Richmond Rapid Response Fund
Updates and Guaranteed Income
ABOUT R3FABOUT R3F
R3F brings investments and amplifies
value of Richmond and its residents.
In response to the historic and ongoing Covid-19 pandemic, the City of Richmond partnered with community organizations to establish a Richmond Rapid Response Fund (R3F) to assist Richmond residents with essential needs related to health, housing, education, economic recovery, healing, and social services.
Food andEssentials
EconomicRecoveryand Security
Health andHealing Educationand Learning Housing andHomelessness R3F will advocate for and create
healing-centered, racially just policies,
practices, and investments in these
areas and any others that emerge.
Economic Justice is
foundational to our priorities.
CARES Act
$150k allocated by the
City of Richmond
$92,000 on rental assistance for 18 homes
(~$5k each)
$37,100 on direct cash grants to 74
individuals (~$500 each)
The City of Richmond has supported R3F from its
inception by providing access to federal emergency
aid and relief allocations
$20,900 admin and partner disbursement funds
$550,000
in 1,100 direct cash
grants
$477,000
in rent relief funds for
77 families
$1,027,000
to support Richmond
residents in need since
2020
Since the onset of COVID 19 pandemic, R3F has
disbursed almost $1.2 milllion to directly support
Richmond residents most in need.
Since inception, R3F has focused on disbursing resources into the hands of community members in need...
R3F has leveraged these local dollars to bring in
philanthropic funding, raising ~$2 Million since
inception.
The City of Richmond has supported R3F from its inception by providing access to federal emergency aid and relief
allocations
ARPA
$600k allocated
by the City of
Richmond
$70,000 allocated to administration
$230,000 as cash for disbursements
$300,000 rent and mortgage relief
$100,000 GI Program Development
RENT RELIEF
Through partnerships with RNHS, CDHC, Sparkpoint CC, RCF CONNECTS, and Rentboard, R3F was able to backbone the development of the first rent assistance program dedicated solely to Richmond landlords and tenants.
Renters received financial counseling and information about their rights Renters who complete additional financial literacy classes were eligible for additional supports
Assisted landlords and
tenants facing financial
hardship due to the
COVID-19 Pandemic
Spearheaded the development
of the first rent assistance
program dedicated solely to
Richmond landlords and
tenants
March 2020
R3F was established to
support Richmond
residents experiencing
financial hardship due to
the COVID-19 pandemic
2021
R3F received $150,000 in CARES Act funds from
the City of Richmond and were successful in
quickly disbursing funds to support 74 residents
with direct disbursements and 18 households via
rental assistance
June 2021
Richmond City Council unanimously approved
Councilmember Demnlus Johnson III’s
recommendation to look for GI models for the
City of Richmond as a part of Councilman's
Race, Equity and Inclusion packet.
R3F has evaluated the creation
of a pilot guaranteed income
(GI) program. R3F’s desire to
implement a GI program was
informed by a community
assessment process focused
on economic recovery and
security.
R3F /City of
Richmond
History
Former Councilmember Demnlus Johnson III
The recommendation to look for GI
models is an extension of the City of
Richmond’s Government Alliance on
Race and Equity GARE work dating back
to 2016. Former Council Member
Johnson, sought to adopt action items
and develop policies that will eliminate
disproportionalities for Richmond's
Black, Indigenous, People of Color.
Lina Velasco
LaShonda White
R3F has been in close partnership with Lina Velasco and LaShonda White as they prospect funders. Many funders
vision a model that centers efforts on narrative change and community governance to inform policy shifts and
sustainability levers forged in a joint effort between the City and R3F.
Director of Community
Development
Deputy City Manager of
Community Services
Mayor Eduardo Martinez
Shasa Curl
City Manager
Mountain View, CA
$1,000,000 ARPA Funds
Cities that directly
invested in GI funding
South San Francisco, CA
$800,000 ARPA Funds
St. Paul, MN
$120,000 CARES ACT
Richmond, VA
$120,000 CARES ACT
Yolo County, CA
$75,000 State's Office ofChild
Abuse Prevention
$100,000 Cannabis Tax
Los Angeles, CA
$6,000,000 General Fund
Chicago, IL
$30,000,000 ARPA Funds
Richmond, CA
$300,000 ARPA ACT
All individuals are
eligible
Raise economic floor
Unconditional
Cash payment
Reoccurring/Periodic
Basic Income Targeted/Guaranteed Interactive
Targeted on
geography and
demography
Raise economic floor
All individuals are
eligible
Unconditional
Cash payment
Reoccurring/Periodic
Set an economic floor
Meet floor through
combination of wages, tax
credits, employer
compensation
Remodel to changing
individual situation
Unconditional
Cash Payment
Periodically evaluated
Types of Basic Income
what is GUARANTEED INCOME?
