

Method of Approach
• Quality, user experience, and capacity of guaranteed income cash payments portal
• Ability to have a fully operational system ready for final review within 3 weeks of award
• Capacity to implement a comprehensive case management, including financial benefits counseling service
• Ability to securely process direct cash payments on behalf of City • Ability to develop and present viable strategies to fund the expansion of the Pilot program

LBGI Implementation & Administrator | ED22-023 | Template v6.9.21 | 12 Communications & Reporting
• Ability to participate in mandatory meetings.
• Ability and experience in data collection and reporting.

Reasonableness of Cost:
• Cost per participant served.

Desired Qualifications
• Prior experience with conducting a program disbursing federal funding • Knowledge of the Final Ruling of American Rescue Plan • Knowledge of OMB Uniform Guidance

3.3 Selection Process & Timelines

EVALUATION STAGE

ESTIMATED

DATE DESCRIPTION
Evaluation of
Narrative & Cost
Proposals
3/8/2022 –
3/11/2022
• An Evaluation Committee will review
Narrative & Cost Proposals to select the
proposal that best meets the needs of the
City.
• Evaluations will be conducted using a
methodology derived from the evaluation
criteria listed in Section 3.2.

Interviews and
Demos
TBD • An interview and demos will be provided
• The City may interview or request demos
from none, one, some or all Proposers.

Negotiation &
Contractor
Selection
March 2022 • Selected Contractor(s) will be notified in writing.
• Any award is contingent upon the
successful negotiation of final contract
terms. If contract negotiations cannot be
concluded successfully, the City reserves
the right to negotiate a contract with
another Contractor or withdraw the RFP.
• Negotiations shall be confidential and not
subject to disclosure to competing
Contractors unless and until an agreement
is reached.

Estimated Contract
Execution
April 2022
Proposer Debrief After
Contractor is
Selected
• Successful and unsuccessful Proposers are
encouraged to request phone call or in
person meeting with the City to discuss the

LBGI Implementation & Administrator | ED22-023 | Template v6.9.21 | 13

strengths and weaknesses of their
proposal. The intent of the debrief is to
provide the Proposer with constructive
feedback to equip them with information
to effectively meet the City’s needs and
be successful in future proposals.

4 Proposal Instructions & Content

4.1 Proposal Timelines & Instructions

MILESTONE

TIME (PACIFIC)
& DATE LOCATION / ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Release date February 14,
2022

Questions due to
the City
11:00 a.m.

February 22,
2022
• Submit all inquiries via email to
[email protected]
Posting of the
Q&A
February 25,
2022
• Responses to the questions will be posted on
the City’s PlanetBids portal, available at
https://pbsystem.planetbids.com/portal/1581
0/portal-home.

Proposals due 11:00 p.m.

March 7, 2022
• Proposals should be submitted electronically
via the City’s PlanetBids portal, available at
https://pbsystem.planetbids.com/portal/1581
0/portal-home.
• Late proposals, or proposals submitted
through other channels will not be accepted.
• Proposers are responsible for submitting their
proposals completely and on time.
o Proposers will receive an e-bid
confirmation number with a time
stamp from PlanetBids indicating that
the proposal was submitted
successfully. The City will only receive
proposals that were transmitted
successfully.
o Technical support is available by
phone at (818) 992-1771
o Support resources including a list of
Frequently Asked Questions are
available on PlanetBids at

LBGI Implementation & Administrator | ED22-023 | Template v6.9.21 | 14 https://pbsystem.planetbids.com/porta
l/15810/help.

4.2 Proposal Content
Complete proposals will include the following. Proposers are encouraged to use this table as a checklist to ensure all components are included in their proposal.

PROPOSAL
☐ Narrative
Proposal
The Narrative Proposal should provide a straightforward, concise delineation of capabilities to satisfy the RFP. Guidance on preparing a Narrative Proposal is detailed below in Section

4.3. ☐ Cost Proposal The Cost Proposal should adhere to the following:
• Provide a proposed budget with estimated costs to
provide personnel and support needed to deliver the
Pilot.
• Provide any additional information that describes your fee structure and that provides a comprehensive
estimate of total program costs f or your organization’s proposal.
• The cost proposal and scope of work shall include and specify the firm’s labor, indirect costs, and any
subconsultant costs. This should include any additional costs related to the potential scaling of the program as described in Section 3.1.
• The fee to be paid to the Consultant will be made at the Consultant’s established billable rates for staff hours and expenses accrued in producing the required services,
up to a maximum fee to be established through
negotiations.
• The Consultant’s billable rates shall not include mark-ups on reimbursable items or mark -ups for overhead and
profit; no additional payment will be made for those
items. The City will neither reimburse the Consultant for mileage, office supplies, overhead expenses, nor for the use of computer equipment.
• All sub-consultant fees and costs shall not include mark- ups and will be reimbursed on an actual-cost basis. The City will not reimburse for a subconsultant’s mileage,
office supplies, overhead expenses, or for the use of
computer equipment.
• Primary Consultants located outside the Los
Angeles/Orange County area shall not assume the City

LBGI Implementation & Administrator | ED22-023 | Template v6.9.21 | 15

will reimburse for travel to the City without prior
approval. Consultants outside of Los Angeles/Orange
County should discuss ho w their remoteness will affect their responsiveness in delivering services.

PROPOSAL APPENDICES
☐ Financial
Stability
Proposers should include one or more of the following
financial statements to provide the City with enough
information to determine financial stability of the Proposer and subcontractor.
• Financial Statement or Annual Report
• Business tax return
• Statement of income and related earnings
• Formal Audit Report conducted by an external CPA firm, if available
• Internal Control Report, if available
☐ Other Addenda
(if applicable)
Colored displays, promotional materials, and other collateral are not necessary or desired. However, if a complete
response cannot be provided without referencing supporting documentation, it may be provided as an addendum clearly cited in the Narrative or Cost Proposal.

MANDATORY ATTACHMENTS | The following are included as Attachments in PlanetBids. They must be signed by the individual legally authorized to bind the Proposer.
☐ A. Authorization & Certification
☐ B. Equal Benefits Ordinance (EBO) Form
☐ C. W-9
NON-MANDATORY ATTACHMENTS | The following are required for awarded Contractors prior to contract execution. If possible, Proposers are encouraged to include this information as part of their proposal to expedite processing. ☐ D. Business License
☐ E. Proof of Registration with Secretary of State
F. Pro Forma – Reference only
☐ G. INSURANCE.

As a condition precedent to the effectiveness of this Agreement, Contractor shall procure and maintain at Contractor’s expense for the duration of this Agreement from an insurance company that is admitted to write insurance in the State of California or that has a rating of or equivalent to an A:VIII by A.M.

Best and Company the following insurance:

a. Commercial general liability insurance equivalent in coverage scope to ISO CG 00 01 10 93 naming the City of Long Beach and its officials, employees, and agents as additional insureds on a form equivalent in coverage scope to ISO CG 20 26 11 85 from and against claims,

LBGI Implementation & Administrator | ED22-023 | Template v6.9.21 | 16 demands, causes of action, expenses, costs, or liability for injury to or death of persons, or damage to or loss of property arising out of activities or work performed by or on behalf of the Contractor in an amount not less than One Million Dollars (US $1,000,000) per occurrence and Two Million Dollars (US $2,000,000) in general aggregate.
b. As applicable, workers’ compensation coverage in accordance with the Labor Code of the State of California and Employer’s liability insurance with minimum limits of One Million Dollars (US $1,000,000) per accident or occupational illness. The policy shall be endorsed with a waiver of the insurer’s right of subrogation against the City of Long Beach and its officials, employees, and agents.
c. If use of vehicles is part of the scope of services, commercial automobile liability insurance equivalent in coverage scope to ISO CA 00 01 06 92 in an amount not less than Five Hundred Thousand Dollars (US $500,000) combined single limit (CSL) covering Symbol 1 (any auto). d. Professional Liability (or Errors and Omissions Liability] insurance covering the profession or professions (for example, licensed professions such as accountants or lawyers) provided within the Agreement in the amount of not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) per claim.

Any self-insurance program or self-insurance retention must be approved separately in writing by City and shall protect the City of Long Beach and its officials, employees, and agents in the same manner and to the same extent as they would have been protected had the policy or policies not contained retention provisions. Each insurance policy shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be suspended, voided, or canceled by either party except after thirty (30) days prior written notice to City, and shall be primary and not contributing to any other insurance or self-insurance maintained by City.

Any subcontractors which Contractor may use in the performance of this Agreement shall be required to indemnify the City to the same extent as the Contractor and to maintain insurance in compliance with the provisions of this section.

Contractor shall deliver to City certificates of insurance and original endorsements for approval as to sufficiency and form prior to the start of performance hereunder. The certificates and endorsements for each insurance policy shall contain the original signature of a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. “Claims-made” policies are not acceptable unless City Risk Manager determines that “Occurrence” policies are not available in the market for the risk being insured. In a “Claims-made” policy is accepted, it must provide for an extended reporting period of not

LBGI Implementation & Administrator | ED22-023 | Template v6.9.21 | 17

less than three (3) years. Such insurance as required herein shall not be deemed to limit Contractor’s liability relating to performance under this Agreement. City reserves the right to require complete certified copies of all said policies at any time. Any modification or waiver of the insurance requirements herein shall be made only with the approval of City Risk Manager. The procuring of insurance shall not be construed as a limitation on liability or as full performance of the indemnification provisions of this Agreement.

☐ PlanetBids | Ensure your organization’s PlanetBids profile is up to date, including an email address, phone number, and for any socioeconomic classifications you may qualify for.

4.3 Narrative Proposal Template
An editable version of the template below has been posted to PlanetBids. Proposers should complete the editable template and submit it as their narrative proposal.

Organizational Capacity & Experience

PROPOSER CONTACT INFORMATION
Organization
Company Name
Company Address
Website
Federal Tax ID Number
Authorized
Representative
Name
Title
Email Address
Phone Number
Other Point of
Contact (if
required)
Name
Title
Email Address
Phone Number

PROPOSER CAPACITY & EXPERIENCE
What type of enterprise is the organization?
☐ Non-Profit
☐ Sole Proprietorship
☐ General Partnership
☐ Corporation
State and Date of incorporation:

_______________________________________

LBGI Implementation & Administrator | ED22-023 | Template v6.9.21 | 18 ☐ Limited Liability Company
☐ Other
_________________________________
Where is the organization that would
service the City’s account located?
Does the organization reside in Long
Beach?
Please describe why the organization is
qualified to provide the services described
in this RFP (1-2 paragraphs).

How many employees does the
organization have in total and residing in
Long Beach?
Where are the representative(s) that would
service the City’s account located?
Please provide a plan of overview for how
the project will be staffed, including the
percentage of time each employee will be
allocated to the project, and the names
and titles of principles.

Who are the key staff involved in the
project? For each, please provide a name,
title, and resume either as an attachment
or 1 paragraph description.

Does the proposal include subcontractors? ☐ Yes
☐ No

REFERENCES
Reference 1
Company
Project Manager
Phone Number
Project Description
Project Start and
End Dates
Reference 2
Company
Project Manager
Phone Number
Project Description
Project Start and
End Dates
Reference 3
Company
Project Manager
Phone Number

LBGI Implementation & Administrator | ED22-023 | Template v6.9.21 | 19

Project Description
Project Start and
End Dates

Reference 4
Company
Project Manager
Phone Number
Project Description
Project Start and
End Dates

Reference 5
Company
Project Manager
Phone Number
Project Description
Project Start and
End Dates

SUB-CONTRACTOR CONTACT INFORMATION (if applicable)
Please provide this information for all subcontractors included in this proposal.

Organization Company Name
Company Address
Authorized
Representative
Name
Title
Email Address
Phone Number
Other Point of
Contact (if
required)
Name
Title
Email Address
Phone Number

SUBCONTRACTOR CAPACITY & EXPERIENCE
What type of enterprise is the organization?
☐ Non-Profit
☐ Sole Proprietorship
☐ General Partnership
☐ Corporation
State and Date of incorporation:

_______________________________________

☐ Limited Liability Company

LBGI Implementation & Administrator | ED22-023 | Template v6.9.21 | 20 ☐ Other
_________________________________
Which specific requirements of this RFP will
the subcontractor perform?
Is the subcontractor registered with the
California Department of Industrial
Relations? If yes, provide registration
number.

Please describe why the organization is
qualified to provide the services described
in this RFP (1-2 paragraphs).

Please describe the length of time the
organization has been providing the
services described in this RFP (1 -3
sentences).

How many employees does the
organization have nationally, locally, and
residing in Long Beach?
Where are the representative(s) that would
service the City’s account located?
Organizational Capacity & Experience

1. Please provide an overview of past guaranteed income o r comparable cash transfer programs your organization is conducting or has conducted in the past.

In your answer, be sure to share the total cost of the project, the number of participants served, amount of staff or resources involved, and metrics on the accomplishments and impact of the project. (suggest highlighting 2 -4 programs, 1-2 paragraphs per program)

2. Please describe your experience in serving demographics comparable to those selected for the Pilot. (1 paragraph max)

3. Please describe your organizational capacity to scale the Pilot should additional funding become available. This may include (but is not limited to) the following: 1) the ability to increase the number of participants, 2) the ability to track separate cohorts of participants 3) the ability to invoice separately based on the funding source, 4) the ability to flexibly modify program elements to meet the requirements of new funding, including record keeping, reporting and audit requests. (1-2 paragraphs)

LBGI Implementation & Administrator | ED22-023 | Template v6.9.21 | 21

4. Please describe your experience and organizational capacity in data collection and reporting. (1 paragraph max)

5. Please describe your organization’s capacity to provide outreach and education in non -English (Spanish, Khmer, Tagalog) or non-verbal languages. (250 words max)

6. Describe your organization’s ability to keep records according to Federal Single Audit standards, respond to federal audit requests, and regularly self -report on contract performance.

7. (Optional) If there is any other information you have not provided above that will help the City evaluate your qualifications for these efforts, please provide them below. Please refer to Sections 3.1 Minimum Qualifications and 3.2 Evaluation Criterion as needed.

Method & Approach

1. Please describe in detail how your organization intend s to implement and administer the Pilot in partnership with the City and its selected Pilot Research and Evaluation partner. Include proposed timeline s for launching the website/portal, enrolling identified participants to receive payment, and issuing first payments.

2. Please describe in detail your organization’s approach for identifying additional financial resources, including grants, fundraising opportunities or other strategies to grow the Pilot. If your organization has fundraising capabilities that could be leveraged in support of the program, please elaborate on this capability here.

3. Please describe your organization’s approach to providing a customizable digital (electronic) payment solution capable of supporting multiple payment distribution types.

LBGI Implementation & Administrator | ED22-023 | Template v6.9.21 | 22

4. Describe the end -user digital portal experience from the perspective of program participants.

5. Summarize steps you would take to immediately resolve any operational issues that may occur with the portal or prevent the issuance of payments to program participants.

6. This opportunity requires that your organization will serve as a Subject Matter Expert to provide technical assistance to City staff and the City’s Pilot Research and Evaluation vendor. Describe how your organization will work with these groups.

7. Summarize your proposed approach to case management and how will you ensure your organization’s solution is able to assist a diverse, multi -lingual population.

8. Outline what you will need from the City to implement the contract successfully.

Communications & Reporting

1. Explain the data and reporting systems that will be used to routinely evaluate program performance, how this data will be used for program management, or how you have used data and reporting systems for program management in the past.

2. Explain how employees responsible for case management will be supervised.

3. Please describe your organizational capacity to participate in mandatory meetings as described in Section 2.2.2 of the RFP.

4. Explain how you will report on performance to the City and coordinate with the City to meet the objectives of the RFP.

LBGI Implementation & Administrator | ED22-023 | Template v6.9.21 | 23

5. The City requires that the awarded Contractor provide proof of payment of any subcontractors used for this project. If the proposal includes subcontractors, please describe the plan for how the City will be notified of such payments.

5 Terms & Conditions

5.1 Acronyms/Definitions

1. Awarded Contractor: The organization/individual that is awarded a contract with the City of Long Beach, California for the services identified in this RFP.

2. City: The City of Long Beach and any department or agency identified herein.

3. Contractor / Proposer: Organization/individual submitting a proposal in response to this RFP.

4. Department / Division: City of Long Beach, Department of Economic Development

5. Evaluation Committee: An independent committee comprised solely of representatives of the City established to review proposals submitted in response to the RFP, evaluate the proposals, and select a Contractor.

6. May: Indicates something that is not mandatory but permissible.

7. RFP: Request for Proposals.

8. Shall / Must: Indicates a mandatory requ irement. Failure to meet a mandatory requirement may result in the rejection of a proposal as non-responsive.

9. Should: Indicates something that is recommended but not mandatory. If the Proposer fails to provide recommended information, the City may, at it s sole option, ask the Proposer to provide the information or evaluate the proposal without the information.

10. Subcontractor: Third party not directly employed by the Proposer who will provide services identified in this RFP.

5.2 Solicitation Terms & Conditions

1. The City reserves the right to alter, amend, or modify any provisions of this RFP, or to withdraw this RFP, at any time prior to the award of a contract pursuant hereto, if it is in the best interest of the City to do so.

2. The City reserves the right to r equest clarification of any proposal term from Proposers.

LBGI Implementation & Administrator | ED22-023 | Template v6.9.21 | 24

3. The City may contact the references provided; contact any Proposer to clarify any response; contact any current users of a Proposer’s services; solicit information from any available source concerning any aspect of a proposal; and seek and review any other information deemed pertinent to the evaluation process.

4. The level and term of documentation required from the Proposer to satisfy the City will be commensurate with the size and complexity of the c ontract and Proposers should submit accordingly. If the information submitted by the Proposer, or available from other sources, is insufficient to satisfy the City as to the Proposer’s contractual responsibility, the City may request additional information from the Proposer or may deem the proposal non-responsive.

5. The City reserves the right to waive informalities and minor irregularities in proposals received.

6. The City reserves the right to reject any or all proposals received prior to contract award.

7. The City’s determination of the Proposer’s responsibility, for the purposes of this RFP, shall be final.

8. Unless otherwise specified, the City prefers to award to a single Contractor but reserves the right to award contracts to multiple contractors.

9. The Cit y shall not be obligated to accept the lowest priced proposal, but will make an award in the best interests of the City of Long Beach after all factors have been evaluated.

10. Any irregularities or lack of clarity in the RFP should be brought to the Purchasin g Division designee’s attention as soon as possible so that corrective addenda may be furnished to Proposers.

11. Proposals must include any and all proposed terms and conditions, including, without limitation, written warranties, maintenance/service agreement s, license agreements, lease purchase agreements and the Proposer’s standard contract language. The omission of these documents may render a proposal non - responsive.

12. Alterations, modifications or variations to a proposal may not be considered unless authorized by the RFP or by addendum or amendment.

13. Proposals which appear unrealistic in the terms of technical commitments, lack of technical competence, or are indicative of failure to comprehend the complexity and risk of this contract, may be rejected.

LBGI Implementation & Administrator | ED22-023 | Template v6.9.21 | 25

14. Proposals may be withdrawn by written notice received prior to the proposal opening time.

15. The price and amount of this proposal must have been arrived at independently and without consultation, communication, agreement or disclosure with or to any other Contractor or prospective Contractor.

16. No attempt may be made at any time to induce any firm or person to refrain from submitting a proposal or to submit any intentionally high or noncompetitive proposal. All proposals must be made in good faith and without collusion.

17. Prices offered by Proposers in their proposals are an irrevocable offer for the term of the contract and any contract extensions. The awarded Contractor agrees to provide the purchased services at the costs, rates and fees as set forth in their proposal in response to this RFP. No other costs, rates or fees shall be payable to the awarded Contractor for implementation of their proposal.

18. The City is not liable for any costs incurred by Proposers prior to entering into a formal contract. Costs of developing the proposals or any other such expenses incurred by the Proposer in responding to the RFP, are entirely the responsibility of the Proposer, and shall not be reimbursed in any manner by the City.