Guaranteed income is a type of cash transfer program that provides continuous unconditional cash transfers to individuals or households. This differs from typical social safety net programming/subsidies by providing a steady, predictable stream of cash to recipients to spend however they see fit without limitations.
Direct cash payments are seen as
an anti-poverty tool that provides
recipients the flexibility to prioritize
their needs and spend the money
where they need it most.
Cash payments are
given with no strings
attached
Unlike Universal Basic Income,
Guaranteed Income is paid out to
a targeted group of people
Richmond's Need of Guaranteed Income
Inform local policy and budget
decision-making
Contribute to growing body of work
Increase collaboration across sectors
to meet the needs of residents
Elevate City of Richmond and
philanthropic support to city
Richmond Residents:
For R3F, City of Richmond,
Community Partners & Community
At Large
Secure Richmond families
Support recovery
Ground truth resident needs and experiences
Provide meaningful leadership opportunities to
community experts who can contribute to
systems transformation
Increase impact of cash support by amplifying
voices of residents and educating & engaging
community
"Thank you for considering me and trying to take care of the folks of Richmond. Being laid off for the summer due to COVID and finding out I am going to get rehired in the Fall but my hours are cut due to funding.
This would help out so much!"
"I lost my daughter October 31st and my little cousin 2weeks later due to gun violence, I have been depressed and in a lot of pain and have not been able to work and also due to the pandemic." "The grant would really be helpful to me during COVID-19 to have access to my insulin which is so expensive, sometimes I cannot afford it when I have to choose between groceries and bills."
""If this is all I have to do to show support for this amazing work, I feel it is not enough!
When I reached out to SparkPoint, I was packing my 1bed room apartment up and on the verge of being evicted with my 9 year old son.
The pandemic hit me hard, and I was so overwhelmed with lack of funds that I was in a very dark place mentally and financially.
I received the funds from SparkPoint and it was exactly what I needed to get my head above water. I am tremendously appreciative and thankful for this program, the city of Richmond and everyone that was a part of supporting me and my son keep our housing. Please continue to support the community in this way. God Bless you All!!! Pilot Data
and Trends
Most money was spent on necessities:
food & utilities
Participants were more likely to find
employment
Helped people reach a place of financial
stability
Participants reported better mental health
and lower rates of hunger
A guaranteed income program focused on economic security could help level the playing field for some families and communities.
R3F's Guaranteed Income Vision
Implement a program in order to
stabilize families, improve standard
of living and provide cash flow
Supplement restricted/paternal
programming
Build the field/Change the
Narrative/Support the Movement
Build relationship with the most
impacted and leverage community
expertise for people centered
programming
Objectives:
Focus on highlighting dignity
rather than the disparities of
Richmond Residents
Learning more about how cash
flow can improve the well-being
of Richmond families
Bring ease to Richmond families
in need of support
Collaborate for deeper impact
Goals:
Narrative
Change in
Richmond
Narrative change work is so important for a
community like Richmond. The stories told and
the reputation we have is not always one that is
told in our favor, we want everyday people living
here to be able to share their true authentic
stories in order to change the systems that
seem to withhold them from opportunities,
demean our folks and justify disinvestment.
Community Dreams
Assessement
Reflections
‹#›
The community is interested in cash
disbursement over policy work.
Of those who noted that R3F should focus on
guaranteed income / direct cash disbursements,
respondents expressed that they would use
the funds for housing, financial security, food,
rent, and essential supplies
Community members also identified the need for
multiple forms of fund distribution, ranging from
pre-paid debit cards to in person check pick
up.