19. Proposal will become public record after the awa rd of a contract unless the proposal or specific parts of the proposal can be shown to be exempt by law.

Each Proposer may clearly label all or part of a proposal as "CONFIDENTIAL" provided that the Proposer thereby agrees to indemnify and defend the City for honoring such a designation. The failure to so label any information that is released by the City shall constitute a complete waiver of any and all claims for damages caused by any release of the information.

20. A proposal submitted in response to this RFP must identify any subcontractors, and outline the contractual relationship between the Proposer and each subcontractor. An official of each proposed subcontractor must sign, and include as part of the proposal submitted in response to this RFP, a sta tement to the effect that the subcontractor has read and will agree to abide by the Proposer’s obligations.

21. If the Contractor elects to use subcontractors, the City requires that the awarded Contractor provide proof of payment of any subcontractors used for this project.

Proposals shall include a plan by which the City will be notified of such payments.

22. Each Proposer must disclose any existing or potential conflict of interest relative to the performance of the contractual services resulting from this RFP . Any such relationship that might be perceived or represented as a conflict should be

LBGI Implementation & Administrator | ED22-023 | Template v6.9.21 | 26 disclosed. The City reserves the right to disqualify any Proposer on the grounds of actual or apparent conflict of interest.

23. Each Proposer must include in its proposal a complete disclosure of any alleged significant prior or ongoing contract failures, any civil or criminal litigation or investigation pending which involves the Proposer or in which the Proposer has been judged guilty or liable. Failure to comply with the terms of this provision will disqualify any proposal. The City reserves the right to reject any proposal based upon the Proposer’s prior history with the City or with any other party, which documents, without limitation, unsatisfactory performance, adv ersarial or contentious demeanor, significant failure(s) to meet contract milestones or other contractual failures.

24. The City reserves the right to negotiate final contract terms with any Proposers selected. The contract between the parties will consist of the RFP together with any modifications thereto, and the awarded Contractor’s proposal, together with any modifications and clarifications thereto that are submitted at the request of the City during the evaluation and negotiation process. In the event o f any conflict or contradiction between or among these documents, the documents shall control in the following order of precedence: the final executed contract, the RFP, any modifications and clarifications to the awarded Contractor’s proposal, and the aw arded Contractor’s proposal. Specific exceptions to this general rule may be noted in the final executed contract.

25. The City will not be responsible for or bound by any oral communication or any other information or contact that occurs outside the official communication process specified herein, unless confirmed in writing by the City Contact.

26. Any contract resulting from this RFP shall not be effective unless and until approved by the City Council / City Manager, as applicable.

27. The City will not be liable for Federal, State, or Local excise taxes.

28. Execution of Attachment A of this RFP shall constitute an agreement to all terms and conditions specified in the RFP, including, without limitation, the Attachment B contract form and all terms and conditions there in, except such terms and conditions that the Proposer expressly excludes.

29. Proposer understands and acknowledges that the representations above are material and important, and will be relied on by the City in evaluation of the proposal. Any Proposer misre presentation shall be treated as fraudulent concealment from the City of the true facts relating to the proposal.

30. Proposals shall be kept confidential until a contract is awarded.

LBGI Implementation & Administrator | ED22-023 | Template v6.9.21 | 27

31. No announcement concerning the award of a contract as a result of this RFP may be made without the prior written approval of the City.

32. Proposers are advised that any contract awarded pursuant to this procurement process that exceeds $100,000 shall be subject to the applicable provisions of Long Beach Municipal Code Section 2.73 et seq, the Equal Benefits Ordinance.

Proposers shall refer to Attachment G for further information regarding the requirements of the ordinance. If Attachment G is not present in the RFP, the Equal Benefits Ordinance does not apply to this procurement.

33. All Proposers shall complete and return, with their bid, the Equal Benefits Ordinance Compliance form contained in Attachment B, if applicable. Unless otherwise specified in the procurement package, Proposers do not need to submit with their bid supporting do cumentation proving compliance. However, supporting documentation verifying that the benefits are provided equally shall be required if the proposer is selected for award of a contract.

5.3 Contract Terms & Conditions

1. The awarded Contractor will be the sole point of contract responsibility. The City will look solely to the awarded Contractor for the performance of all contractual obligations which may result from an award based on this RFP, and the awarded Contractor s hall not be relieved for the non -performance of any or all subcontractors.

2. The awarded Contractor must maintain, for the duration of its contract, insurance coverages as required by the City. Work on the contract shall not begin until after the awarded C ontractor has submitted acceptable evidence of the required insurance coverages.

3. The Long Beach Municipal Code (LBMC) requires all businesses operating in the City of Long Beach to pay a business license tax. In some cases, the City may require a regulatory permit and/or evidence of a State or Federal license. Prior to issuing a business license, certain business types will require the business license application and/or business location to be reviewed by the Development Services, Fire, Health, and/or Po lice Departments. Additional information is available at www.longbeach.gov/finance/business_license.

4. All work performed in connection with construction shall be performed in compliance with all applicable laws, ordinances, rules and regulations of federal, state, county or municipal governments or agencies (including, without limitation, all applicable federal and state labor standards, including the prevailing wage provisions of sections 17 70 et seq. of the California Labor Code), and (b) all directions, rules and regulations of any fire marshal, health officer, building

LBGI Implementation & Administrator | ED22-023 | Template v6.9.21 | 28

inspector, or other officer of every governmental agency now having or hereafter acquiring jurisdiction.

5. Contractor shall indemnify, protect and hold harmless City, its Boards, Commissions, and their officials, employees and agents (“Indemnified Parties”), from and against any and all liability, claims, demands, damage, loss, obligations, causes of action, proceedings, awards , fines, judgments, penalties, costs and expenses, including attorneys’ fees, court costs, expert and witness fees, and other costs and fees of litigation, arising or alleged to have arisen, in whole or in part, out of or in connection with (1) Contractor’s breach or failure to comply with any of its obligations contained in this Contract, including any obligations arising from the Project’s Contractor’s compliance with or failure to comply with applicable laws, including all applicable federal and state l abor requirements including, without limitation, the requirements of California Labor Code section 1770 et seq. or (2) negligent or willful acts, errors, omissions or misrepresentations committed by Contractor, its officers, employees, agents, subcontracto rs, or anyone under Contractor’s control, in the performance of work or services under this Contract (collectively “Claims” or individually “Claim”).

6. In addition to Contractor’s duty to indemnify, Contractor shall have a separate and wholly independent dut y to defend Indemnified Parties at Contractor’s expense by legal counsel approved by City, from and against all Claims, and shall continue this defense until the Claims are resolved, whether by settlement, judgment or otherwise. No finding or judgment of negligence, fault, breach, or the like on the part of Contractor shall be required for the duty to defend to arise.

City shall notify Contractor of any Claim, shall tender the defense of the Claim to Contractor, and shall assist Contractor, as may be reas onably requested, in the defense.

7. If a court of competent jurisdiction determines that a Claim was caused by the sole negligence or willful misconduct of Indemnified Parties, Contractor’s costs of defense and indemnity shall be (1) reimbursed in full if th e court determines sole negligence by the Indemnified Parties, or (2) reduced by the percentage of willful misconduct attributed by the court to the Indemnified Parties.

8. If the Contractor elects to use subcontractors, Contractor agrees to require its subcontractors to indemnify Indemnified Parties and to provide insurance coverage to the same extent as Contractor.

9. If the Contractor elects to use subcontractors, the Contractor shall not allow any subcontractor to commence work until all insurance required of subcontractor is obtained.

LBGI Implementation & Administrator | ED22-023 | Template v6.9.21 | 29

10. The provisions of this Section shall survive the expiration or termination of this Contract.

5.4 Additional Requirements
The payments made to Pilot participants under the Pilot will be funded with federal funding from the Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF), a part of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA). When disbursing ARPA Funds to beneficiaries under the Program, the Contractor shall comply with all federal laws and requirements of the SLFRF Statute (Title VI of the Social Security Act Sections 602 and 603, as added by Section 9901 of ARPA); the US Treasury’s Final Rule (31 CFR 35; 87 FR 4338); the terms and conditions of the US Treasury’s award of ARPA Funds to City, and any and all compliance and reporting requirements for the expenditure of SLFRF funds as outlined in the Compliance and Reporting Guidance for State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (issued by the US Treasury on 11/5/21, Version 2.0) (coll ectively, “SLFRF Program requirements”). The Contractor shall adhere to such SLFRF Program requirements whether or not such requirements are specifically described in this RFP; and to the extent any provisions of this RFP conflict with such federal requir ements, the SLFRF Program requirements shall control.

Furthermore, the contract arising from this procurement process may be funded in whole or in part by additional local, state or federal grants in which case the contract may be amended to incorporate ad ditional grant requirements based on the new funding source.

Pursuant to the SLFRF Program requirements, the awarded Contractor will be required to comply with (and to incorporate into its agreements with any sub -consultants) the following provisions in the performance of the contract, as applicable.

1. SAM.gov Requirement: Contractors must register with SAM.gov and maintain eligibility to receive federal funds.

2. Allowable Costs: Contractors must have adequate financial management systems and internal con trols in place to account for the expenditure of federal funds.

3. Period of Performance: Contractors must use SLFRF funds to cover eligible costs during the period outlined the Contractor’s contract with the City, and in no event may Contractor expend SLFRF funds after December 31, 2026.

4. Civil Rights Compliance: Contractors distributing federal financial assistance from the Treasury are required to meet legal requirements relating to nondiscrimination and nondiscriminatory use of Federal funds. Those requirements include ensuring that the Contractor does not deny benefits or services, or otherwise discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin (including limited English proficiency),

LBGI Implementation & Administrator | ED22-023 | Template v6.9.21 | 30

disability, age, or sex (including sexual orientation and gender identity), in accordance with the following authorities: Title VI of the Civil Ri ghts Act of 1964 (Title VI) Public Law 88 -352, 42 U.S.C. 2000d -1 et seq., and the Department's implementing regulations, 31 CFR part 22; Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504), Public Law 93-112, as amended by Public Law 93-516, 29 U.S.C. 794; Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (Title IX), 20 U.S.C. 1681 et seq., and the Department's implementing regulations, 31 CFR part 28; Age Discrimination Act of 1975, Public Law 94 -135, 42 U.S.C. 6101 et seq., and the Department implementing regulations at 31 CFR part 23.

5. Reporting Requirements: Contractors are required to assist the City in the reporting required by the SLFRF Program. In order to facilitate the City’s reporting, Contractors must have a robust system to track programmatic data. Contractors will provide reports to the City that detail expenditures and key performance indicators. In addition to more frequent progress reports as required under the Contractor’s contract with the City, Contractors will be required at a minimum to submit quarterly and annual reports to the City within 1 0 days of the close of the City’s SLFRF reporting period.

5.5 Protest Procedures
Who May Protest
Only a Proposer who has actually submitted a proposal is eligible to protest a contract awarded through a Request for Proposals (RFP). A Proposer may not rely on the protest submitted by another Proposer but must pursue its own protest.

Time for Protest
The City will post a notice of the intent to award a contract at least ten (10) business days before an award is made. The notice will be available to all Proposers who submitted a proposal via the City’s electronic bid notification system at http://www.longbeach.gov/purchasing. A Proposer desir ing to submit a protest for a proposal must do so within five (5) business days of the electronic notification of intent to award. The City Purchasing Agent must receive the protest by the close of business on the fifth (5th) business day following posting of notification of intent to award the contract. Proposers are responsible for registering with the City’s electronic bid notification system and maintaining an updated Contractor profile. The City is not responsible for Proposers’ failure to obtain notification for any reason, including but not limited to failure to maintain updated email addresses, failure to open/read electronic messages and failure of their own computer/technology equipment. The City’s RFP

LBGI Implementation & Administrator | ED22-023 | Template v6.9.21 | 31

justification memo will be available for rev iew by protestors once the notification of intent to award has been posted via the City’s electronic bid notification system.

Form of Protest
The protest must be in writing and signed by the individual who signed the proposal or, if the Proposer is a corporation, by an officer of the corporation, and addressed to the City Purchasing Agent. Protests must be submitted via the email address above. They must include a valid email address and phone number. Protests must set forth a complete and detailed statement of the grounds for the protest and include all relevant information to support the grounds stated, and must refer to specific portions of the RFP and attachments upon which the protest is based. Once the protest is received by the City Purchasing Agent , the City will not accept additional information on the protest unless the City requests it.

City Response to Protest
The City Purchasing Agent or designee will respond with a decision regarding the protest within five (5) business days of receipt of prot est to the email address provided in the protest. This decision shall be final.

Limitation of Remedy
The procedure and time limits set forth herein are mandatory and are the Proposer’s sole and exclusive remedy in the event of a protest. The Proposer’s fai lure to comply with these procedures shall constitute a waiver of any right to further pursue a protest, including filing a Government Code Claim or initiation of legal proceedings.

Guaranteed Income in the U.S.

A toolkit of best practices, resources, and existing
models of planned and ongoing research in the
U.S.

About the Jain Family Institute
The Jain Family Institute (JFI) is a nonpartisan applied research organization in the social sciences that works to bring research and policy from conception in theory to implementation in society. Within JFI’s core policy area of guaranteed income, JFI is the design and implementation partner on The Compton Pledge and has consulted on the Stockton, CA SEED pilot, the Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend, and related policies in New York City and Chicago, as well as on forthcoming pilots in Newark and Atlanta. JFI is leading an evaluation of a 42,000-person guaranteed income program in Marica, Brazil, a keystone of the movement for a solidarity economy. JFI has also provided expert commentary on a range of cash transfer policies from relief checks to the EITC and CTC.

Founded in 2014 by Robert Jain, JFI focuses on building evidence around the most pressing social problems. The Phenomenal World is JFI’s independent publication of theory and commentary on the social sciences.
jfi@jfiresearch.org
Copyright © 2021 Jain Family Institute. All rights reserved. 568 Broadway, Suite 601, New York, NY, 10012
www.JFIresearch.org

Jain Family Institute - JFI
May 2021
What is in this toolkit?
This toolkit is designed to provide a concrete starting point for anyone interested in supporting a guaranteed income for their community, particularly by launching a guaranteed income pilot. It begins by answering some of the key questions that arise in this undertaking, including what guaranteed income is, why it is gaining attention right now, what the open questions are that a pilot might answer, and what is involved in the creation of a local pilot.

For those who are interested in creating a pilot accompanied by a research program, it outlines the current state of guaranteed income research and describes how new research can be designed to make a valuable contribution and avoid repeating findings. It also provides advice on how to design an effective messaging strategy to maximize the impact of your pilot through storytelling, consistent framing, and thoughtful communication of research results.

Finally, it provides an overview of the current state of the guaranteed income movement including ongoing and planned municipal pilots, past examples of guaranteed income in practice, and a description of the network of lawmakers, advocates, and philanthropists pushing the movement forward today.

Who is this toolkit for?
This toolkit is built for a variety of audiences that are interested in the field of guaranteed income and seeking a starting point: policymakers working in local, state, or federal government in the U.S. or abroad; philanthropic leaders interested in effecting change through guaranteed income programs; and practitioners or non-profit leaders focused on economic inclusion, equity, and justice. For all of these audiences, this document provides tools to evaluate whether and how to pilot guaranteed income in a given community, and other ways to both learn from and contribute to the movement around direct cash policy.

Why did JFI create it?
JFI is a leading applied research organization in guaranteed income and cash policy. We have worked with public servants, local governments, foundations, international governments and media in their exploration of guaranteed income policy. This report provides answers to some of the questions we receive most frequently based on our research and insights from working in the field.
568 Broadway, Suite 601
New York, NY, 10012
Copyright © 2021 Jain Family Institute
All rights reserved
2

Jain Family Institute - JFI
May 2021
Acknowledgements
This toolkit was built in collaboration and consultation between JFI's guaranteed income team and partner organizations conducting pilots or researching this policy alongside us. Special thanks to JFI Fellow in PR and Policy Communications, Charles de la Cruz, for his work on this toolkit, as well as Halah Ahmad, Stephen Nuñez, Alexander Jacobs, Molly Dektar, and Sidhya Balakrishnan.

Likewise, we would like to acknowledge the contributions of Leah Hamilton, JFI Senior Fellow in Guaranteed Income and board member at Basic Income Earth Network (BIEN; Malcolm Berry at Basic Income Earth Network; Sarah Berger-Gonzalez at Stanford Basic Income Lab; Rachel Black and Sheida Elmi at the Aspen Institute's Financial Security Program; Stacia Martin of the University of Pennsylvania Center for Guaranteed Income Research, the University of Tennessee Knoxville and co-Principal Investigator of Stockton SEED; Nika Soon-Shiong and the Compton Pledge team; and to our many partners among pilot administrators in the U.S., without whom none of this work would be possible. Likewise, we want to thank the wider community of academics, advocates, policymakers and early implementers of this policy for their immense efforts to further a policy rooted in agency, trust, stability, and relief. 568 Broadway, Suite 601
New York, NY, 10012
Copyright © 2021 Jain Family Institute
All rights reserved
3

Jain Family Institute - JFI
May 2021
Contents
The Basics
What is guaranteed income?
Why are many policymakers turning to guaranteed income policy? Key components for efective guaranteed income
What is a guaranteed income pilot?
Anatomy of a guaranteed income pilot
What to know if you are considering a guaranteed income research project for your community What evidence do we already have about guaranteed income’s efects? What are the open questions around guaranteed income?
How can guaranteed income pilots and programs be funded? What kinds of research can accompany pilots?
Impact analysis
Implementation analysis
What are some best practices for pilot design?
Pilot Messaging
Storytelling
Framing
Communicating Research
The Guaranteed Income Movement
Planned and ongoing pilot research in the U.S.

Has guaranteed income ever been tried in the United States? EITC, Child Tax Credit, and similar cash relief
Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend
Eastern Band of Cherokee Basic Income
Which individuals and organizations are working on guaranteed income policy? Cash support advocates in Congress
Academic champions for guaranteed income
Advocates & civil society in support of guaranteed income Philanthropy
Joining the Movement
Further Reading and Global Perspectives
568 Broadway, Suite 601
New York, NY, 10012
Copyright © 2021 Jain Family Institute
All rights reserved
4

Jain Family Institute - JFI
May 2021
The Basics
What is guaranteed income?
Guaranteed income (GI is a type of cash transfer program that provides regular, unconditional, and unrestricted cash transfers to individuals or households. This differs from typical social safety net policies by providing a steady, predictable stream of cash to recipients to spend however they see fit without requiring that they perform specific activities—like working, going to school, or seeking employment—to remain eligible.

While guaranteed income is always unconditional, it may be targeted toward people below a
certain income threshold. Targeting can take place at the front end through means-testing or at the back end through an income phase-out, meaning that everyone receives the benefit but people with higher incomes pay back some or all of this benefit through taxes. This targeting is distinct from conditionality, which refers to behavioral requirements for benefit recipients.

Guaranteed income can be both unconditional and targeted. Universal basic income (UBI refers to a guaranteed income that is both unconditional and untargeted. While the idea of a UBI has gained much attention in recent years, this toolkit is focused on the broader category of guaranteed income policy and advocacy, particularly through local pilots. In other words, we are focused on unconditional cash transfers generally, whether universal or income-targeted.

Among researchers, advocates, and pilot administrators, there are differences in opinion on the exact definitions of guaranteed income and UBI. For example, researchers at the Stanford Basic Income Lab consider GI to be income-targeted by definition and distinguish it from UBI based on this lack of universality. JFI defines guaranteed income more broadly as any regular, unconditional, and unrestricted cash transfers program whether universal (e.g. UBI or targeted.

This document uses the broader definition of GI.

Notably, most current pilots are front-end targeted for low-income recipients, while the wider vision for a guaranteed income policy is one that is universal, with any targeting occurring through post-hoc clawbacks in taxes or otherwise.