Key insights:
Respondents preferred that R3F use its resources towards GBI/direct cash disbursements
Fund Utility Net
total
% of total
respondents
(286)
fund to support food/essential supplies 54 18.88%
funds to support financial security 49 17.13%
fund to support housing 41 14.34%
funds for rent 22 7.69%
fund to support transportation 15 5.24%
funds to support physical health 14 4.90%
funds to support mental health 9 3.15%
fund to support education 8 2.80%
fund to support community events 6 2.10%
Fund Distribution Net
total
% of total
respondents
(286)
funds as debit card 27 9.44%
funds as cash 25 8.74%
funds via direct deposit 22 7.69%
funds via check 18 6.29%
funds via app (cash ap, zelle, venmo) 15 5.24%
funds through community leaders 13 4.55%
funds as gift cards, not cash 10 3.50%
funds need to be monitored 9 3.15%
funds as food vouchers 7 2.45%
funds received in-person 4 1.40%
Direct Cash Disbursement or Policy Work?
Net
total
% of total
respondents
(286)
gbi or direct cash disbursement 107 37.41%
policy work 37 12.94%
grant program for non profits 9 3.15%
grant program for businesses 8 2.80%
The strongest data point is that residents want a cash disbursement program. The second strongest data point is that residents want this to help with their financial security. They would most likely be used to cover food and essential supplies, as well as critical bills like rent and utilities. Many mentioned a regular monthly stipend would give them the opportunity to get ahead, to begin to thrive instead of survive.
When asked what monthly out-of-pocket amount would be helpful for you and your loved ones, the answers ranged from $250 ; $20,000 ; average range was $500-$2000; $500-$1000 average payment for utilities such as electricity, water, internet.
Best ways to access these funds: variety of ways noted- cash, direct deposit, prepaid gift cards, gift cards to local businesses, checks. Community would like options for fund access.
Residents would like to see the R3F embody community governance by integrating Richmond community members and organizations into the infrastructure of R3F and utilize their perspective to give continuous feedback on how the funds should be used. They want R3F to offer local round tables, presentations and training about this resource and how to access it; these opportunities need to meet the community where they are at (physical location).
Key insights:
Respondents are interested in R3F doing both cash
disbursement program and engaging in policy work
Strategic Planning
Reccommendations
EdFund West’s support has been helpful, and
the low-cost organizational infrastructure can
support the R3F’s strategy as the program
becomes established.
To enact its core principles and devote resources towards its mission, R3F will remain a sponsored program with EdFund West
R3F will continue as a fiscally sponsored
project of EdFund West while building its
capabilities towards becoming an
independent 501(c)(3).
NEAR-TERM BENEFITS OF FISCAL SPONSORSHIP
Allows R3F to focus on mission and programs,
rather than administration and compliance
Provides low-cost support functions
Offers mentorship and capacity building from a
locally trusted organization
Gives access to established network of donors
and partners
Establishes a strong governance structure for
board of directors
Secures a track record with donors
Applies for grants that require status
Strengthens reporting structures
R3F may seek 501(c)(3) status once it:
TARGETING INDEPENDENT NON-PROFIT STATUS
In the upcoming year, R3F will expand its
current governance structure through a
dedicated governing council comprising
two groups
Two smaller governance groups
PROPOSED CHANGE
The separate groups ensure that community experts feel
comfortable providing input in a collaborative, democratic model. However, this does not preclude the possibility of R3F combining the two groups after some time.
Board of
advisors
Community
experts panel
5-10 voting members with ties to Richmond, including:
Designated seat for representative from City of
Richmond
Funders and/or fundraisers
Technical experts (e.g., accountant, lawyer, tech)
Content experts (e.g., researcher, policy expert)
Meet quarterly to provide guidance on strategy &
governance topics
Provide ongoing advocacy support by fundraising for
R3F & elevating its mission in different forums
Must commit to providing time, talent, and/or treasure
Elected by the current Core Team
Serve a 3-year term with possibility of renewal
Composition:
Responsibility:
Legitimacy:
~10 members which are Richmond residents and hold target lived experiences (e.g., low-income, POC, small business owner)
Meet monthly to have specialized, in-depth conversations on R3F’s programming
Chair of the panel would be a Board member & ensure there is constant communication across both groups
Members receive compensation for their time & knowledge Nominated by community members engaged through
community dreams assessment & appointed by Executive
Director
Serve a 3-year term with possibility of renewal
Composition:
Responsibility:
Legitimacy:
Both groups will compose the governing
council with a balance of powers across
these bodies, drawing on Contra Costa’s
Office of Racial Equity and Social Justice
(ORESJ) community-guided model.