Why are many policymakers turning to guaranteed income
policy?
Over the last several years, guaranteed income has exploded in popularity across the United States. A first round of pilots in 2017, led by Stockton’s SEED program and The Magnolia Mother’s Trust in Mississippi, brought increased attention to the need for guaranteed income as a policy tool to fight poverty, improve social mobility, and reduce economic inequality. These pilots, along 568 Broadway, Suite 601
New York, NY, 10012
Copyright © 2021 Jain Family Institute
All rights reserved
5

Jain Family Institute - JFI
May 2021
with the creation of Mayors for a Guaranteed Income, have fueled the creation of numerous local guaranteed income pilots across the country, including large pilots in Compton, CA; Chelsea, MA, Oakland, CA; and Newark, NJ (see section: “Planned and ongoing pilot research in the U.S.,” for a running list). This is a growing movement driven by the recognition that existing policies have failed to break cycles of poverty or promote widespread prosperity and that new approaches are needed.

In the wake of the COVID19 pandemic, federal, state and local governments as well as non-profit organizations provided effective cash relief to millions of individuals who became unemployed, had to stay home from work due to public health risks, or lost necessary income when they were already living paycheck to paycheck. Yet, even before the COVID19 pandemic, the deficiencies of the U.S. social safety net, with its patchwork of modest, targeted, means-tested, employment-conditioned programs, had become apparent. The limited assistance leaves the US with a financially fragile middle class, the highest post-tax poverty rate in the developed world, and dramatic racial and gender inequality. These issues became more dire during the pandemic and economic downturn of 2020. Safety net targeting means young adults, non-custodial parents, and others considered “undeserving” fall through the cracks; means testing imposes upfront burdens on the eligible and leads to delays and incorrect rejections; and employment conditioning punishes recipients for labor market conditions and can exacerbate economic downturns.

This system could be greatly improved. After all, Canada, the U.K., and other countries with similarly structured welfare regimes have managed to reduce poverty with more generous benefits, less onerous upfront paperwork, and gentler phase outs of means-tested benefits. But decades after the U.S. declared a War on Poverty, the ongoing stalemate has led to calls for a broader rethinking of how we structure our welfare state. And that is what U.S. guaranteed income advocates hope to accomplish.

Key components for efective guaranteed income
An effective guaranteed income is not a complete replacement for the existing network of safety net programs, but it can be designed to correct for many of its shortcomings. Above all, guaranteed income programs should be universal (available to all rather than subject to burdensome front-end means-testing, although they may be universal with targeting through post-hoc taxation), unconditional (not contingent on labor market participation, training, or other activities), and unrestricted (allowing recipients to decide how to spend funds). It is also important that they be designed while keeping in mind their interactions and potential conflicts with other safety net programs.

Universal
Front end targeting (means testing) requires households to prove that they meet eligibility requirements before they can receive aid. This has obstructed the efficient disbursement 568 Broadway, Suite 601
New York, NY, 10012
Copyright © 2021 Jain Family Institute
All rights reserved
6

Jain Family Institute - JFI
May 2021
of funds and other benefits through existing welfare programs. It overburdens the most vulnerable with circuitous qualification tests and bureaucratic forms that hinder their ability to receive urgently needed support for which they are technically eligible.

In addition to limiting access, means testing can also create a “benefits cliff” in which, for example, a family’s increased income means that they no longer qualify for benefits, but the value of the lost benefits is greater than the increase in income. The result is that an increase in household income can actually leave a family worse off financially.

The federal poverty line used to means-test benefits is a notoriously weak measure of household income precarity. Before the pandemic, 40% of Americans would have struggled to cover an unexpected $400 expense even though only about 10% of families fell below the official poverty line. In some cases, means-tests on asset values contribute to this problem by penalizing benefit recipients for accumulating savings. A universal program would provide cash benefits to every household with few to no upfront hoops to jump through.

Some may object to a system that includes people who need the cash assistance less, or not at all. But a universal guaranteed income can be targeted on the back end such that everyone receives the benefit while wealthier households pay back some or all of it through progressive taxation. In other words, front end targeting that places the bureaucratic burden on needy households applying for aid can be replaced with universal distribution and back end targeting that adds an extra item to the tax forms of high-income households instead. A universal program is both simpler to administer and more likely to ensure that nobody who needs assistance falls through the cracks.

Unconditional
Safety net programs in the U.S. are often accompanied by a set of conditions that must be met to continue receiving support. In some cases, like drug testing requirements, these conditions communicate a lack of respect for or trust in recipients that are often rooted in long standing racial prejudice. More commonly, financial support is conditioned on work requirements: recipients must either be employed, actively seeking employment, or engaged in job training activities. In each case, the burden falls to the already-disadvantaged recipient to navigate regularly the paperwork required to prove their eligibility.

Conditioning aid on employment status often undermines its own purpose. Perversely, it is when the economy is in recession and the need for assistance greatest that a work-conditioned safety net is least effective. When work is scarce, so too is assistance.

For example, the EITC provides benefits only to people who are employed. As a result, 568 Broadway, Suite 601
New York, NY, 10012
Copyright © 2021 Jain Family Institute
All rights reserved
7

Jain Family Institute - JFI
May 2021
recipients can be punished for forces outside of their control, including the hiring practices of employers.

Unconditional cash transfer programs avoid these issues. They remove the administrative burden of repeatedly demonstrating compliance. And by eliminating work requirements they ensure that people are able to receive support even during economic downturns and in the face of employment discrimination.

Unrestricted
Unlike benefits like food stamps or housing vouchers, a guaranteed income is intended to allow recipients to decide how to use the funds in the ways that best fit their needs.

Unrestricted aid programs place value on recipients’ autonomy and judgment while recognizing their expertise over their own financial lives. Spending restrictions in existing welfare programs are ultimately rooted in a lack of trust in recipients, but research consistently supports the fact that when provided with cash support people use the money responsibly. As a policy principle, unrestricted aid is about recognizing that poverty results from a lack of resources, not a lack of judgment.

Regular, predictable payments over time
Financial security is rooted in stable and predictable income. Though research is inconclusive on the optimal disbursement frequency (monthly versus yearly or otherwise), existing research suggests that a regular, and therefore predictable, pace of cash transfers affords families the financial stability for long-term financial planning.

In tandem with other safety net programs
Guaranteed income policy is not a panacea. While it
may better serve the role of income
support than TANF, SNAP, or EITC if it is implemented with less paternalism and administrative burden, it cannot replace important public insurance programs like Social Security, Unemployment Insurance, or Medicaid/Medicare. And it is no substitute for direct government intervention where markets simply don’t work (well) such as in healthcare, child care, and education. Likewise, there can be proposals for guaranteed income to exist alongside other forms of income support; many emerging pilots will provide useful case studies for this, such that marginalized communities have robust economic security and the potential for economic mobility. For a deeper look at ways a guaranteed income could fit into the existing safety net, see JFI’s recent white paper on this topic, “Reweaving the Safety Net.” To explore some of the ways that guaranteed income would interact with benefits from other federal, state, and local programs for a range of household situations, check out this net GI value calculator created by the Atlanta Fed. 568 Broadway, Suite 601
New York, NY, 10012
Copyright © 2021 Jain Family Institute
All rights reserved
8

Jain Family Institute - JFI
May 2021
What is a guaranteed income pilot?
A guaranteed income pilot is a program that provides cash transfers to a limited group of participants for a specific period of time while collecting data that can inform policymakers and researchers as well as contribute to ongoing public discourse around guaranteed income policy.

While this can take the form of a rigorous quantitative study of participant outcomes, there are a range of means by which a pilot can make a valuable contribution. For example, there is much room for experimentation with different methods of administering guaranteed income through partnerships with financial institutions and local organizations, or through varying frequencies and amounts. And in addition to quantitative measures, there is much to be gained from both qualitative research and, separately, storytelling. Qualitative research can give necessary nuance and evidence to explain quantitative outcomes and inform better research foci. Storytelling can shed light on the lived experience of recipients within wider media and break down tropes in public perceptions of social benefits. Quantitative research can provide more generalizable evidence for causation within positive GI outcomes. Many researchers are focused on all three of those, including JFI, GiveDirectly, and the Center for Guaranteed Income, which incorporates mixed methods RCTs with participatory action research PAR.

Local pilots have typically been privately funded through philanthropic donations or institutional grants. That is, in part, because sustainable public financing of a guaranteed income policy is difficult to achieve at the local level. As a result, the long-term goal of the guaranteed income movement is the establishment of a guaranteed income policy at the state or federal level where this kind of large-scale public financing would be feasible. While there is much to be gained from local pilots in terms of research and influence on public opinion, it is important to remember that these pilots are advocacy opportunities that represent small steps toward this larger goal. 568 Broadway, Suite 601
New York, NY, 10012
Copyright © 2021 Jain Family Institute
All rights reserved
9

Jain Family Institute - JFI
May 2021
Anatomy of a guaranteed income pilot
This graphic outlines the key stakeholders that form the core of any guaranteed income pilot, drawing on the Stanford Basic Income in Cities guide, and corroborated by JFI’s work.

Communities are important participants at every stage of the process, from early consultation on pilot design to long-term advocacy and storytelling around the pilot’s vision. Policymakers facilitate the pilot or policy implementation through coordination with existing social service programs and communications that channel public buy-in for sustained advocacy even after the pilot has ended. The Funding Teamsecures financing for the pilot, including funds for distribution to participants and the costs of administration and research evaluation. Recent municipal pilots have most often been funded through philanthropic donations and institutional grants, but in some cases local governments may be able to fund a pilot by drawing on discretionary funds, federal pass-through grants, or even emergency funds.

Researchers are in charge of designing the guaranteed income program in ways that will provide insights into open questions around the impact of GI on the community and the optimal methods of program implementation. The next section will cover these questions of research design in more depth. Finally, the Communications Team plays a key role in using the pilot as an opportunity to build widespread support for guaranteed income. This involves direct engagement to share community members’ stories with the broader public, ensuring that the pilot gains the attention of media and legislators, while developing a consistent messaging strategy that clarifies the pilot’s guiding vision throughout. The team also collaborates with researchers to ensure that research results are communicated effectively. The elements of an effective messaging strategy are discussed below in the “Pilot Messaging” section.

Although there will often be overlap between these different stakeholder groups, it is useful to distinguish them functionally from the very beginning in order to effectively coordinate the key elements of a successful guaranteed income pilot. Further practical notes on pilot planning are on page 18.
568 Broadway, Suite 601
New York, NY, 10012
Copyright © 2021 Jain Family Institute
All rights reserved
10

Jain Family Institute - JFI
May 2021
What to know if you are considering a guaranteed
income research project for your community
There are several ways to contribute to the movement around guaranteed income. One of those ways is to pilot a guaranteed income program in your community and research its effects. If you are considering doing so it is important to understand what research has already been done, what the open questions about guaranteed income are, and what it takes to collect evidence on GI. In this section we provide an overview of each of these topics to help you think through whether a pilot is right for your community.

What evidence do we already have about guaranteed income’s efects?
Although there has been a surge of recent interest and research on GI, scholars have been studying cash transfer policy for decades. This includes research on guaranteed income-like pilots and policies like the North American Negative Income Tax experiments in the 1970s and the Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend, which has offered checks annually to residents since 1982. But it also includes research into inheritances, lottery winnings, conditional cash transfer programs, and pensions. Cash is cash, so much of what we know about the effects of additional income in general on household wellbeing and choices applies to guaranteed income.

Extensive social science research on cash transfer programs around the world shows that cash transfers increase expenditure on education and training, improve food security, increase durable good consumption (buying a car, a refrigerator, etc.), and improve measures of well-being. The positive impact of guaranteed income has been studied for decades, with evidence indicating that cash transfers are an effective anti-poverty measure with an array of welfare benefits.Empirical evidence also indicates that people keep their jobs and spend the extra money on groceries, utilities or other basic needs; those who work fewer hours largely invest that time in education, job training, or caring for children. Key findings include:
● There is little evidence that cash transfers decrease the motivation to work. ● Cash transfers do not lead to spending on “temptation goods.” ● Cash transfers reduce inequality, and have had multiple positive impacts on recipients’ welfare, alongside positive spillover effects for non-recipients.

In other words, there is already a robust literature on the employment, poverty/material hardship, and consumption effects of GI. We do not need to demonstrate that GI will not lead to a major 568 Broadway, Suite 601
New York, NY, 10012
Copyright © 2021 Jain Family Institute
All rights reserved
11

Jain Family Institute - JFI
May 2021
reduction in the labor supply nor increased drug/tobacco/alcohol consumption; researchers have already established this several times across several countries. To the extent that this message has not been absorbed by the public, that is best rectified through further communication efforts rather than additional research.

What are the open questions around guaranteed income?
In light of the above, why pilot guaranteed income at all? It is useful to break that question down into two separate ones:
● Do we need to pilot guaranteed income before moving forward with efforts to enact one on a state or federal level?
● Are there important unanswered questions that further research can address that would be of value to policy makers?
The answer to the first question is, as regards more evidence needed, no. We already know enough about how GI works for GI advocates to push for GI legislation. Still, local piloting efforts can have an impact for short-term poverty alleviation, and serve a key role in building public awareness and support for the policy, as addressed in later sections.

The answer to the second question, however, is definitely yes. There are several important outstanding questions around guaranteed income policy that researchers should address. It is also worth looking into what pilots are currently being developed or are underway to answer some of these open questions. See the section on “planned and ongoing pilots” to check if there are existing initiatives in your area or on the questions you might want to answer.

Some of the urgent questions for researchers include:
● What are the macroeconomic effects of GI (e.g. price, wages, or inflation effects) and how can it be responsibly financed?
● How much money should each individual receive considering the need to fund other important safety net policies?
● How often should the money be disbursed? Yearly? Quarterly? Biweekly? ● How do we build a cash disbursement infrastructure that quickly and efficiently gets money into recipients’ hands?
● What are the long-term effects of GI on education, criminal justice involvement, civic and political engagement, and other lesser studied outcomes? ● What programs should GI be paired with to maximize its benefits? ● What are the broader political effects of GI on public perception of the safety net, the stigma attached to government assistance, etc.?
568 Broadway, Suite 601
New York, NY, 10012
Copyright © 2021 Jain Family Institute
All rights reserved
12

Jain Family Institute - JFI
May 2021
● What outcome measures are most salient to inform robust benefit-cost analyses for policymakers? How do the economic benefits to individuals and communities compare to the costs of the program?
●
How does a GI generate the observed impacts? For example, what effects on recipient decision-making and future planning might explain better educational or other outcomes? Likewise, how do GI recipients compare their experiences with means-tested programs, particularly with regard to the unconditional and unrestricted nature of GI support? Qualitative research can particularly elucidate these questions. ● What effects do GI recipients’ perceptions and meaning-making have on their outcomes? What meanings do recipients attach to the program design? Where can pilot research usefully contribute/which of these questions can pilots help answer?
There is, as noted above, research still to be done on guaranteed income. Pilots can contribute answers to some but not all open questions—though it is worth emphasizing that the cost of high-quality research, persuasive to academics and policymakers, is substantial. That said, an RCT of significant scale could definitively solidify the shape of an ideal guaranteed income policy.

Pilots can also provide important data on the effects of variation in disbursement amount and frequency or of pairing GI with other services. Still, they are ill-equipped to investigate things like different financing schemes or macroeconomic effects. This is because GI pilots are by necessity limited in size and duration and will not generate the sorts of economy-wide economic effects on prices, wages, and interest rates that scholars are interested in exploring. Such questions have been more usefully investigated through models and sophisticated simulations of local and national economics than real-world pilots.

Pilots can contribute to our understanding of guaranteed income in important ways by focusing on the open questions discussed above. Additionally, as discussed below in the messaging section, pilots can play a valuable role in bringing public attention to the need for and benefits of guaranteed income policy even without a significant research component. If a more ambitious impact analysis is not feasible, making an effort to publicize the stories of recipients and developing a consistent messaging strategy can allow a guaranteed income pilot to have real impact on public opinion. Even small pilots can contribute to research by helping us develop best practices for implementation.

How can guaranteed income pilots and programs be funded? Almost all guaranteed income pilots currently underway in the U.S. have been privately funded with philanthropic dollars and/or institutional grants, with only recent examples of emergency or one-time funds used or proposed in the cases of St. Paul, Mountain View, Los Angeles, and a few others. Typically the majority of the program dollars have come from high-net-worth individuals 568 Broadway, Suite 601
New York, NY, 10012
Copyright © 2021 Jain Family Institute
All rights reserved
13

Jain Family Institute - JFI
May 2021
but recently, and in response to the pandemic, philanthropic foundations have begun to express interest in funding pilots and associated research.

Guaranteed income pilots with a significant research component generally require initial funding of at least $510 million, with about 20% of funds going to research and administrative costs.

Smaller pilots focused more on messaging and sharing recipient stories can be launched with a smaller budget and less overhead.

A universal guaranteed income policy at the state or federal level can potentially be funded through a wealth tax, an increase in progressive income tax, a VAT tax, a carbon tax, a budget reallocation, or dividend from sources including natural resource royalties, casino revenue, or other social wealth funds. This is an area of substantial interest to the research community though, as noted, this work is typically done through modeling and simulation. In 2021, JFI will release a deep-dive analysis of the implications of financing choice for guaranteed income as part of its whitepaper series, “From Idea to Reality: Getting to Guaranteed Income.” What kinds of research can accompany pilots?
Pilot programs need not include a rigorous research study, but policymakers and researchers are often interested in studying the implementation and impact of the pilot program to draw lessons that can be applied in future policy design. Those interested in exploring a study should be mindful that research can be expensive, operationally complex, and potentially burdensome for participants.

There are two main types of research projects typically attached to a pilot (often together):

Impact analysis and implementation analysis. Impact or outcome analysis is an exploration of the effect that the program had on participants, their households, and/or their communities; implementation analysis explores the development and roll-out of the pilot itself, including what went well and what did not.

Impact analysis
Impact or outcome analyses can be performed using a wide variety of methodologies. This includes qualitative analyses like interviews and focus groups as well as formal statistical analysis of outcomes using administrative and survey data. Formal impact analysis includes attempts to identify and establish a counterfactual: what would have happened in the absence of the program? For example, if a program participant started the program with a $35,000/year salary and ended it with a $45,000/year salary, how much of that change can be attributed to participation in the program? Might this change have occurred anyway? 568 Broadway, Suite 601
New York, NY, 10012
Copyright © 2021 Jain Family Institute
All rights reserved
14

Jain Family Institute - JFI
May 2021
The techniques researchers use to establish the counterfactual and thus estimate the “impact” of the program are complex and outside the scope of this document. However, generally speaking, researchers either devise an experiment or a “quasi experiment.” Experiments involve random assignment of participants to the program group(s) to create two or more groups that are broadly similar. This allows researchers to rule out differences in individual or household characteristics or circumstances as potential causes in any observed differences in outcome. Quasi-experiments typically use coincidences, arbitrary eligibility thresholds, and other statistical techniques to mimic experimental conditions.

All impact analyses, whether qualitative or quantitative, must be approved by an Institutional Review Board (IRB, an entity that reviews research proposals to ensure they are ethical and protect participants’ data and privacy. Universities and non-profit research organizations typically have their own IRBs or work with an external board.

While a qualitative research plan can be done relatively cheaply and effectively with 3050 individuals (including some that are not receiving the program benefit), quantitative research requires much larger sample sizes and much more expensive data collection. This is because experiments and quasi-experiments need hundreds or thousands of participants to both to ensure that they have established the counterfactual and to ensure that they can detect the impact within the statistical “noise” and generate a precise estimate. RCTs (experiments) require at least 100 individuals/households (assigned 50/50 between program and control groups) to establish causality and typically 800 or more to generate confidence that program impacts will be reliably captured. Quasi-experimental analysis may instead require 2,000 to 4,000 study participants to do the same.

The size requirements to do formal impact analysis, of course, also generate sizable data collection costs—costs over and above those of the program itself. Some important participant outcomes can be measured using administrative data (though there is time and expenditure involved in gaining access to these records) but many require fielding surveys. This can be costly due to tracking and other logistical costs and the typical need to provide payments to survey respondents to reimburse them for their time. Pilots undergoing formal impact analysis, therefore, typically cost in excess of $1 million.

For those interested in impact analysis but unable to absorb such costs, there are generally two good contingencies. The first is to pool resources with other organizations and/or municipalities to build a sufficient sample. A “multi-site” study where each individual site is small can, through pooling, potentially generate precise impact estimates. The second is to focus on qualitative impact analysis rather than on statistical modeling. Qualitative research fleshes out impact analysis and helps scholars understand the “why” behind observed impacts (some examples include an ongoing study of Baby’s First Years, an unconditional cash program for mothers after childbirth). It is valuable on its own or, when paired with statistical analysis, in a so-called mixed-methods design.
568 Broadway, Suite 601
New York, NY, 10012
Copyright © 2021 Jain Family Institute
All rights reserved
15

Jain Family Institute - JFI
May 2021
It is, by contrast, not advisable to attempt an experiment with a very small sample or to use a non-experimental method to generate impact estimates (e.g. a pre/post design). These approaches will not generate useful data for the field and will thus make demands on pilot participants’ time for minimal gain.

Implementation analysis
Implementation analysis explores the development and roll-out of a program and can be immensely useful in helping policymakers better understand the logistical challenges in serving a population and how to effectively and quickly administer aid. While we understand a great deal about the impacts of cash assistance on individual and household wellbeing, we have considerably less knowledge of how best to get cash into people’s hands. Whether it be government officials investigating the failures in federal aid disbursement during the COVID19 crisis or nonprofits looking to better identify, reach, or reimburse clients, there is great need for analysis of what works and what doesn’t in cash infrastructure design. Therefore government and nonprofit organizations running pilots can contribute meaningfully to the research around GI policy by focusing all or part of their research on these topics. This is typically done through qualitative analysis: interviews and focus groups with study participants and with employees and leaders of the organizations involved in the pilot efforts. It may also include an analysis of record keeping practices, computer systems, and any materials or methods used to interact with (potential) cash recipients.

With these different avenues of research in mind, you can think of your options in terms of three broad categories of pilot, depicted below along with some of the key questions that should inform your decisions about pilot design from the beginning. In general, impact analysis will require the largest budget and sample size, while a pilot that emphasizes storytelling rather than formal research can be executed with the fewest resources. But regardless of type, any pilot can make a valuable contribution to the guaranteed income movement through messaging and advocacy. 568 Broadway, Suite 601
New York, NY, 10012
Copyright © 2021 Jain Family Institute
All rights reserved
16

Jain Family Institute - JFI
May 2021
What are some best practices for pilot design?
Along with many others in guaranteed income research, we find that pilots are most successful when they are built in consultation with community members and their specific needs. Rachel Black and Aisha Nyandoro have also advised and modeled this approach. Moreover, a clear messaging strategy is a core component of a successful pilot, rather than relying on the program to “speak for itself.” Drawing on JFI’s experiences working with multiple municipalities in the U.S. and internationally, our research team can help you evaluate appropriate guaranteed income approaches for your locality alongside community-based organizations that should fundamentally inform the design.

Many cities have also found it valuable to create a dedicated task force, assembling multiple stakeholders to define the community needs motivating the pilot and to collaborate on its vision, design, and implementation. Such a coalition of local nonprofits, community leaders, academics, and residents also can help generate public attention and strengthen the pilot’s connection to local perspectives and expertise. A task force may also provide a forum to discuss research design and any supportive programs. Task forces typically produce reports (e.g.Newark’s, or Atlanta’s) which may be of use in subsequent fundraising efforts. 568 Broadway, Suite 601
New York, NY, 10012
Copyright © 2021 Jain Family Institute
All rights reserved
17

Jain Family Institute - JFI
May 2021
Though each pilot should be designed for the specific needs of its community there are several best practices designers should consider:

Target low-income individuals
Although the ideal guaranteed income program would be universal, with the limited resources available for any pilot, targeting low-income households ensures the greatest benefit for those most in need. To target low-income populations is often to address issues of racial, gender-based and economic inequality, as communities of color are often most marginalized by the existing safety net and both historic and present economic policy. This targeting can be crucial for storytelling efforts because the stories of low-income communities, especially of color, can help amplify voices often ignored by the media and rebut harmful stereotypes about the value of cash as an anti-poverty tool.

Provide full-package services
Cash transfers can be more effective when they are accompanied by additional forms of support from local organizations such as financial coaching and job placement assistance.

Participation in these services should always be completely voluntary for recipients, consistent with the unconditional nature of guaranteed income. Understanding how guaranteed income interacts best with other support programs is also one of the pressing questions for GI research, so pilots should seek these synergies both for their immediate benefits and because they provide opportunities for learning.

Enhance individual agency
In line with the principles of unrestricted and unconditional guaranteed income, pilots should enhance individual agency by providing cash transfers with no strings attached.

This maximizes recipients’ agency by leaving it to them to decide how best to use the funds in their unique circumstances.

Promote long-term economic inclusion
A pilot is an opportunity to improve the well-being of recipients by connecting them to the resources and infrastructure they need in the long-term, not just while they are receiving benefits. For example, connecting recipients to local credit unions or nonprofits that provide low or no-cost financial services can help support the unbanked. Pilots may also offer the opportunity to rethink or newly build payments infrastructure. These improvements can persist and continue to provide benefit to residents after the pilot period.

Provide regular, not one-time, support
A pilot should be designed to provide regular cash transfers over a period of time rather than all at once. While participants might benefit from a one-time transfer, it is the predictability and long-term security provided by recurring cash transfers that are of 568 Broadway, Suite 601
New York, NY, 10012
Copyright © 2021 Jain Family Institute
All rights reserved
18

Jain Family Institute - JFI
May 2021
greatest interest both to researchers and value to the public. Providing payments over time has the added benefit of expanding the presence of the pilot in public discourse.

Offer simple, efficient enrollment procedures
Enrollment should involve minimal paperwork and demonstration of need. Reducing barriers like these, which currently prevent millions from receiving means-tested social benefits to which they are entitled, is one of the virtues of guaranteed income policy; this should be reflected in the pilot’s enrollment procedures.

Serve a long-term guaranteed income agenda
Guaranteed income pilots do not create impact in isolation, but rather through engagement with the broader movement for guaranteed income and economic justice.

Pilots should be designed with this context in mind, working with advocacy organizations oriented towards future policy. In addition to focusing on research questions that are likely to drive the discourse forward rather than reiterating established claims, pilots should be designed with a deliberate messaging strategy that engages with and supports the broader movement.

Involving participants in the research design and centring their agency and needs is inherent to a successful implementation of the above principles (also see Rachel Black and Aisha Nyandoro’s work on this). Likewise, participant confidentiality should be prioritized. In general, participants should understand that choosing not to participate in the research has no bearing on their pilot payments. Separating continued participation in research from continued receipt of payments is important to avoid creating a coercive situation. This should be addressed during the IRB review.

Planning a Pilot
A successful guaranteed income pilot is often a multi-year project that requires careful planning and coordination. This section will cover some of the practical questions that emerge in designing and executing a pilot, including timelines, costs, and potential obstacles. The Guaranteed Income Community of Practice (GICP, formed in 2021, of which JFI is a member, can also be a resource for emerging questions. While the details below provide a starting point for scoping out the planning needs and timeline of a pilot, a closer look at your own needs may be best served by further conversations with us or our partners. Reach out to [email protected] to chat or to be connected with another pilot.

Pilot costs
The total cost of a pilot will include both the money distributed to recipients and the costs of evaluation and administration, which can be expected to take up roughly 20% of the budget with a robust research program. For a given level of funding, program administrators and researchers must find a balance between benefit size, benefit duration, and number of recipients. For example, one million dollars could provide (a) 100 people $833/mo for a year, (b) 50 people 568 Broadway, Suite 601
New York, NY, 10012
Copyright © 2021 Jain Family Institute
All rights reserved
19

Jain Family Institute - JFI
May 2021
$1666/mo for a year, or (c) 200 people $833/mo for 6 months. These three parameters will be balanced based on the pilot’s objectives.

In 2020 the city of Newark, NJ
collaborated with JFI to release
a task force report which
includes a helpful breakdown
of the relative costs of a few
different pilot designs (see
right). These designs are
inspired by earlier research on
unconditional cash transfers in
Kenya by JFI senior fellow
Johannes Haushofer & Jeremy
Shapiro.

The task force report for
Atlanta’s guaranteed income
pilot provides some helpful
cost estimates for different
program sizes. JFI provided
estimates that a program with
600 recipients in which half
receive $800/mo for 36
months and half receive
$200/mo for 36 months will
total about $13 million,
including administration and
evaluation. Generally, an RCT
research program focused on quantitative impact analysis will require a cohort of at least this size to ensure that its findings are robust. On the other hand, the report also describes a potential qualitative research program with a cohort of just 200 participants in which 130 receive $800/mo for 36 months and 7 receive $200/mo for 36 months. The total for this smaller program would be about $5 million.

Developing a Timeline
A guaranteed income pilot will generally be designed to distribute benefits for at least one year in order to provide researchers with enough information to make meaningful evaluations. Many pilots are designed to run for two or more years to better understand the long-term impacts of guaranteed income. However, creating a successful GI pilot is a process that begins well before payments start going out and continues after they have stopped. It is important to start 568 Broadway, Suite 601
New York, NY, 10012
Copyright © 2021 Jain Family Institute
All rights reserved
20

Jain Family Institute - JFI
May 2021
developing an expected timeline early to ensure that there is enough time allotted for key prerequisites for a successful pilot launch.

Fundraising can be time consuming. A pilot may require multiple funders including foundations and high-net-worth individuals and each may be hesitant to be the first mover on the project.

Money may also come with strings attached or earmarking (reserved for program or research costs alone). While pilots with early support from funders have been able to begin administering cash on an accelerated pilot design schedule, such as within 34 months, these scenarios often rely on significant staffing capacity, existing pilot or research designs, and the structures of existing service providers and platforms to reach intended recipients or administer cash. Such programs can also be hampered by the existing limitations of the structures they employ. More likely fundraising timelines would be a year and two years to encompass both direct cash and research or administrative costs.

A successful pilot requires extensive coordinated efforts to implement. You will need to find implementation partners: organizations who can help you identify participants from the clientele roster or from other data sources (e.g. in Compton, a handful of community-based organizations alongside the City); organizations that can distribute money or that can develop a cash disbursement platform should such a system be needed (e.g. MoCaFi, or the Compton Pledge Portal with Venmo, Paypal and other financial partners); and organizations or individuals who can play the role of communications lead and interface with the media and your local community. If you are planning on exploring cash assistance as an overlay on existing benefits rather than a benefit that may substitute others or conflict with eligibility, you may wish to request waivers from the department that oversees state-administered benefits. This can involve lawyers where statutes are unclear. But even straightforward waiver applications, such as for SNAP, can take 6 to 12 months to resolve.

Research can take time to design. Once you bring a team on board, they may wish to build an advisory council; researchers will likely want to come up with several options that depend on fundraising success to ensure a statistically valid design even if the project falls short of fundraising goals; research must be conducted under the supervision of an Institutional Review Board and an application process that can take 36 months to conclude; the research team may need to find and hire a subcontracting organization to carry out survey field work (this is common practice in evaluation); and, of course, researchers will have to develop data collection instruments, data sharing agreements/NDAs, and a formal analysis plan for the pilot.

While much of this work can be done in parallel it is important to allocate sufficient time for it, especially given the possibility of “snags” in the process.

Common administrative challenges include public benefits eligibility and participant selection.

Providing low-income pilot participants with additional income creates risks that this additional income will disqualify them for public benefits programs they are enrolled in. These risks should be anticipated and addressed ahead of time to ensure that participation in the pilot does not 568 Broadway, Suite 601
New York, NY, 10012
Copyright © 2021 Jain Family Institute
All rights reserved
21

Jain Family Institute - JFI
May 2021
leave anyone worse off. Public benefits programs exist at the federal, state, and local level with eligibility requirements that vary with geography. Navigating the set of public programs that pilot participants may be enrolled in will require consultation with legal counsel and benefits specialists.

Mayors for a Guaranteed Income has produced a useful overview of program design considerations in relation to public benefits. They suggest structuring pilot benefits as gifts when possible, which can prevent them from being counted toward safety net eligibility requirements and, when less than the annual gift exclusion amount, do not need to be reported in tax filings. In other cases it may be necessary to seek waivers from government agencies to ensure that pilot participants do not lose public benefits.

Regarding participant selection and recruitment, there are a number of methods of recruiting and selecting participants in a given guaranteed income pilot or program. Depending on the research objectives and target populations, it can be very difficult to both select within and to reach vulnerable populations. Random selection among those in need helps make this process more fair.

Likewise, a pilot may choose to provide cash to individuals or households (and within households sometimes designating who receives funds to ensure the income supports the full family).

Moreover, maintaining the principles of a guaranteed income, and ensuring an effective intervention, relies on minimizing the burden on recipients to receive cash, and expanding eligibility as widely as possible within the scope of the pilot’s research. Some examples from existing programs include:

In Hudson, New York, the pilot created a simple application that was circulated through community-based organizations and publicized by the city. A communications campaign through local partners helped allay any fears that the application was a fraud. Then, a weighted lottery system was used to favor applicants in greatest need across a variety of factors.

In Compton, the pilot worked with community based organizations to complement lists of city residents with individuals who often fall outside of governmental resources. Then, Compton selected randomly from those lists of low-income qualifying households. Despite widespread media coverage in local and national news outlets, Compton’s enrollment, like all pilots, required a careful process of continuing to build trust through local partners, and multiple conversations with residents. It was also crucial to make clear to the public how recipients would be selected. Stockton SEED created a simple explanatory video on social media, as did Compton, as a tool to address significant inbound to the mayor’s office regarding how to join the program.

In Maricá, Brazil, three years of prior residency is required to apply for a Mumbuca card through the city government’s basic income policy. In that case, anyone with three years’ 568 Broadway, Suite 601
New York, NY, 10012
Copyright © 2021 Jain Family Institute
All rights reserved
22

Jain Family Institute - JFI
May 2021
residence and at the designated income level can receive the guaranteed income. There are now many models.

To discuss selection approaches unique to your pilot and context, reach out to us at [email protected].

Pilot Messaging
The greatest obstacle to the implementation of guaranteed income policy is not a lack of research, but a lack of political will. At this point, much of the impact of local guaranteed income pilots will come from their ability to influence established attitudes and narratives rather than to provide more empirical evidence reaffirming the benefits of guaranteed income. The purpose of a guaranteed income pilot should be understood to include its effects on public opinion through messaging, not just its research findings.

This broader shift in public opinion is essential for building popular support for implementing guaranteed income as a permanent program at the state or federal level. Every pilot, large or small, can contribute to this effort—and make a positive impact in the lives of local residents.

This section will focus on three aspects of effective communication around guaranteed income pilots: storytelling (highlighting the lives and experience of recipients), framing (communicating the benefits of GI by strategically focusing on key elements), and communicating research.

Storytelling
In order to effectively shift public attitudes towards a guaranteed income, it is important to first understand the established narratives and arguments supporting it. A few of the most common such arguments are:

1. That it can eliminate poverty and increase well-being by providing an income floor for everyone

2. That it increases economic and social mobility by providing people with the economic security they need to pursue new opportunities and weather economic shocks

3. That it ensures that everyone in need of support receives it rather than erecting barriers through means-testing and administrative requirements

4. That it reduces economic inequality and helps close racial wealth gaps by redistributing income
568 Broadway, Suite 601
New York, NY, 10012
Copyright © 2021 Jain Family Institute
All rights reserved
23

Jain Family Institute - JFI
May 2021
In addition, it is important to understand that changing negative or false narratives about guaranteed income and the safety net often requires changing the narrator. Cynicism about how poor people spend money has often been perpetuated by leaders or analysts who have no experience with financial precarity. Pilots can partake in narrative change by uplifting those with lived experiences of poverty and experiences accessing highly-conditional benefits programs.

Transforming the policy debate can involve changing the narrator of policy or research evidence, and supporting the storytelling capacities of those “target populations” for guaranteed income, individuals most marginalized by existing economic and welfare systems, especially across race and gender.

In our experience, the strongest opposition to these claims comes less from doubts about their accuracy than from doubts about whether they are goals that we should collectively pursue—or whether the government should allocate additional resources towards these goals. Many might grant that a guaranteed income would reduce poverty while also denying that poverty-reduction through redistribution should be a policy goal. This belief is a matter of values rather than evidence.

The two most prevalent rebuttals, firmly refuted by empirical research, are that a guaranteed income would:

1. Induce people to become “freeloaders” who receive income without working

2. Be spent irresponsibly on “temptation goods” by low-income recipients That empirical evidence from decades of cash transfer study runs counter to these claims is insufficient to dislodge them, for they are rooted not in evidence but in long-established race and gender-based narratives about poverty. We believe these attitudes can be transformed not by more evidence, but rather through changes in rhetoric and attitudes.

Many of these established narratives are closely associated with the concept of “welfare” understood by many not just as anti-poverty policy, but as a system in which the government provides resources to the “undeserving” poor who choose to rely on this support rather than working harder to support themselves. These attitudes found most pernicious expression in the figure of the “welfare queen” in the 1980s and 90s, a political symbol used to reinforce the harmful perception of welfare programs as a hand-out to black people taking advantage of the system rather than as essential economic support for low-income families of all races. In the United States, distinctions between the deserving and undeserving poor are often rooted in race and class prejudice; many other nations labor under similar illusions about poverty, in which the poor remain so only by lack of effort or self-discipline.

Every life touched by a guaranteed income program, whatever its size, is an opportunity to rebut such harmful stereotypes in the public imagination. In lieu of abstract stereotypes about poverty, 568 Broadway, Suite 601
New York, NY, 10012
Copyright © 2021 Jain Family Institute
All rights reserved
24

Jain Family Institute - JFI
May 2021
pilot storytelling can offer humanized and relatable examples of people fighting to get ahead in a system that too often works against them.

The key storytelling message is that poverty is the result of a lack of resources, not a lack of character, and that a guaranteed income makes a significant and positive impact on peoples’ lives. Stories transform attitudes and narratives at an emotional level through rich, embodied stories. This is especially important because the voices of low-income populations are so often absent in mainstream discourse.

Framing
As a fast-growing policy area with a wide range of social and economic effects, guaranteed income resonates for different reasons with particular audiences. Accordingly, an effective messaging strategy should make use of one or more frames most effective for its intended audience(s).

Through our work on guaranteed income and across a number of key messaging studies conducted by other scholars, JFI has found certain frames particularly effective in mobilizing support for guaranteed income. Of the list below, pilots would do well to choose some, but not all, to place at the heart of their messaging strategy. That choice, in turn, will depend on your local social and political context. For example, forthcoming research from Catherine Thomas (alongside Markus, H. and Walton, G.) suggests that conservative audiences respond more positively to frames that center the effects of GI on individual freedom and autonomy rather than economic security or financial stability, a conclusion consistent with the recommendations of progressive messaging experts for communications around welfare policy more generally. Stanford Basic Income Lab has also examined the impacts of different names used to describe cash policy and pilots. In general, your framing strategy should be based on careful consideration of your audience’s values, political orientations, and the local and national issues that are most salient to them. Whatever you choose to focus on, it is important to be consistent in your framing approach over time.

Guaranteed Income Frames
Poverty Alleviation
A guaranteed income can eliminate or significantly reduce poverty by providing an income floor that ensures that everyone has enough to survive. As a society, we have the resources to ensure that nobody falls into destitution and should recognize a right to basic subsistence.

This frame can also be used to emphasize that a guaranteed income provides a buffer against economic shocks -- unexpected bills, repairs, injuries, irregular employment, or sudden job loss—that keep people trapped in poverty. That is, a guaranteed income not 568 Broadway, Suite 601
New York, NY, 10012
Copyright © 2021 Jain Family Institute
All rights reserved
25

Jain Family Institute - JFI
May 2021
only lifts people out of poverty in the short term through cash transfers, but also in the longer term by ensuring that they have the positive cash-flow necessary to save in the face of volatility.