R3F
HUDSONUP GI PILOT
Hudson, New York
NEWARK MOVEMENT FOR
ECONOMIC EQUITY
Newark, New Jersey
ABUNDANT BIRTH PROJECT
San Francisco, CA
Overview of pilot
Eligibility Criteria
Additional Levers
for Change
Public
Contributions
Philanthropic
Contributions
$$500 monthly for five years to 128
participants
Adult residents of Hudson who earn less
than the median annual income of the
city
Research for policy change
Optional financial coaching and life
skill services
Hudson Mayor’s office supported second
pilot of fifty participants
Initial contributions from Jain Family Institute
and Economic Security Project Planning grant
from Mayors for Guaranteed Income (MGI)
Additional $2.2m in private philanthropic
funds identified as of 2021
$1k to $1.5K monthly to 150 mothers for pregnancy
duration and first two months of baby’s life
Pregnant Black and Pacific Islander people in
first 6 months of pregnancy
SF-resident with annual income <$100k
Research for policy change
SF Dept of Public Health initially provided $200k
City and state funding totaling $6.5m announced
in December 2022 to expand program to new
counties
Initial contributions from Hellman Foundation, Jack
Dorsey, Genentech
Additional funders include California Preterm Birth
Initiative at UCSF, Kellogg Foundation, Economic
Security Project, Walter and Elise Haas, San
Francisco Foundation, and others
STRATEGYFUNDING
Collaborative partnership with local government is an important factor in the success of guaranteed basic income models...
Sources: [1] Newark Movement for Economic Equity & Building Financial Security: Newark’s Roadmap Toward a Guaranteed Income, Conversation with Kevin Callaghan from Newark Movement for EconomicEquity; [2] HudsonUP & Year 2 Report; [3] Expecting Justice: Abundant Birth Project, UCSF California Preterm Birth Initiative, conversation with Zea Malawa & Michaela Taylor from Abundant Birth Project $250 biweekly or $3K twice yearly for two
years for 400 participants
Adult residents of Newark whose
household income is less than 200% of
Federal Poverty Line, with a focus on
those experiencing housing insecurity
Research for policy change
Financial coaching services
Federal ARPA funds administered by
the City of Newark
Initial contributions from Jain Family
Institute and Economic Security
Project Planning grant from Mayors
for Guaranteed Income (MGI)
Additional $2.2m in private
philanthropic funds identified as of
2021
$500 monthly for 12 months for 155
participants
MADISON FORWARD FUND
Madison, Wisconsin
NEWARK MOVEMENT FOR
ECONOMIC EQUITY
Newark, New Jersey
MAGNOLIA MOTHER'S TRUST
Jackson, Mississippi
Overview of pilot
Eligibility Criteria
Additional Levers
for Change
Community Role
Governance
Structure
Post Pilot
Programming
Focus
Adult residents of Madison living with at
least one child and whose household income
is less than 200% of Federal Poverty Line
Research for policy change
No, Madison residents are not directly
engaged in program design or
implementation
Implemented through various partnerships with
research institutions, benefits administrator, and City of Madison
Advised by task force composed of Mayor-appointed
policy experts, researchers, CBO representatives, and
city councilmembers
Currently has not stated plans for further
programming
$250 biweekly or $3K twice yearly for two
years for 400 participants
Adult residents of Newark whose household income
is less than 200% of Federal Poverty Line, with a
focus on those experiencing housing insecurity
Research for policy change
Financial coaching services
Unclear how community has been engaged
Implemented by City of Newark
Advised by task force composed of researchers, CBO
representatives, city government staff, funders, and capacity building partners
Decision making conducted by Mayor
City of Newark plans to use pilot results to
appeal to state and federal policymakers
and expand the program
$1K monthly for 12 months to 95 mothers
Black mothers ages 21-45 with a child that reside in
specific subsidized housing communities and are in
good standing (i.e., not in process of being evicted)
Research for policy change
College savings account for each child
Access to support services (e.g., social worker)
With support from the program, participants become
community advocates to share their stories with
media and government
Implemented by Springboard to Opportunities,
a local nonprofit
Governed by Springboard to Opportunities’
Board of Directors
Program aims to provide data and
critical narratives to shape federal
policy on guaranteed income
STRATEGYGOVERNANCESUSTAINABILITY
Madison, Newark, and Jackson – among ~100 others - have launched guaranteedincome pilots with different strategies and governance models Sources: [1] Madison Forward Fund, [2] Newark Movement for Economic Equity & Building Financial Security: Newark’s Roadmap Toward a Guaranteed Income, [3] Magnolia Mother’s Trust 2021-22 Evaluation Report & PBS article on MMT
5 A representative from the City will have a designated voting seat on the Board of Advisors (BOA). The representative will sit alongside content experts, technical experts, and funders.