Economic Stimulus and Community Development
A guaranteed income is a powerful economic stimulus that puts money directly into the pockets of people who will spend it locally, supporting the growth of small businesses and local economies even in low-income areas. There is also evidence that providing community members with a guaranteed income reduces both property crime and violent crime.

Agency and Social Mobility
A guaranteed income gives people more agency over their lives by providing them with the financial stability they need to pursue their goals without depending entirely on their employer. It facilitates social mobility by encouraging people to pursue potentially risky new opportunities—including education, entrepreneurship, or relocation—with the knowledge that they have a financial buffer. It also supports social mobility by providing protection against the economic shocks that often keep families trapped in cycles of poverty.

Breaking Intergenerational Cycles of Poverty
Guaranteed income programs represent a commitment not just to a minimum standard of living for all, but to the idea that every child deserves to grow up with the resources they need to thrive. Children who grow up in financially secure households are more likely to succeed in school and have more positive outcomes throughout life.

Reducing poverty through cash transfers is not just about helping individuals achieve financial stability; it’s also about ensuring that children are not unfairly disadvantaged simply because they were born into one household rather than another. A guaranteed income for parents impacts the whole family, disrupting intergenerational poverty cycles by simultaneously helping parents build financial security and providing children the resources and stable environment they need to flourish.

Racial and Economic Equality
While there are a range of methods that might be used to finance a guaranteed income, it is a fundamentally redistributive policy representing a net transfer of resources from higher to lower income populations relative to the status quo. A guaranteed income is therefore a direct way to reduce economic inequality. Because people of color are disproportionately affected by low wages, income volatility, and poverty, this reduction in economic inequality also reduces racial income and wealth gaps. 568 Broadway, Suite 601
New York, NY, 10012
Copyright © 2021 Jain Family Institute
All rights reserved
26

Jain Family Institute - JFI
May 2021
Communicating Research
The above discussions of storytelling and framing are important for any guaranteed income pilot whether or not it has a research component. But for pilots that are designed as research programs it is also important to think about how research findings are communicated.

Communicating research to the public involves several different actors, including researchers, politicians, activists, and journalists, which creates many opportunities for miscommunication.

Karl Widerquist has argued that the different preconceptions of each of these audiences can create a game of “telephone” as findings grow distorted while communicated across audiences with different expectations. For example, researchers are trained to answer specific empirical questions in a balanced way, often hedging their findings with potential challenges, doubts, and further questions. The public, on the other hand, often expects more clear-cut answers not just to empirical questions but also to ethical questions about what policies ought to be implemented.

Ethical social science research can tell us what is the case, not what we ought to do with that information. The resulting absence of clear ethical conclusions invites various actors to spin the research in ways that support their views and sow confusion about the meaning of the results.

Widerquist suggests four strategies for ensuring that such research-oriented guaranteed income pilots contribute effectively to public understanding:

1. Work back and forth from public discussion to the experiment  The design of a
research pilot should start from an engagement with ongoing public discussions and be oriented toward answering questions relevant to them. Reports about experimental findings should relate them to these salient questions.

2. Focus on the effects rather than the side effects
 Researchers often focus on
answering questions that are more quantifiable at the expense of answering questions that are less precisely measurable but more relevant to public discussions. In many cases, it is more valuable to provide an imprecise answer to salient questions than a precise answer to questions that are difficult for the public to appreciate or engage with.

3. Focus on the bottom line
 Although there are many facets of public discussion about guaranteed income, observers, and especially the media, are ultimately looking for conclusions that relate to the bottom line: an overall evaluation of guaranteed income as a long-term national policy. No single pilot will be able to provide a definite conclusion to questions about the bottom line, but it is important to communicate clearly how specific findings relate to the viability, costs, and benefits of a state or national guaranteed income policy.

4. Address the ethical controversy
 Although empirical research cannot resolve ethical
questions about what ought to be done, it is important for researchers to engage with 568 Broadway, Suite 601
New York, NY, 10012
Copyright © 2021 Jain Family Institute
All rights reserved
27

Jain Family Institute - JFI
May 2021
public concerns and reduce the potential for spin by clearly explaining what their findings mean for people holding different ethical positions.

Finally, it is important to consider the public perception of the need for additional pilots. Almaz Zelleke has argued that new pilots can actually hinder progress toward the implementation of a permanent guaranteed income by falsely signalling to the public that it is still an untested policy whose significant unknowns must be tested before any large-scale implementation.

When creating a research pilot, you should be sure to communicate that new research on guaranteed income is valuable not because it will tell us whether guaranteed income “works,” but because it can help refine our understanding of how to a) optimize the design of GI policy and b) contribute to a shift in the narrative around guaranteed income. In other words: emphasize both the questions your pilot seeks to answer and the ones—like impact on overall well-being—that are already well-established.

The Guaranteed Income Movement
Although the concept of a guaranteed income is not new, the movement that has developed in support of it in recent years represents an exciting boost in public awareness and support for guaranteed income policy. Much of this momentum has been driven by the explosion of local pilots created in the wake of the Stockton SEED demonstration and as part of the creation of Mayors for a Guaranteed Income. Andrew Yang’s 2020 presidential campaign, which promoted a $1,000 per month universal basic income, also had a significant impact on public awareness of guaranteed income as a policy option.

Most recently, the economic crisis created by the COVID19 pandemic has created an immediate need for expanded cash transfers through universal cash assistance and large increases in unemployment benefits. These policies have the benefits of direct cash transfers and add to the public momentum in support of guaranteed income not just as a response to crises, but as a permanent part of the social benefits system. This section provides further context for guaranteed income advocacy today by compiling lists of recent local pilots, past examples of guaranteed income in practice, and some of the key individuals and organizations advocating for guaranteed income today. For an updated list of past, ongoing, and planned guaranteed income pilots please also consult the Stanford Basic Income Lab’s global map.

Planned and ongoing pilot research in the U.S.

Below is a look at the cities implementing guaranteed income pilots and their relative differences in design and targeting. For a larger list of cities interested in guaranteed income pilots, see the Mayors for Guaranteed Income website. Programs indicated with a star (*) have begun providing cash. Please reach out if you are working on a pilot and would like for it to be included in this list. 568 Broadway, Suite 601
New York, NY, 10012
Copyright © 2021 Jain Family Institute
All rights reserved
28

Jain Family Institute - JFI
May 2021
City / Area Recipients Amount Frequency Length Targeting Notes Jackson, MS*
2018, 2020
20, 110 $1,000 monthly 12 months African-American
mothers
After the initial pilot of 20 people from
20182019, a second pilot with more
than 110 participants began in March
2020. website
Stockton, CA*
2018
150 $500 monthly 24 months Residents of
neighborhoods with
$46k median
income
Initiated by Mayor Michael Tubbs,
founder of Mayors for a Guaranteed
Income. View the Stockton SEED
website here.

Compton, CA*
2020
800 $300600 varies 24 months Low-income, formerly
incarcerated, and
undocumented
residents
Known as the Compton Pledge, this
privately funded program is
spearheaded by Mayor Aja Brown in
collaboration with the Fund for
Guaranteed Income. website
Santa Clara
County, CA*
2020
72 $1000 monthly 1 year 24-year-olds
transitioning out of
foster care support
In July 2020, Santa Clara County began
administering the pilot with support
from MyPath and Excite Credit Union,
with $900,000 in public funds and
financial advising. The pilot was
approved by the county’s board of
supervisors. Press announcement here.

Chelsea, MA*
2020
2,000 $200400 monthly 10
months
Low-income families Funded by the City of Chelsea along with private funders like the Shah
Family Foundation. Fundraising
continues in an effort to extend the
pilot’s duration.

Hudson, NY*
2020
25 $500 monthly 5 years Income <$35k Funded by two non-profits: The Spark of Hudson and the Humanity Forward
Foundation. website
St. Paul, MN*
2021
150 $500 monthly 18 months Families participating
in the “CollegeBound
Saint Paul” program
Proposed by Mayor Melvin Carter and
unanimously approved by the city
council in September 2020. website
Lynn, MA*
2021
15 $400 monthly 36 months New mothers The Family Health Project participants refer into the program through federally
qualified community health centers, a
corporate partner provides debit cards,
and a social services firm provides
onboarding and administrative support.

Privately funded.

Richmond, VA*
2020
55 $500 monthly 2 years Low-income families
in existing
anti-poverty
programs; employed
but excluded from
traditional benefits
programs
The Richmond Resilience Initiative
started in 2020 with 18 families and
was funded through CARES Act funds,
but it has since been expanded to add
37 families as part of Mayors for
Guaranteed Income.

Columbia, SC 100 $500 monthly 1 year Black fathers in
Columbia within an
The Columbia Life Improvement
Monetary Boost (CLIMB) program was
568 Broadway, Suite 601
New York, NY, 10012
Copyright © 2021 Jain Family Institute
All rights reserved
29

Jain Family Institute - JFI
May 2021
2020 existing program founded in Dec. 2020 by Mayor
Stephen Benjamin alongside Midlands
Fatherhood Coalition, and supported by
private funds. To begin spring 2021.

Long Beach, CA
2021
150 $500 monthly 6 months Artists Mayor Robert Garcia’s proposal was accepted by the city council in Nov
2020 and is in the planning stages.

Pittsburg, PA
2021
200 $500 monthly 2 years Families earning
50% of area median
income
Mayor Bill Peduto is calling this pilot the
“Assured Cash Experiment of
Pittsburgh.” Half of the funds are to be
sent to households run by black women
with the hope of reducing racial and
gender inequalities.

San Francisco, CA
2021
150 $1,000 monthly 2 years Black and Pacific
Islander women
during pregnancy &
postpartum
A partnership between the San
Francisco Department of Public Health,
Hellman Foundation, and University of
California - San Francisco to decrease
infant mortality.

Oakland, CA
2021
600 $500 monthly 18 months BIPOC families
earning <50% of area
median income, with
half earning below
138% of the federal
poverty line
Led by Mayor Libby Schaaf, one of the
Mayors for a Guaranteed income, the
“Oakland Resilient Families” program is
supported by the Family Independence
Initiative. Payments starting as soon as
spring 2021.

San Diego, CA
2021
150 $500 monthly 2 years Random selection of
low-income families
with children under
12 within hardest-hit
zip codes for
COVID19 and child
poverty
A pilot serving both San Diego and
National City families, Resilient
Communities for Every Child is
supported and housed by Jewish
Family Service of San Diego, with a $2
million fundraising goal.

Marin County, CA
2021
125 $1000 monthly 2 years Low-income mothers
of color with children
under 18 years of
age, with priority for
those ineligible for
federal benefits
Introduced with unanimous support of
Marin county supervisors, MOMentum
has the financial support of the Marin
Community Foundation and Family
Independence Initiative as an
administrative partner for payments.

Cambridge, MA
2021
120 $500 monthly 18 months Single-parent
households earning
80% of area median
income (AMI who
have children under
age 18
The City of Cambridge announced
Cambridge RISE Recurring Income for
Success and Empowerment) in April
2021, a project spearheaded by Mayor
Sumbul Siddiqui with support from
Cambridge Community Foundation,
Harvard University, MIT, and Boston
Foundation.

Tacoma, WA
2021
100 $500 monthly 1 year Tacoma residents,
single head of
household, and
Asset-Limited-Incom
e-Constrained while
Employed (ALICE
The GRIT Demonstration, Growing
Resilience in Tacoma, is a partnership
between Mayor Victoria Woodards and
United Way of Pierce County, and part
of Mayors for a Guaranteed Income
MGI. It will rely on private funds.
568 Broadway, Suite 601
New York, NY, 10012
Copyright © 2021 Jain Family Institute
All rights reserved
30

Jain Family Institute - JFI
May 2021
New York, NY
2021
100 $5001000 biweekly 3 years Low-income Black
and immigrant
mothers during first
1000 days of life
Funded and implemented by the
Monarch Foundation, the program aims
to reach those in Washington Heights &
Harlem, with hopes of expanding to
other areas.

San Francisco, CA
2021
50 $330 monthly 6 months Young parenting
mothers of Hilltop
School
MyPath and Hilltop School aim to
provide financial mentoring and
cohort-based learning circles to those
receiving the basic income. More here.

West Garfield
Park, IL
2020
30 $500 monthly 18 months Formerly incarcerated
individuals in the
neighborhood
Fundraising for EAT Equity and
Transformation) Chicago’spilot began
in Nov. 2020 and the program aims to
begin disbursement in August 2021.

Other nascent proposals (2021
Los Angeles, CA Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti was among the founding mayors of the Mayors for Guaranteed Income and has proposed expanding his previous Angeleno Campaign, which provided one-time prepaid debit cards of $7001500 to eligible families as part of a $10 million emergency assistance campaign of Accelerator for America alongside Mastercards’ City Possible initiative. The program aimed to reach low-wage or hourly workers whose jobs were affected by the COVID19 pandemic, and received over 400,000 applicants. The expanded guaranteed income program aims to give $1000 per month to 2000 families in Los Angeles, with a proposed budget of $24 million.

Atlanta, GA Beginning the week of Juneteenth 2020, Atlanta City Council member Amir Farokhi launched a task force to explore the potential for a guaranteed income program to reduce economic inequality in Atlanta, and particularly Atlanta’s historic fourth ward. The Old Fourth Ward Economic Security Task Force brought together 28 local and national stakeholders, with the Georgia Budget & Policy Institute, Economic Security Project and JFI among those weighing in.

A key objective was to tackle wealth stratification and particular insecurity among Black and Latinx Atlantans. Their report was published in January 2020. Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms is also a member of Mayors for a Guaranteed Income, launched in 2020 with 34 mayors joining their advocacy to date.

Newark, NJ Mayor Ras Baraka of Newark began exploring a guaranteed income program in 2019, forming a Task Force of community-based organizations and national research groups, like JFI, to investigate the role a guaranteed income program could play to address failures of the existing safety net, a lack of economic mobility in Newark, and especially housing precarity. The Newark Guaranteed Income Task Force report, published in early 2020, provides three potential pilot frameworks and recommended policy changes at the state and federal level, while underscoring the specific needs of Newark residents. Since then, Newark launched the Newark Movement for Economic Equity, with plans to begin a first cohort of 30 recipients in spring of 2021.

Chicago, IL Aldermen Gilbert Villegas, Sophia King, and Maria Hadden are advocating for the introduction of a guaranteed income providing $500/month to 5,000 of Chicago’s neediest families. The pilot would be funded by allocating $30 million of the $1.8 billion in federal relief funds Chicago is expected to receive this year. This effort is distinct from the task force assembled two years ago to examine the potential for a 1,000 person guaranteed income pilot in the city.

Other initiatives in Chicago are pushing for regular cash transfer programs for new moms as well.

New York, NY Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago and Point Source Youth have been undertakingplans for a direct cash transfer program (DCTP for young adults facing homelessness in NYC. The target group is 30 young adults, with 30 others receiving usual services and shelters already available (an RCT model). The cash transfers will be $1250/mo for 2 years, with participants able to choose payment frequency and mechanism (Venmo, Paypa, direct deposit, card) through UpTogether’s online platform. The participants will also receive optional support services.

Denver, CO The Denver Basic Income Project founded by Mark Donovan, Denver-based philanthropist and entrepreneur, with the support of Denver Mayor Michael B. Hancock, and researchers at the University of Denver’s Center for Housing and Homeless Research. The pilot is explicitly focused on the unhoused, and will provide $1000 per month to 260 individuals, a lump sum of $6500 to 260 more, followed by $500 per month to the lump-sum contingent. A control group of 300 will receive $50 per month for their participation. The project aims to begin payments July 1, 2021.

Oakland County, A collaborative group made up of the 18th District Oakland County Commissioner's office, Lighthouse, a local housing non-profit, and researchers from Wayne State University are drafting a pilot program. The focus of this pilot 568 Broadway, Suite 601
New York, NY, 10012
Copyright © 2021 Jain Family Institute
All rights reserved
31

Jain Family Institute - JFI
May 2021
MI is unique in the space. While others have focused on the efficacy of cash transfers towards positive economic outcomes - this pilot intends to shed light on the physio/psychological impacts that guaranteed income have on an individual and family's health.

Minneapolis, MN* The Nancy Somers Family Foundation facilitated funding for a pilot providing $1000 monthly for 15 individuals through a local anti-poverty non-profit, Avivo. The pilot began amid the urgency of the pandemic in 2020 and included low income individuals who were unhoused, challenged by mental illness and/or enrolled in a career training program at Avivo; it will extend for 1 year. The group aims to expand the initiative as “Project Solid Ground” at Avivo, pending future funding.

Long Beach, CA Mayor Robert Garcia announced in January 2021 the intent to create a basic income program for low-income students at Long Beach City College. The City Council had previously considered proposals to provide $500 per month over six months for up to 150 artists. The city previously also provided $1,000 per month in rental assistance, in part supported by CARES Act funds. San Diego was among 15 cities awarded funds from Jack Dorsey as part of the Mayors for Guaranteed Income, with the aim to supplement funds with private sources. More specific details are not yet available.

Las Vegas, NV A Las Vegas City Council candidate supportive of guaranteed income has proposed a program that would aim to provide annual lump sum payments to 60,000 residents in initial disbursements (~9% of the city population).

Mountain View,
CA
In April 2021, Mountain View City Council voted to pilot a guaranteed income program. The council plans to dedicate $1 million in American Rescue Plan (ARPA funds alongside any philanthropic or corporation donations. Provided exclusively ARPA funding, the recipients would receive $500 per month for 1 year. While the program design is forthcoming, Mayor Abe-Koga indicated an interest in targeting low-income families, similar to affordable housing.

Nashville, TN Moving Nashville Forward is a pilot program intended to target residents in North Nashville (zip code 37208, a community that has faced acutely a history of systemic discrimation. The pilot is currently fundraising to provide 100 families a monthly guaranteed income of $1000 to families with annual incomes under $40,000. Organizers include Gideon’s Army, a group that has supported local tornado recovery efforts, with support from Dr. Stacia West, a University of Tennessee Knoxville Assistant Professor and one of the co-Principal Investigators of Stockton SEED.

South San
Francisco
South San Francisco has been considering a pilot since early 2021, based on presentations on UBI to the city council led by City Manager Mike Futrell and his team. While eligibility and program design specifics are forthcoming, the group identified the YMCA as a program administrator.

Gainesville, FL In collaboration with local nonprofit Community Spring, Mayor Lauren Poe aims to provide a $600/mo guaranteed income for two years to formerly incarcerated residents. First payments are expected to go out October 1.

Gary, Indiana The Guaranteed Income Validation Efforts (GIVE program is fundraising to support 125 low-income residents with $500/mo. Income cut-offs are at $35,000/year and citywide surveys are being used to identify potential recipients.

The effort is supported by Mayors for Guaranteed Income and is looking to raise $1.6M.

Puget Sound, WA In a program to target pregnant families within the Puget Sound urban Indian and Pacific Islander communities, the United Indians of All Tribes Foundation, Seattle Indian Health Board, Cowlitz Behavioral Health, Native American Women’s Dialogue on Infant Mortality, and Pacific Islander Health Board are designing a 3-year pilot supported by Perigee Fund. Learn more about their wrap-around services here, and Perigee Fund’s interestshere.

Paterson, NJ Announced in March 2021, Paterson’s Mayor Andre Sayegh aims to provide 110 low-income residents with $400 per month, regardless of employment status. The income cut-off for individuals and families is $30,000 and $88,000 respectively. Residents applied online by April 30 and a lottery system is set to select recipients in May 2021, for payments to begin in July. The research is supported by the Center for Guaranteed Income.

New York, NY The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation is working to launch Creatives Rebuild New York (CRNY to support dozens of small-to-midsize community arts organizations and over 1000 individual artists with cash over 2 years. Morehere.

Boston, MA The Community Love Fund is a landmark guaranteed income initiative of the National Council for Incarcerated and Formerly Incarcerated Women & Families and Justice as Healing. The aim is to provide unconditional monthly cash transfers to formerly incarcerated women in Roxbury Boston) for one year, beginning in 2021. Morehere.

Nevada The Move Nevada Forward initiative is focused on advancing economic rights for Nevadans with a particular focus in 2021 on establishing a basic income experiment statewide. It is a coalition of grassroots-led nonprofits. There are other groups in Nevada working to rally public officials for a guaranteed income program in Las Vegas as well. 568 Broadway, Suite 601
New York, NY, 10012
Copyright © 2021 Jain Family Institute
All rights reserved
32

Jain Family Institute - JFI
May 2021
*These programs have begun to deliver the guaranteed income.

Has guaranteed income ever been tried in the United States? The answer to this question is yes and no. A population-wide guaranteed income has not been tried in the U.S., but forms of regular cash transfer policies have been implemented. The most well-known example of a guaranteed income at the state level is the Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend, which inspired 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang’s proposal to implement a UBI nationwide. The examples below are antecedents to a future cash transfer policy that would more closely represent a guaranteed income at scale.

EITC, Child Tax Credit, and similar cash relief
The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC is a refundable tax credit provided by the federal government (and by about half of state governments) for low-income workers, particularly those with children. While childless households can receive a maximum federal benefit of $538 in 2020, households with one child can receive up to $3,500 annually and those with three or more children can receive up to $6,660. Because this tax credit is refundable, households receive these amounts in cash as a refund after subtracting remaining taxes owed. Each year the federal government distributes about $70 billion in tax credits through this program, lifting millions out of poverty through what are effectively cash transfers.

Using thirty years’ worth of data on EITC policy expansions, researchers Bastian and Jones (2018 concluded that EITC is one of the least expensive anti-poverty programs in the United States. For every $350 in EITC spending, total government revenues increased by $303, compensating for 87% of the program cost through positive spillover effects. EITC expansions were found to increase average annual earnings and labor supply, increase payroll and sales taxes paid, and reduce dependence on public assistance.

The Child Tax Credit (CTC provides low-income parents with a fully refundable tax credit for each dependent child. As of 2018, it provided a $2,000 annual tax credit per qualifying child with a maximum refundable amount of $1,400. Although it is not targeted exclusively at low-income families, the CTC is an important anti-poverty program, lifting over 4 million people—including 2 million children—out of poverty in 2018. In 2021, the CTC was temporarily expanded until the end of the year as a part of the American Rescue Plan Act. While this expansion is in effect, roughly 80% of parents receive a credit of $300/mo ($3,600/year) for each child under 6 and $250/mo $3,000/year) for children age 617. Unlike the ordinary CTC, the expanded credit is fully refundable, available to parents with little to no income, and can be distributed monthly rather than all at once after filing taxes. In this way, the expanded CTC much more closely resembles child allowance programs found in other countries (i.e. guaranteed income for parents). Making this expansion permanent would be a large step forward for social policy in the United States. For more details check out JFI’s policy brief comparing CTC expansion proposals. 568 Broadway, Suite 601
New York, NY, 10012
Copyright © 2021 Jain Family Institute
All rights reserved
33

Jain Family Institute - JFI
May 2021
Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend
The Alaska Permanent Fund has paid a yearly dividend to state residents since 1982. Established to conserve revenue from oil and mineral resources to benefit all Alaskans, the fund also grows its principal through investment and pays out an average dividend of around $1,600 per year to each resident. It is both the largest and the longest running example of guaranteed income in practice.

Eastern Band of Cherokee Basic Income
In 1996, the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians in North Carolina opened a casino and decided to distribute a portion of its annual profits to every tribe member in the form of a cash subsidy. The payouts began at around $500 per person per year but have increased to several thousand dollars since. In addition to increased financial security, researchers observed a range of positive effects on community members receiving this additional income, including reduced behavioral and emotional problems in children and less depression, anxiety, and alcohol dependence in adults.

Which individuals and organizations are working on guaranteed income policy?
The movement for guaranteed income policy is international, and this section does not provide an exhaustive list of the many important organizations and individuals who contribute significantly to the field. In the U.S., the “big tent” of advocacy organizations can include those supporting a wide variety of cash-based safety net policies that involve a regular payment or income floor. Similar policies include a Child Allowance or Child Tax Credit CTC, the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC and historic Negative Income Tax, advocates of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF, and programs that guarantee businesses can provide paychecks to workers during widespread government and business shut-downs as we saw in 2020 (such as the Paycheck Protection Program, Paycheck Recovery Act, etc.). Notably, interest in federal cash relief in 2020 came alongside the expansion of unemployment insurance programs that can likewise guarantee an income floor, although in more limited and highly-conditioned ways. The importance of these other programs for guaranteed income policy is that many advocates for such benefits believe in fundamentally similar social safety net measures rooted in cash support. Below are some of the notable organizations that occupy the wider landscape of advocacy and research on guaranteed income or cash transfer policy:

Cash support advocates in Congress
“Advocates” are defined as those that have cosponsored or introduced legislation that provides for an income floor or cash-based family support program. This list is not comprehensive of all 568 Broadway, Suite 601
New York, NY, 10012
Copyright © 2021 Jain Family Institute
All rights reserved
34

Jain Family Institute - JFI
May 2021
cosponsors or all cash transfer legislation, but rather focuses on leading figures in policy that either directly models a guaranteed income or that begins with more modest measures, like a child allowance that provides baseline income for parents and caretakers with children.

The legislation that most resembles a guaranteed income has come from these progressive offices:
● Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman (DNJ
○ Guaranteed Income Pilot Program Act of 2020 (one-pager here) ● Rep. Rashida Tlaib (DMI
○ Automatic Boost to Communities Act (“ABC Act”), BOOST Act (previously known as the LIFT Act)
● Rep. Ilhan Omar (DMN
○ RELIEF Act and letters for continuous relief checks
Legislation around an income floor for parents has even wider support, with many of those advocates also supporting regular payments during the crisis of the coronavirus pandemic.

Notably, there is widespread Democratic support for a child tax credit (CTC proposal, especially with President Biden’s American Rescue Plan expansion and American Families Plan. Below are just a few key champions of a CTC expansion:
● Rep. Rosa DeLauro (DCT
● Sen. Sherrod Brown (DOH
● Rep. Suzan DelBene (DWA
● Sen. Richard Neal (DMA
● Sen. Chris Murphy (DCT
● Rep. Nancy Pelosi (DCA
In addition to the Child Tax Credit, Families First Coronavirus Response:
● Sen. Michael Bennet (DCO
● Sen. Sherrod Brown (DOH
● Sen. Cory Booker (DNJ
Among other forms of pandemic-related income support were several different paycheck protection bills. Such bills work similarly to the EITC in that they are employment-conditioned.

Also included below is an expansion of the EITC
● Sen. Bernie Sanders (IVT
○ Paycheck Recovery Act
● Rep. Pramila Jayapal (DWA
568 Broadway, Suite 601
New York, NY, 10012
Copyright © 2021 Jain Family Institute
All rights reserved
35

Jain Family Institute - JFI
May 2021
○ Paycheck Recovery Act
○ Co-sponsored Rep. Tlaib’s ABC Act
● Former Sen. Kamala Harris (DCA
○ LIFT Act
○ Monthly Economic Crisis Support Act
Among Republican legislators, support has primarily centered around a pandemic-specific relief.

Nonetheless, the following legislators supported more robust checks for families in the wake of COVID19
● Sen. Josh Hawley (RMO
● Sen. Tom Cotton (RAR
● Sen. Mitt Romney (RUT
○ Also supports the Child Tax Credit
● Rep. Justin Amash (RMI
● Sen. Marco Rubio (RFL
● Sen. Mike Lee (RUT
Emergency cash relief legislation has garnered much greater support than regular cash relief legislation. While support for the CARES Act, which passed with bipartisan support in the House and Senate, is one example, a few key legislators have put forth additional and more sweeping legislation for cash transfers throughout the course of the pandemic and its economic downturn, including some mentioned above. Some additional examples include:
● Rep. Ro Khanna (DCA
○ Emergency Money to the People Act
● Rep. Tim Ryan (DOH
○ Emergency Money to the People Act
● Rep. Maxine Waters (DCA
○ House Financial Services Committee proposal
● Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (DNY
○ Amendment to the CASH Act
○ Cosponsored ABC Act
Efforts are also being made at the state and municipal level to create guaranteed income pilots and programs. Some examples of state level advocates are:
● NY State Sen. Kevin S. Parker
○ Senate Bill S6696 proposing the creation of a 2-year statewide guaranteed income pilot with 10,000 recipients
568 Broadway, Suite 601
New York, NY, 10012
Copyright © 2021 Jain Family Institute
All rights reserved
36

Jain Family Institute - JFI
May 2021
○ Senate Bill S6552 proposing a state-wide universal basic income pilot program and funds to support it
● NY State Sen. Leroy Comrie
○ Senate Bill S6696 co-sponsor
● MA State Sen. James B. Eldridge
○ Bill H.1632 proposing the creation of a state-level universal basic income program
● MA State Rep. Tami L. Gouveia
○ Bill H.1632 joint petitioner
● CA Assemblymember Evan Low
○ AB65 Stating legislature’s intent to implement a universal basic income in California
○ AB1338 Exempting guaranteed income demonstrations’ cash transfers from means tests for CalWORKS, CalFRESH, CalEITC ● CA State Sen. Dave Cortese
○ SB739 The UBI for Transition Age Foster Youth Act, a bill to provide 3-years of UBI, $1000/mo for foster youth
Academic champions for guaranteed income
Among academics, there is a growing acknowledgment of the longstanding empirical evidence in favor of a guaranteed income or similar cash transfer policy. In an open letter to Congress of over 150 economists and social scientists, academics argued in July 2020 for additional cash relief for families alongside expanded cash-based safety net policies like unemployment insurance.

Notable academics working most directly on cash transfer research and guaranteed income include: Our own researchers, Sidhya Balakrishnan, Stephen Nuñez, Johannes Haushofer (also of GiveDirectly), Leah Hamilton, Maximilian Kasy, and Paul Katz; co-Directors of the newly-launched Center for Guaranteed Income Research at the University of Pennsylvania, Stacia West and Amy Castro Baker; major international researchers in the Brazilian Basic Income Network such as Fabio Waltenberg; Fernando Freitas, Roberta Mendes e Costa; at OpenResearchLabs (formerly YC Research) Elizabeth Rhodes; and, while not all advocates for guaranteed income, longtime cash transfer researchers like Sandra Black, Susan Dynarski, Evelyn Forget, Maura Francese, Ugo Gentilini, Michael Howard, Hilary Hoynes, Damon Jones, Michael A. Lewis, Ioana Marinescu, Delphine Prady, Jesse Rothstein, Philippe Van Parijs, Karl Widerquist, and Almaz Zelleke have written important work on the subject.

Advocates & civil society in support of guaranteed income A wide and growing number of grassroots organizations support recurring cash transfers for low-income individuals in particular. During the protest movement surrounding the murder of 568 Broadway, Suite 601
New York, NY, 10012
Copyright © 2021 Jain Family Institute
All rights reserved
37

Jain Family Institute - JFI
May 2021
George Floyd in 2020, the Movement for Black Lives (M4BL included a call for guaranteed income in its week of action demands. In addition, M4BL released what has been called “a modern-day Civil Rights Act” known as the BREATHE Act, which calls for a guaranteed income among its economic justice policy proposals. The Compton Pledge guaranteed income pilot worked alongside local organizers of the Electoral Justice Project of M4BL to introduce and pass a local resolution of the BREATHE Act to that effect. With a more direct focus on guaranteed income, the Income Movement Foundation is an advocacy group building grassroots support for a federal basic income. The Economic Security Project ESP advocates for a guaranteed income as well as an expanded EITC. ESP was instrumental in launching Mayors for Guaranteed Income MGI in 2020, which was led by Mayor Michael Tubbs of Stockton, California alongside over 20 founding mayors calling for pilots and guaranteed income policy at a federal level. Another organization to emerge in 2020 was Humanity Forward, a group that was built after the end of Andrew Yang’s 2020 presidential run in which he called for a universal basic income in the U.S.

More recent and emerging examples in 2021 include grassroots organizations and movements that supported the launch of the Compton, California guaranteed income, the Compton Pledge, which was built by the Fund for Guaranteed Income (also launched in 2020 by Nika Soon-Shiong) and JFI. The supportive partners include founding leaders in the Black Lives Matter movement, the National Council for Incarcerated and Formerly Incarcerated Women, the National Domestic Workers Alliance, Essie Justice Group, One Fair Wage, and A New Way of Life Reentry Project, among others. This growing support for a major guaranteed income initiative in the U.S. may signal more widespread support from these organizations to come. In addition, a Guaranteed Income Community of Practice has formed around multiple emerging pilots (see here).

Philanthropy
Much like the public support for cash transfers, there is a growing interest among funders to enable guaranteed income pilots that build on the research and public narrative. Among them are the newly-established Fund for Guaranteed Income, the Schusterman Family Foundation, the Family Independence Initiative, the Shah Family Foundation, Humanity Forward Foundation, Jack Dorsey, and the Economic Security Project (although notably they focus especially on advocacy).

Progressive philanthropist George Soros has also advocated for government-based direct cash relief. In developing countries, GiveDirectly has financed guaranteed income programs as well.

Joining the Movement
If you are interested in contributing to guaranteed income research and advocacy through a community pilot, research or advocacy, JFI can be a resource and partner on additional questions that may not be addressed in this report. As a non-profit, non-partisan research group, we are ready to offer our network and support to initiatives that build on the evidence for a GI in the US.

Reach out to us at [email protected] and we'll discuss potential next steps. 568 Broadway, Suite 601
New York, NY, 10012
Copyright © 2021 Jain Family Institute
All rights reserved
38

Jain Family Institute - JFI
May 2021
Further Reading and Global Perspectives
JFI’s publication Phenomenal World provides a thorough review of existing academic research on guaranteed income, UBI, and other cash policies - see here.

JFI also publishes an ongoing whitepaper series titled From Idea to Reality: Getting to Guaranteed Income. The series is designed to provide a concrete analysis of the path toward guaranteed income policy in the U.S. by examining specific implementation questions and challenges. View the series here.

Stanford’s Basic Income Lab has created a useful and practice-oriented guide for those looking to create municipal basic income pilots. You can access their guide, Basic Income in Cities, here.

The Aspen Institute’s Financial Security Program released a three-part report bringing together what is known about the need for, innovations in, and the effects of cash transfer programs. You can view the report here.

Ugo Gentilini, along with others at the World Bank, have put together a comprehensive review of social protection programs—including cash transfers—implemented around the world during the COVID19 pandemic. View the report here.

Brazil’s Bolsa Família
Brazil has been, since 2004, the only country in the world to legislate every citizen’s right to a basic income. That same year, Brazil introduced a transformative cash assistance program that proponents see as the first step toward securing that right. Known as Bolsa Família, the program provides families with direct cash transfers in return for keeping their kids in school and attending preventative health care visits. After ten years, Bolsa Família helped cut the percentage of Brazilians living in extreme poverty in half, from 9.7% to 2.7%. It remains the largest conditional cash transfer program in the world, reaching about a quarter of the population (50 million people).

Within Brazil, the city of Maricá has recently launched an ambitious guaranteed income policy providing more than 42,000 residents with income equivalent to about three quarters of the national poverty line. JFI is closely involved with the accompanying research program designed to study the effects and administration of large-scale guaranteed income policies. You can learn more about Bolsa Família and the Maricá program here.
568 Broadway, Suite 601
New York, NY, 10012
Copyright © 2021 Jain Family Institute
All rights reserved
39

Jain Family Institute - JFI
May 2021
GiveDirectly program in Kenya
GiveDirectly has been running one of the largest and longest guaranteed income research programs in the world in Kenya, where they are providing cash transfers to 20,000 individuals across 197 villages. Some recipients will receive regular payments for as long as twelve years. By varying the lengths of time that individuals receive benefits, as well as whether they receive the cash monthly or all at once in a lump sum, researchers hope to learn more about the long-term effects of guaranteed income and the impact of different disbursement patterns.

In addition to the primary pool of subjects, two additional villages are receiving monthly payments for twelve years without being a part of the main study so that researchers can have more in-depth qualitative conversations with them about their experience. This group is very much aligned with the storytelling aspect of pilots discussed earlier. You can read more about the study here.

Other global implementations
- The Iranian government created a universal basic income program in 2011, providing monthly transfers amounting to 29% of median household income. Research on its effects did not find evidence of a significant effect on labor supply outside of people in their twenties who were more likely to enroll in higher education. - Finland conducted a guaranteed income experiment for two years from the beginning of 2017 to the end of 2018. During this time 2,000 unemployed persons received 560 Euros every month, regardless of any other income they had or whether they were looking for work. However, this program had major design and implementationflaws. Read more about the experiment here.
- Many European countries have long-established child allowance programs which provide recurring cash transfers to parents based on the number of children they have. For example, in Germany parents receive a little over 200 Euros per month for each child. You can read more about child allowance policy in various European countries here. - During the COVID19 pandemic Spain has introduced a targeted guaranteed minimum income program with the intention of continuing it indefinitely. The program would reach over three million of the country’s poorest households and be means-tested according to the type of family, number of children, and financial need. - During the pandemic, Japan has provided direct cash transfers of $930 to every citizen in addition to doubling the existing child allowance, bringing it to approximately $200 per month per child.
568 Broadway, Suite 601
New York, NY, 10012
Copyright © 2021 Jain Family Institute
All rights reserved
40

COMPTON PLEDGE DELIVERS $1 MILLION TO RESIDENTS
800 FAMILIES ARE NOW RECEIVING REGULAR

GUARANTEED INCOME PAYMENTS
Compton Mayor Aja Brown, the Fund for Guaranteed Income and the Compton Community Development Corp. managing the largest city-based GI pilot in U.S. history.

PRESS RELEASE

Compton, CA, April 14 , 202 1 — Today, Mayor Aja Brown and the Compton Pledge announced the successful enrollment of 800 families in Compton’s guaranteed income pilot program, making it the largest city-based guaranteed income initiative in United States history.

Launched in December 2020 with the support and administration of th e Fund for Guaranteed Income (F4GI) and the Compton Community Development Corporation (CCDC), the Compton Pledge has already disbursed $1 million to support over 1770 recipients, including dependents. A total of $9.1 million will be distributed in recurring payments over the next two years.

The community- led pilot uses a custom, web- based payments platform to enhance the economic security and self- determination of historically marginalized groups, including undocumented and formerly incarcerated residents. The program is the first to offer a tailored set of payment options and allow participants to switch between them. To date, 50% chose Direct Deposit, 9% chose Venmo, 8% chose PayPal and 33% chose prepaid card.

“There can be no peace without understanding identity, operating in purpose, and the inalienable right of human dignity. I want residents to be empowered by the greatness from where they came,” said Aja Brown, Mayor of Compton.

“Economic empowerment and equity are essential to community wellness and uplift. These vital investments disrupt generational poverty experienced by many families and children,” said Dr. Sharoni Little, Compton Pledge Community Advisory Council member and CEO of the Strategist Group.

The Compton Pledge is supported by a Community Advisory Council as well as national advocacy groups including Black Lives Matter, One Fair Wage, CHIRLA, Essie Justice Group, A New Way of Life, and the National Council for Incarcerated and Formerly Incarcerated Women and Girls.

“The day I received my first payment, there was much-needed medication I was unable to pay for before.

Compton has been my city for 30 plus years. I love it and the people in it,” said Tiffany, a participant in the program.

“COVID-19 hit this community really hard. After losing my job, the Compton Pledge let me pay for my electricity and internet bills, or buy shoes for my two little ones,” said Ireri, who is a member of the Voices of Compton Pledge storytelling initiative.

“As an artist, this is helping me move forwards in faith that I can be a strong businessman. The Compton Pledge is helping me to breathe easier,” said De’Shawn, another member of Voices of Compton Pledge.

The Jain Family Institute (JFI), an applied research organization with international expertise in guaranteed income design and evaluation, is serving as a design and implementation partner.

The pilot is philanthropically funded from private donors and recently received a $200,000 grant from Amazon Foundation and Amazon Studios Foundation. “Not only is the Compton Pledge performing vital services as the community recovers, but in the long term it is breaking down barriers to opportunity and creating new narratives to foster equity and justice ,” said Cameron Onum ah, Amazon’s Public Policy Manager for Southern California.

To follow the progress of the Compton Pledge, a two -year program delivering recurring cash relief to low-income residents, go to comptonpledge.org and select “sign up for news” or follow Compton Pledge on Twitter, Instagram or Facebook. To make a tax-deductible donation to the Compton Pledge, led by the nonprofit Fund for Guaranteed Income, go to comptonpledge.org/donate.

###

To learn more about the Compton Pledge or how to get involved, contact [email protected].

Tuesday, June 9, 2020 ANNOTATED AGENDA Page 1

ANNOTATED AGENDA

SPECIAL MEETING OF T HE

BERKELEY CITY COUNCI L

Tuesday, June 9, 2020
4:00 P.M.

JESSE ARREGUIN, MAYOR
Councilmembers:

DISTRICT 1 – RASHI KESARWANI DISTRICT 5 – SOPHIE HAHN
DISTRICT 2 – CHERYL DAVILA DISTRICT 6 – SUSAN WENGRAF
DISTRICT 3 – BEN BARTLETT DISTRICT 7 – RIGEL ROBINSON
DISTRICT 4 – KATE HARRISON DISTRICT 8 – LORI DROSTE

PUBLIC ADVISORY: THIS MEETING WILL BE CONDUCT ED EXCLUSIVELY THROUGH

VIDEOCONFERENCE AND TELECONFERENCE
Pursuant to Section 3 of Executive Order N -29-20, issued by Governor Newsom on March 17, 2020, th is meeting of the City Council will be conducted exclusively through teleconference and Zoom videoconference. Please be advised that pursuant to the Executive Order and the Shelter -in-Place Order, and to ensure the health and safety of the public by limiting human contact that could spread the COVID -19 virus, there will not be a physical meeting location available.

Live audio is available on KPFB Radio 89.3. Live captioned broadcasts of Council Meetings are available on Cable B-TV (Channel 33) and via internet accessible video stream at http://www.cityofberkeley.info/CalendarEventWebcastMain.aspx .

To access the meeting remotely: Join from a PC, Mac, iPad, iPhone, or Android device: Please use this UR L https://us02web.zoom.us/j/89047645600
. If you do not wish for your name to appear on the screen, then use the drop down menu and click on "rename" to rename yourself to be anonymous. To request to speak, use the “raise hand” icon by rolling over the bottom of the screen.

To join by phone: Dial 1-669-900-9128 and enter Meeting ID: 890 4764 5600. If you wish to comment during the public comment portion of the agenda, Press *9 and wait to be recognized by the Chair.

To submit an e- mail comment during the meeting to be read aloud during public comment, email [email protected] with the Subject Line in this format: “PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM ##.” Please observe a 150 word limit. Time limits on public comments will apply. Written comments will be entered into the public record.

Please be mindful that the teleconference will be recorded as any Council meeting is recorded, and all other rules of procedure and decorum will apply for Council meetings conducted by teleconference or videoconference.

This meeting will be conducted in accordance with the Brown Act, Government Code Section 54953. Any member of the public may attend this meeting. Questions regarding this matter may be addressed to Mark Numainville, City Clerk, (510) 981-6900. The City Council may take action related to any subject listed on the Agenda. Meetings will adjourn at 11:00 p.m. - any items outstanding at that time will be carried over to a date/time to be specified.

Tuesday, June 9, 2020 ANNOTATED AGENDA Page 2

Preliminary Matters
Roll Call: 4:02 p.m.

Present: Kesarwani, Davila, Bartlett, Harrison, Hahn, Wengraf, Robinson, Droste, Arreguin

Absent: None
Action: M/S/C (Arreguin/Robinson) to accept temporary rules for the conduct of the meeting related to public comment and Council discussion.

Vote: Ayes – Kesarwani, Bartlett, Harrison, Hahn, Wengraf, Robinson, Droste, Arreguin; Noes – None Abstain – Davila.

Ceremonial Matters:

1. Adjourned in memory of George Floyd and all those that are victims of police violence

2. Adjourned in memory of all victims of COVID-19

3. Adjourned in memory of Erik Salgado, victim of California Highway Patrol shooting City Manager Comments:

The City Manager announced that she will be hosting a Town Hall meeting for the community on Thursday, June 11, 2020 at 7:00 p.m.

Action Calendar
Action: M/S/C (Arreguin/Harrison) to:

1. Accept an urgency item from Councilmember Kesarwani pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2(b)(2) entitled Budget Referral to Establish Structure and Framework for an Office of Racial Equity.

2. Accept an urgency item from Councilmember Hahn pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2(b)(2) entitled Black Lives Matter and Ohlone Recognition.

3. Accept an urgency item from Councilmember Harrison pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2(b)(2) entitled Urgency Resolution: Directing the Police Review Commission and City Manager to Submit Revised Berkeley Police Department Use of Force Policy for Council Review and Approval Before the 2020 Summer Recess.

4. Accept an urgency item from Mayor Arreguin pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2(b)(2) entitled Prohibiting the use of Chemical Agents for Crowd Control during the COVID-19 pandemic.

5. Accept an urgency item from Councilmember Hahn pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2(b)(2) entitled Changes to the Berkeley Municipal Code and City of Berkeley Policies with Respect to Local Emergency Declarations and First Amendment Curfews.

6. Accept supplemental material from the City Manager on Item 1.

Vote: All Ayes.

Action Calendar

Tuesday, June 9, 2020 ANNOTATED AGENDA Page 3
Budget Referral to Establish Structure and Framework for an Office of Racial Equity
From: Councilmember Kesarwani (Author), Councilmember Wengraf (Co- Sponsor), Councilmember Droste (Co-Sponsor), Councilmember Bartlett (Co- Sponsor)
Recommendation: Refer to the FY 2020-21 Budget Process the one-time allocation of $150,000 to establish a structure and framework for an Office of Racial Equity consisting of a Racial Equity Officer and a supporting Specialist. The purpose of the Office of Racial Equity is to: (1) establish a common vision for racial equity across all City departments, (2) create mechanisms for measuring racial inequities in the delivery of all City programs and services; and (3) initiate efforts by all City departments to implement best practices related to metrics, policies, and procedures to close racial inequities in the allocation and delivery of all City programs and services.

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Rashi Kesarwani, Councilmember, District 1, (510) 981-7110 Action: 24 speakers. M/S/C (Hahn/Wengraf) to approve the recommendation amended to include that the Office of Racial Equity should be seated in the Office of the City Manager, and that the programs and services delivered by the Planning and Development Department and the Transportation Division should be included among the Citywide programs and services to be considered by the Office of Racial Equity.

Vote: All Ayes.

Black Lives Matter and Ohlone Recognition
From: Councilmember Hahn (Author), Councilmember Bartlett (Co-Sponsor), Councilmember Davila (Co-Sponsor), Councilmember Harrison (Co-Sponsor) Recommendation:

1. In solidarity with the Mayor of Washington, D.C. and the Black Lives Matter movement, direct the City Manager to immediately paint the words "Black Lives Matter" on Martin Luther King Jr Way in front of Old City Hall, between Center Street and Allston Way, with the text to be read from the eastern sidewalk of Martin Luther King Jr Way.

2. In recognition of the fact that Berkeley is situated on Ohlone territory, paint the words "Ohlone Territory" on Milvia Street in between Center Street and Allston Way, with the text read from the west sidewalk of Milvia Street.

3. The City Manager is encouraged to work with local artists to render the paintings. In addition, the City Manager should take care not to interfere with other street markings that are necessary for safety of pedestrians, bikes, or vehicles, or otherwise necessary.

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Sophie Hahn, Councilmember, District 5, (510) 981-7150 Action: 4 speakers. M/S/C (Hahn/Droste) to approve the recommendation with the following amendments: 1) the locations for the words to be painted are suggestions for the City Manager’s consideration; 2) the City Manager is encouraged to work with the community to render the paintings; and 3) the paintings should not pose challenges to bicycle infrastructure.

Vote: All Ayes.

Action Calendar

Tuesday, June 9, 2020 ANNOTATED AGENDA Page 4
Urgency Resolution: Directing the Police Review Commission and City Manager to Submit Revised Berkeley Police Department Use of Force Policy for Council Review and Approval Before the 2020 Summer Recess
From: Councilmember Harrison (Author), Mayor Arreguin (Author), Councilmember Davila (Co-Sponsor), Councilmember Bartlett (Co-Sponsor) Recommendation: Adopt an Urgency Resolution directing the Police Review Commission (“PRC”) and City Manager to:

1. Finalize revisions to the use of force policy as referred by Council in 2017 and drafted by the department for PRC review in January, 2020;

2. Submit revised Use of Force Policy directly to the full City Council for the Council to review and adopt before the 2020 Summer recess;

3. Incorporate revisions included the October 31, 2017 Council referral and all outstanding “8 Can’t Wait” use of force policy reforms.

Financial Implications: Staff time
Contact: Kate Harrison, Councilmember, District 4, (510) 981-7140 Action: 59 speakers. M/S/C (Harrison/Davila) to adopt Resolution No. 69,438–N.S. amended to add the following resolved clauses:

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council directs the Police Review Commission to review the use of control holds.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council directs the City Manager to allow anonymized access to records about use of force to the Police Review Commission to inform deliberation of the use of force general order.

Vote: Ayes – Kesarwani, Bartlett, Harrison, Hahn, Wengraf, Robinson, Droste, Arreguin; Noes – None; Abstain – Davila.

Recess: 6:21 p.m. – 6:26 p.m.

Action Calendar

Tuesday, June 9, 2020 ANNOTATED AGENDA Page 5
Prohibiting the use of Chemical Agents for Crowd Control during the COVID-19 pandemic
From: Mayor Arreguin (Author), Councilmember Harrison (Author), Councilmember Robinson (Author)
Recommendation: Adopt a motion to establish an official City of Berkeley policy prohibiting the use of tear gas (CS gas), pepper spray or smoke for crowd control by the Berkeley Police Department, or any outside department or agency called to respond to mutual aid in Berkeley, during the COVID-19 pandemic, until such time that the City Council removes this prohibition.

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Jesse Arreguin, Mayor, (510) 981-7100

Action: 23 speakers. M/S/Failed (Wengraf/Kesarwani) to establish an official City of Berkeley policy prohibiting the use of tear gas (CS gas), pepper spray or smoke for crowd control by the Berkeley Police Department, or any outside department or agency called to respond to mutual aid in Berkeley, during the COVID-19 pandemic, until such time that the City Council removes this prohibition. And, to refer the item to the Public Safety Policy Committee and the Police Review Commission for the consideration of a permanent ban of these chemical agents.

Vote: Ayes – Kesarwani, Hahn, Wengraf, Droste; Noes – Davila, Bartlett, Harrison, Robinson; Abstain – Arreguin.

Action: M/S/Carried (Davila/Harrison) to establish an official City of Berkeley policy 1) prohibiting the use of tear gas by the Berkeley Police Department, or any outside department or agency called to respond to mutual aid in Berkeley, and 2) prohibiting the use of pepper spray or smoke for crowd control by the Berkeley Police Department, or any outside department or agency called to respond to mutual aid in Berkeley, during the COVID-19 pandemic, until such time that the City Council removes this prohibition.

Vote: All Ayes.

Action Calendar

Tuesday, June 9, 2020 ANNOTATED AGENDA Page 6
Changes to the Berkeley Municipal Code and City of Berkeley Policies with Respect to Local Emergency Declarations and First Amendment Curfews From: Councilmember Hahn (Author), Councilmember Bartlett (Co-Sponsor), Councilmember Harrison (Co-Sponsor), Mayor Arreguin (Co-Sponsor) Recommendation:

1. Direct the City Manager to return to the City Council for adoption amendments to the Berkeley Municipal Code and/or policies to approve that clarify and codify the following with respect to the declaration of a Local Emergency:
a. A Local Emergency can only be declared by the Director of Emergency Services if a regular or special meeting and session of the City Council cannot be called due to physical impossibility of holding a meeting, because a quorum cannot be established, or because the urgency of the Local Emergency is such that waiting 24 hours for the City Council to convene a session and/or Special Meeting would endanger the community; b. Should the Director declare a Local Emergency without action of the City Council (due to one of the reasons stated at (a), above), Council ratification of such action occurs at the first possible opportunity, even if it requires calling a Special Meeting and/or session of the Council; and
c. The applicable statutory and legal standards (Federal, State and Local) for calling a Local Emergency shall be presented to the City Council when seeking declaration or ratification of a Local Emergency, along with facts to support meeting those standards, so that the City Council, likely acting under rushed and exigent circumstances, is able to make a carefully considered and fact-based determination that declaration of such Local Emergency conforms with the legal standards and is supported by facts.

2. Direct the City Manager to return to the City Council for adoption amendments to the Berkeley Municipal Code and/or policies to approve that clarify and codify policies, terms and procedures for the order, scope, terms, duration, and all other elements and conditions of curfews called in response to, or likely to have the effect of limiting or banning, planned, expected or reasonably foreseeable first amendment activity, including rallys, marches, demonstrations and assemblies of all kinds (“First Amendment Curfews”),as enumerated (1-8) under the “Background” section of this item, below.

3. Advise the City Manager and/or Director of Emergency Services that approval of this item represents the will and direction of the City Council with respect to declarations of Local Emergencies and imposition of First Amendment Curfews, and should the occasion to declare a Local Emergency or impose a First Amendment curfew arise prior to formal Council adoption of the requested amendments and policies, the City Manager and/or Director of Emergency Services shall, to the greatest extent possible under existing law, strive to encompass actionable elements, and meet spirit, of this item.

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Sophie Hahn, Councilmember, District 5, (510) 981-7150

Action: M/S/C (Arreguin/Wengraf) to continue Items 3, 4, 5, 6, and the urgency item regarding Local Emergency Declarations and First Amendment Curfews, to the June 16, 2020 regular City Council meeting.

Vote: All Ayes.

Action Calendar – Public Hearings

Tuesday, June 9, 2020 ANNOTATED AGENDA Page 7

1. Fiscal Year 2021 Proposed Budget Update Public Hearing #2 (Continued from June 2, 2020)
From: City Manager
Recommendation: Conduct a public hearing regarding the FY 2021 Proposed Budget Update.

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Teresa Berkeley-Simmons, Budget Manager, (510) 981-7000

Action: M/S/C (Arreguin/Robinson) to continue Items 1, 2, and the supplemental material for Item 1 from the City Manager, to a special meeting called by Mayor Arreguin for June 16, 2020 at 2:30 p.m.

Vote: All Ayes.

Action Calendar

2. FY 2020 Mid-Year Budget Update (Continued from June 2, 2020) From: City Manager
Contact: Teresa Berkeley-Simmons, Budget Manager, (510) 981-7000 Action: Item 2 continued to June 16, 2020 special meeting.

3. Presentation and Discussion of Community Survey Results and Direction About Next Steps for Possible Ballot Measure Development (Item Contains Supplemental Material) (Continued from June 2, 2020)
From: City Manager
Recommendation: Discuss results of the community survey and provide direction to the City Manager about the drafting of possible measures for inclusion on the November 2020 ballot.

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: David White, City Manager's Office, 981-7000
Action: Item 3 continued to June 16, 2020 regular meeting.

4. Placing Charter Amendment Measure on the November 3, 2020 Ballot Related to Full-Time Status and Salaries for the Mayor and Councilmembers (Continued from June 2, 2020)
From: City Manager
Recommendation:

1. Adopt a Resolution submitting an Amendment to Article V of the City Charter regarding the full-time status and salaries for the Mayor and City Council to a vote of the electors at the November 3, 2020 General Municipal Election.

2. Designate, by motion, specific members of the Council to file ballot measure arguments on this measure as provided for in Elections Code Section 9282.

Financial Implications: None
Contact: Mark Numainville, City Clerk, (510) 981-6900
Action: Item 4 continued to June 16, 2020 regular meeting.

Action Calendar – Public Hearings

Tuesday, June 9, 2020 ANNOTATED AGENDA Page 8

5. Recommendation to Prepare a City Ballot Measure to Create a Climate Action Fund, in Response to the Fossil Fuel Free Berkeley Referral (Continued from June 2, 2020)
From: Energy Commission
Recommendation: The Commission recommends that the City Council develop a referendum and seek approval for it on the 2020 ballot to create a Climate Action Fund, which would support actions to achieve the Berkeley Climate Action Plan, to become Fossil Fuel free, and to respond to the Climate Emergency.

Financial Implications: See report.

Contact: Billi Romain, Commission Secretary, (510) 981-7400 Action: Item 5 continued to June 16, 2020 regular meeting.

6. Proposed Amendment to Berkeley’s Minimum Wage Ordinance: Berkeley Municipal Code Chapter 13.99 (Continued from June 2, 2020) From: City Manager
Recommendation: Adopt first reading of an Ordinance amending Berkeley Municipal Code Chapter 13.99, revising Section 13.99.040 to reinstate the exemption for youth job training programs, and freezing the youth wages at $14.50 per hour for FY21, then increase the wage annually according to the Consumer Price Index as will occur with the Berkeley Minimum wage.

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Lisa Warhuus, Housing and Community Services, (510) 981-5400 Action: Item 6 continued to June 16, 2020 regular meeting.

Recess: 9:49 p.m. – 10:00 p.m.

Councilmember Wengraf absent at 9:49 p.m.

Adjournment
Action: M/S/C (Arreguin/Robinson) to adjourn the meeting.

Vote: Ayes – Kesarwani, Davila, Bartlett, Harrison, Hahn, Robinson, Droste, Arreguin; Noes – None; Abstain – None; Absent – Wengraf.

Adjourned at 10:02 p.m.

Communications
• None
Supplemental Communications and Reports 1
• None
Supplemental Communications and Reports 2
Item #1: Fiscal Year 2021 Proposed Budget Update Public Hearing #2

1. 19 similarly-worded form letters

Tuesday, June 9, 2020 ANNOTATED AGENDA Page 9

2. Sharon Negri

3. Era Goel

4. Catie

5. Andrew Graves

6. Kate Gingold

7. David Noriega

8. Robert Hurley

9. Russbumper

10. Lauren Hermele

11. Ella Hass

12. Fiona Hass

13. Emilie Reaves

14. Ryan Thayer

15. Amanda Ho

16. Julia Bleier

17. Nirali Patel

18. Chimey Lee

19. Sage Lenier

20. Terry Taplin

21. Riley Hellinger
Item #5: Recommendation to Prepare a City Ballot Measure to Create a Climate Action Fund, in Response to the Fossil Fuel Free Berkeley Referral

22. John Arens
Supplemental Communications and Reports 3
Urgency Item: Urgency Resolution: Directing the Police Review Commission and City Manager to Submit Revised Berkeley Police Department Use of Force Policy for Council Review and Approval Before the 2020 Summer Recess

23. Urgency item, submitted by Councilmember Harrison, Mayor Arreguin, Councilmembers Davila and Bartlett

24. Che Garcia

25. Yaritza Cruz

26. Mariana Duarte

27. Arev Walker

28. Melody Joliff

29. Jesica Ender

30. Haleigh Fleming

31. Arjun Mayur

32. Jenn Guitart

33. Sal Levinson

34. Bella Lynch

35. Bob Martin

36. Rafael Gonzalez

37. Erwan Illien

38. Benjamin Pierias

39. LeeAnn Dowd (2)

40. Danielle Royston-Lopez

41. Racial and Criminal Justice Reform Group

42. Carole Marasovic

Tuesday, June 9, 2020 ANNOTATED AGENDA Page 10

43. Jill Suttie

44. Ryan Grant

45. Sheridan Pauker

46. Sarah Pieper
Urgency Item: Prohibiting the use of Chemical Agents for Crowd Control during the COVID-19 pandemic

47. Urgency item, submitted by Mayor Arreguin, Councilmembers Harrison and Robinson

48. Shawn Beckman (2)

49. Chimey Lee

50. Moni Law

51. Kimiye Owens
Urgency Item: Black Lives Matter and Ohlone Recognition

52. Urgency item, submitted by Councilmember Hahn

53. Liza Lutzker, on behalf of Walk Bike Berkeley

54. Corinna Gould

55. Moni Law (2)
Urgency Item: Changes to the Berkeley Municipal Code and City of Berkeley Policies with Respect to Local Emergency Declarations and First Amendment Curfews

56. Urgency item, submitted by Councilmember Hahn

57. Madeline King

58. Thomas Lord

59. Friends of Adeline (2)

60. Carol Denney

61. Bryce Nesbitt

62. Elisa Mikiten

63. Chimey Lee

64. Kara O’Malley
Urgency Item: Budget Referral to Establish Structure and Framework for an Office of Racial Equity

65. Urgency item, submitted by Councilmember Kesarwani

66. Amanda Prufer

67. Stephanie Prufer

68. Caroline Yunker

69. Marianne Lagarias (2)
Item #1: Fiscal Year 2021 Proposed Budget Update Public Hearing #2

70. Christina Romak

71. Megan Raymond

72. Aimee Trujillo

73. Ashley Johnson

74. Alex Thomson

75. Anna McFall

76. Elena Vann Cleave

77. Tommy Chung

78. Erika Schultz

79. Rose Soffa Clarke

80. Diana Bohn

81. Celia Ford

Tuesday, June 9, 2020 ANNOTATED AGENDA Page 11

82. Nick Nold

83. Becky Sotello

84. Noor

85. Jane Francis

86. Heather Hardison

87. Susan Saadat

88. Lilith Gamer

89. Mary Gilg

90. Kate Mather

91. Alfred Twu

92. Rachael Cornejo

93. Steve KoneffKlatt

94. Juliana Schwartz

95. Rachel Shipps

96. Alicia Roy

97. Natasha Geiling

98. Dana Perls

99. Alisdair Broshar
100. Orly Suveda
101. Alix Vadot
102. Eliza Smith
103. Ryan Gorelik
104. Ben Pierias (2)
105. Kayla Moore
106. Sarah Bancroft
107. Angela Clapp
108. Samuel Kaplan
109. Heather and Luke Ball
110. Dewi Zarni
111. Portal Finder
112. Catherine O’Hare
113. Theodora Gibbs-Plessl
114. Taj Herzer-Baptiste
115. Michaela Reilly
116. Julia Sen
117. Ellen McClure
118. Martin Lenarz-Geisen
119. Katrina Lapira
120. Ariella Cooley
121. Natasha Huey
122. Noelle Fa-Kaji
123. Jessica Barber
124. Jean Caiani
125. Lucia Brosgart
126. Tia Bottger
127. Allyson Bogie
128. Michelle Chung
129. Karen Shimoda
130. Jessica Brownell
131. Sanya Sehgal

Tuesday, June 9, 2020 ANNOTATED AGENDA Page 12
132. Angela Ames
133. Ace Chen
134. Ryan Hall
135. Maya Sen
136. Dylan Campopiano
137. Allison Zau
138. Firdausi Sudarmadji
139. Judy Grether
140. Zaynab At-Taras
141. Jackie Kennedy
142. Logan Falley
143. Nahkoura Mahnassi
144. Madelyn Weiss
145. Sophia Mahoney-Rohrl
146. Madeleine Muscari
147. Christopher Lin
148. Francie Maguire
149. Laurel Chen
150. Reyna Fa-Kaji
151. Marcelo Felipe Garzo Montalvo
152. Re Nor
153. Chloe Novak
154. K at Kott
155. Katie Cording
156. Christine Tseng
157. Celia Alter
158. Zoe Westbrook
159. Julian Dennis
160. Daniel Kim
161. Loan Pham
162. Colin Piethe
163. Elizabeth Ferguson
164. Chelsea Lee
165. Maxine Schoefer-Wulf
166. Jessica Olson
167. Daniel Milutin
168. Olivia Neville
169. Bryanna Perez
170. Kei McHale
171. Diane
172. Jordan Mickens
173. Voulette Hattar
174. Emily Haan
175. Christine Schwartz
176. Emily Yao
177. Manduhai Baatar
178. Kacei Conyers
179. Ella Hass
180. Logan Rimel
181. Andrew Lynch

Tuesday, June 9, 2020 ANNOTATED AGENDA Page 13
182. Nicole Teixeira
183. Bethany Lourie
184. Anya Platt
185. Erin Rhoades
186. Julia S.
187. Suzanne Merkelson
188. Valerie Kratzer
189. Ceren Fitoz
190. Lanie Peterson
191. Amalee Beattie
192. Emily Bronston-Joseph
193. Alions Alkon
194. Sarah Wulf
195. Jordan Mickens
196. Ann Marie Callegari
197. Leah Renee Smith
198. Liam Bergstrom
199. Bryce Nesbitt
200. Paige
201. Katie Wilson
202. Ivonne Del Valle
203. Chimey Lee (2)
204. Juliana Dearr
205. Jesslyn Janssen
206. Ferri Wahl
207. Anne Whyte
208. Madison Luzar
209. Mark and Agatha Greeley
Item #2: FY 2020 Mid-Year Budget Update
210. Angela Jernigan (2)
211. Niels Teunis
212. Leah Naomi Gonzales (2)
213. Councilmember Davila
214. Valerie Kratzer
Item #5: Recommendation to Prepare a City Ballot Measure to Create a Climate Action Fund, in Response to the Fossil Fuel Free Berkeley Referral 215. Michael Katz

Action Calendar – Public Hearings
Item #1: Fiscal Year 2021 Proposed Budget Update Public Hearing #2 216. Supplemental Material, submitted by City Manager’s Office

Office of the City Manager
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7000 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7099 E-Mail: [email protected] Website: https://berkeleyca.gov/

ACTION CALENDAR
January 23, 2024
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager
Submitted by: Carianna Arredondo, Assistant to the City Manager, City Manager’s Office Subject: Reimagining Public Safety Status Report

RECOMMENDATION

1. Review and discuss the provided status report from the City Manager with the goal of demonstrating transparency and facilitating informed council discussion towards the advancement of the Reimagining Public Safety initiative in Berkeley.

2. Provide comments on the Gun Violence Prevention program model report for Berkeley with the goal of facilitating informed council discussion.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
No direct financial impacts associated with the subject of these reports.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The Reimagining Public Safety initiative is a Strategic Plan Priority Project, advancing our goal to create a resilient, safe, connected, and prepared city.

The Reimagining Public Safety initiative stands as a pivotal project, dedicated to transforming public safety in an equitable and community-centered way; this initiative involves a comprehensive and inclusive process that unfolds in three main phases:
 Phase 1 (2020-2022) Community Process and Research
 Phase 2 (2022-2024) Continued Analysis and Implementation  Phase 3 (2024-2026) Continued Implementation and Expansion Phase 1 (2020-2022)
On July 14, 2020, City Council adopted an omnibus package to re-imagine public safety and policing in the City of Berkeley. The omnibus package consisted of numerous elements including, but not limited to the following:
 Community/Consultant Engagement Process. Engaging a qualified firm(s) or individual(s) to lead a robust, inclusive, and transparent community engagement

Reimagining Public Safety Status Report ACTION CALENDAR January 23, 2024
process with the goal of achieving a new and transformative model of positive, equitable and community-centered safety for Berkeley.
 Specialized Care Unit Development. Analyzing and developing a pilot program to re-assign non-criminal police service calls to a Specialized Care Unit.  Community Crisis Response (CCR) Bridge Services. While the SCU Development process and foundational work is taking place, establishing Bridge Services to address immediate needs to strengthen non-police relationships and supports on the ground for individuals on the verge of crisis.  Priority Dispatch Development. Creating plans and protocols for calls for service to be routed and assigned to alternative preferred responding entities and consider placing dispatch in the Fire Department or elsewhere outside the Police Department.
 City Auditor Analysis. Having the City Auditor perform an analysis of City’s emergency 9-1-1 calls-for-service and responses, as well as analysis of the Berkeley Police Department’s (BPD) budget.
 Fair and Impartial Policing Implementation. Completing the implementation of Fair and Impartial Policing recommendations and policy proposals.  BerkDOT Development. Pursuing the creation of a Berkeley Department of Transportation (“BerkDOT”) to ensure a racial justice lens in traffic enforcement and the development of transportation policy, programs and infrastructure, and identify and implement approaches to reduce and/or eliminate the practice of pretextual stops based on minor traffic violations.
 Violence Intervention Program Implementation. Fully implementing the Ceasefire violence intervention program.

Subsequent to City Council’s adoption of the omnibus motion, the City established a multi-department working group to oversee and implement various components of the package. The working group consisted of the following:
 City Manager;
 Deputy City Managers;
 City Attorney;
 Fire Chief;
 Health, Housing and Community Services (HHCS) Director;  Human Resources Director;
 Police Chief; and
 Public Works Director
The City Manager, leadership team, and city staff actively engaged in comprehensive consultations and strategic planning sessions. Upon the establishment of the Reimagining Public Safety Task Force in January 2021, City department’s responsible for executing Reimagining Public Safety directives, engaged with the Reimagining Public Safety Task Force to shed light on the comprehensive understanding of their

Reimagining Public Safety Status Report ACTION CALENDAR January 23, 2024
operations. Through these informative interactions, the Task Force was better positioned to form recommendations. Working in tandem with the Mayor’s office and City Council, the RPS Task Force served as a central pillar of the City’s community engagement strategy, ensuring that diverse perspectives are considered.

Following a community-driven process in Phase 1, based on input from community members, the Reimagining Public Safety Task Force, and recommendations from the National Institute for Criminal Justice Reform and other field experts, council developed a framework and direction on Reimagining Public Safety that would lead the city to carry forward it’s work into the next phase. Many Phase 1 initiatives are still underway and have been carried forward into Phase 2.

Phase 2 (2022-2024)
Currently in progress, Phase 2 comprises a series of pivotal initiatives and deliverables, including:
 Staffing Investments in the Department of Health, Housing and Community Services (HHCS), Police, Public Works, and the City Manager’s office to support with implementing the priority recommendations of this initiative;  Identifying Consultant Costs related to assessments, covering areas such as dispatch needs, crisis response, staffing and beat structure, as well as the development of BerkDOT; and,
 Community Investments dedicated to strengthening community resilience through violence prevention initiatives, engagement programs and mental health services, and providing support for individuals affected by gender-based violence, among other programmatic elements.

As the city progresses through Phase 2 of the Reimagining Public Safety initiative, diligently advancing the groundwork established in Phase 1, the integrated and interdepartmental approach has remained a cornerstone of our efforts. This approach ensures that city departments leading the execution of our Reimagining Public Safety deliverables work cohesively and in alignment with the directives set by the council. In addition, the City’s community-centric process continues to encompass engagement with commissions, boards, committees, ad-hoc groups, and various working groups to strategically inform and guide our work.

BACKGROUND
The dialogue surrounding public safety in the United States shifted in 2020. National events starkly highlighted that trust in law enforcement and public safety mechanisms had been deeply eroded for many, especially within marginalized communities. The tragic and unjust deaths of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and many others underscored the pressing need to address systemic inequities and to deeply reconsider the tenets of public safety. On June 6, 2020, over 7,000 Berkeley residents marched in the streets to call for transformative change in law enforcement. The City of Berkeley,

Reimagining Public Safety Status Report ACTION CALENDAR January 23, 2024
aware of its role and responsibilities in this national context, promptly heeded this call for introspection and reform.

The following provides a chronology of the City of Berkeley’s systemic actions in its initiative to Reimagine Public Safety, and includes key dates and context related to our progress with Gun Violence Prevention program development:

On July 14, 2020, in Resolution No. 69,501-N.S., City Council passed an omnibus motion, which included a package of items providing direction for the development of a new paradigm of public safety in Berkeley. As part of the items that were adopted, City Council adopted Item 18c (“Referral to City Manager to Re-imagine Policing Approaches to Public Safety Using a Process of Robust Community Engagement, to Develop a Path Forward to Transforming Public Safety and Policing in Berkeley”) and Item 18d (“Transform Community Safety and Initiate a Robust Community Engagement”), which directs the City Manager to engage a qualified firm(s) or individual(s) to lead a robust, inclusive, and transparent community engagement process with the goal of achieving a new and transformative model of positive, equitable and community-centered safety for Berkeley. Subsequent to the adoption of the omnibus package, the City established a multidepartment working group to oversee and implement various components of the package. The working group consisted of the following: City Manager; Deputy City Managers; City Attorney; Fire Chief; Health, Housing and Community Services (HHCS) Director; Human Resources Director; Police Chief; and Public Works Director.

On December 15, 2020, the City Council authorized the City Manager to enter into a contract with the National Institute of Criminal Justice Reform (NICJR) to conduct research, analysis, and use its expertise to develop reports and recommendations for community safety and police reform as well as plan, develop, and lead an inclusive and transparent community engagement process to help the City achieve a new and transformative model of positive, equitable and community-centered safety for Berkeley On January 19, 2021, the City Council adopted revisions to the enabling legislation for the Reimagining Public Safety Task Force Per the Enabling Legislation, the Task Force’s work centered on providing input to and making recommendations to NICJR and City Staff on a set of recommended programs, structures and initiatives incorporated into a final report and implementation plan developed by NICJR to guide future decision making in upcoming budget processes for FY 2022-23 and, as a second phase produced, in the FY 2024-2026 budget process. The Public Safety / Police Re- Imagining and community engagement process was led initially by Deputy City Manager David White and then Deputy City Manager LaTanya Bellow who provided overall project management support to the team.

On November 9, 2021, the Berkeley City Council unanimously approved a budget referral for $200,000 in consulting costs to begin developing a multi-jurisdictional Gun Violence Intervention (GVI) program, also known as “Operation Ceasefire,” in Berkeley.

Reimagining Public Safety Status Report ACTION CALENDAR January 23, 2024
On March 10, 2022, the culmination of research analysis, and community dialogue was manifested in the comprehensive reports from NICJR, the Reimagining Public Safety Task Force, and Resource Development Associates work on the Specialized Care Unit (SCU) design. During the council work session, these reports were shared, providing a detailed overview of suggested programs, structural changes, and new initiatives aimed to establish a community-centric safety paradigm. NICJR’s approach and recommendations were rooted in the principles of Reduce, Improve, and Reinvest. The report from the Reimagining Public Safety Task Force offered a response to NICJR’s recommendations, including a historical context on public safety issues and steps to address community-centric approaches in Berkeley. Additionally, the session included three reports specifically related to the design and implementation of the Specialized Care Unity (SCU).

On April 21, 2022, the City Manager provided Council with a report and presentation of the work accomplished in Phase 1 of the Reimagining Public Safety initiative. The report submitted included recommendations for advancing various critical initiatives within the Reimagining Public Safety framework. This encompassed proposals for transforming Berkeley’s police force, enhancing priority dispatch, developing BerkDOT, and establishing a Specialized Care Unit (SCU). The report also included budget recommendations for these initiatives and highlighted important factors for Council to consider in the City’s efforts to move forward with implementation.

On May 5, 2022, a special council meeting was convened, wherein the Mayor’s final framework for the next steps of the Reimagining Public Safety initiative was formally adopted. Included in this package was an additional $200,000 for Ceasefire. This framework was the culmination of years of diligent work from community members, officials and staff. The key decisions made were as follows:

1. Refer up to $5.3 Million to the FY 2023-2024 Budget Process for staff and/or consulting services and community investments to complete the Priority Reimagining Public Safety Initiatives.

2. Direct the City Manager to prioritize over the next two years the programmatic recommendations for Phase 1 of Reimagining Implementation.

3. Direct the City Manager to initiate a design process for an innovative and comprehensive public safety agency or Department of Community Safety within the City of Berkeley administration, and return with recommendations to the City Council by May 2024 to align with the FY 25-26 Biennial Budget process.

4. Except where resources may allow for expedited implementation, refer additional reforms to the FY 2025-2026 Biennial Budget.

On May 25, 2022, the Berkeley Police Department launched a Transparency Hub dashboard, that includes data and analysis designed to support the Ceasefire process.

BPD continues to build automated data visualization tools for violence prevention program stakeholders to track relevant statistics through the duration of the program.

Reimagining Public Safety Status Report ACTION CALENDAR January 23, 2024
On May 31, 2022, City Council approved a recommendation, submitted by Councilmember Taplin, to refer $1,000,000 to the budget process to provide full staffing for a Berkeley Ceasefire program. Upon approval, Councilmember Taplin hosted a series of Berkeley Ceasefire D2 Ad-hoc advisory sessions.

On June 28, 2022, the City Council adopted the FY 2023-2024 city budget which included key Reimagining Public Safety Tier 1 items.

On November 28, 2022, the Berkeley Police Department expanded its partnership with UC Berkeley to include a collaboration with the Goldman School of Public Policy to design a Gun Violence Prevention program evaluation plan including the definition of success metrics and independent analysis thereof.

On May 12, 2023, the Gun Violence Prevention report, that explores details of assessments and analysis on Violence Prevention Models as it relates to implementation in Berkeley, was completed.

On August 21, 2023, the Assistant to the City Manager, serving as the Reimagining Public Safety (RPS) Project Coordinator was hired and began collaborating with the City’s Reimagining Public Safety project team to provide a comprehensive update on RPS initiatives and the City’s progress with Gun Violence Prevention program implementation.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
There are no identifiable environmental effects, climate impacts, or sustainability opportunities associated with the subject of this report.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
To improve transparency and provide a progress update related to the City of Berkeley’s Reimagining Public Safety efforts, based on the guidelines set forth in Resolution No. 69,501-N.S. and recommendations approved during the special council meeting held on May 5, 2022.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
Staff does not recommend any alternative actions at this time.

CONTACT PERSON
Carianna Arredondo, Assistant to the City Manager, City Manager’s Office, 510-981- 6903
Attachments:
1: Reimagining Public Safety Status Update 2020-23
2: Reimagining Public Safety Status Update 2020-23 Companion Appendix  For Gun Violence Prevention Program Report, See Appendix N

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Status Update and Report Out
City Manager’s Office
Fall 2023

REIMAGINING PUBLIC SAFETY

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2 Page | Reimagining Public Safety Status Report

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................................. 4 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................... 5 Timeline of Phase 1 Actions and Commitments ...................................................................................................... 6 Progress Overview ....................................................................................................................................................... 8 Phase 1 ......................................................................................................................................................................... 8 Phase 2 ....................................................................................................................................................................... 13 Considerations ............................................................................................................................................................. 20 Next Steps .................................................................................................................................................................... 21 PRIORITY REIMAGINING PUBLIC SAFETY INITIATIVES .................................................................................. 22 OVERVIEW ....................................................................................................................................................................... 23 Staffing Investments .................................................................................................................................................... 24 Reimagining Public Safety Project Coordinator.................................................................................................................. 24 Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Officer ................................................................................................................................ 25 Grant Assistance ........................................................................................................................................................................ 27 Specialized Care Unit Implementation ................................................................................................................................ 29 Staffing Positions (Reimagining Public Safety Community Service Officers & Dispatchers)................................. 31 Fair and Impartial Policing ...................................................................................................................................................... 32 Wellness Practices ..................................................................................................................................................................... 34 Vision Zero Program Coordinator ......................................................................................................................................... 35 Constultant Costs ....................................................................................................................................................... 37 BerkDOT Development ........................................................................................................................................................... 37 Behavioral Health, Crisis Response, and Crisis-related Services Needs and Capacity Assessment ................... 39 Staffing Assessment .................................................................................................................................................................. 41 Transportation Fines & Fees Analysis .................................................................................................................................. 42 Department of Community Safety Design and Implementation ................................................................................. 43 Dispatch Needs Assessment .................................................................................................................................................. 44 Community Investments ........................................................................................................................................... 48 Violence Prevention and Youth Services (Voices Against Violence & BYA Counseling Center) ........................... 48 Gun Violence Prevention (Berkeley Ceasefire)... ................................................................................................................ 49 Hearing Officer-Alternatives to Sanctions/Fines ................................................................................................................ 51 Expand Downtown Streets Teams ....................................................................................................................................... 52