The Chair of the Community Experts Panel (CEP), who will also be a BOA member. They will serve as the official liaison between the two groups, while the R3F Director may support the Chair of the CEP in an unofficial manner
When the CEP makes decisions directly involving R3F funds (e.g., amount to be disbursed for emergency cash relief), the BOA will be required to sign off on these decisions as part of their mandate to maintain financial oversight over the
organization. The BOA’s role in these situations will be to either i) support the CEP’s decision if it does not present a financial or reputational risk for the organization or ii) recommend the CEP revisits the decision given that the BOA has identified clear and highly likely risks to the organization. If the latter occurs, the CEP will need to reconsider the decision with the additional information received by the BOA and reach a conclusion that satisfies both groups.
The City of Richmond will be a key stakeholder in governance, providing advisory support to achieve R3F’s mission for the community
BENEFITS OF PROPOSED
GOVERNANCE MODEL
Presents a collective impact
model representing public and
private actors alongside and
empowering community leaders,
drawing on lessons and
recommendations from ORESJ
and ‘two-hat’ model for
community engagement
Supports autonomy of program
management team responsible
for overseeing the day-to-day
operations of the program
Enables equitable
representation by diverse
stakeholder groups
Prevents any one constituency
from holding ‘veto’ power, or
otherwise dominating strategy
Emphasizes public-private
partnerships across
organizations and agencies to
draw on strengths
Next Steps:
Meet with Mayor and City Manager- MGI/ ESP
Secure waivers/benefits protection
Fellowship Screening and Onboarding
Community Expert Panel design
GI Presentations
Prospecting and Fundraising
Partnerships
Leveraging pubic dollars and commitment
Additional Slides for
Discussion and Background
R3F will be presenting to th Management Leadership Team 3/29 We sit in a Contra Costa Working
Group for GI. In this group we
participate in Facilitating GI
workshops and media with
community members.
Public comment and letters of
support for GI to the Board of
Supervisors re: Measure X and
ARPA dollars.
We are active members of
Guaranteed Income Bay Area
Community
R3F Advocates for GI
City County/Region State
We are partnering to implement a
Contra Contra County site
expansion for the Abundant Birth
Project, funded by CDHSS.
Active member of statewide
CAGICP- California Guaranteed
Income Community of Practice,
including meeting with state
decision makers.
Preparing, fundraising and
developing a Guaranteed
Income program in partnership
with City of Richmond Council,
Staff and residents.
Partnering to leverage and
fundraise and coordinate in
order to sustain a long term
program and policy shifts
At every level and opportunity, we are leveraging and adding value to our existing services in partnership for collective impact.
How does
economic justice
intersect with
our priority
areas?
Housing &
Homelessness
Economic Recovery
& Security
Food &
Essential Supplies
Health
& Healing
Education
& Learning
R3F Priority Areas
Individuals and families can
use Guaranteed Income to
cover health related expenses,
including holistic services not
covered under basic
insurance! Education attainment over the
lifespan is most directly related with
income/poverty and health and
wellbeing.
Many families are not having basic
needs met which causes more stress
on households and negatively
impacts other aspects of their lives
(health, education etc.)
There are lots of unhoused community
members, not all of them are receiving
assistance or are aware of opportunities. Many
folks with housing can barely afford to pay rent.
Gives people the freedom to
spend the money on what they
need
Recurring payments are the quickest, most direct, and most effective way to get money into people’s pockets and
communities, providing support and creating stability as we recover together.
WHAT CAN
GUARANTEED
INCOME
ACCOMPLISH?
Help close financial gapsfor Black and Brown folkswho face higher rates ofpoverty than their whitepeers Supplements social
safety nets
Helps provide a cushion for
people in emergency
situations
Direct cash payments are an anti-poverty tool
that provides recipients the flexibility to
prioritize their needs and spend the money
where they need it most*
Periodic Cash
Payment
Individual Universal Unconditional
Five characteristics of
Basic Income
It is paid at regular
intervals (for
example every
month), not as a
one-off grant.
Paid in an appropriate
medium of exchange,
allowing those who
receive it to decide
what they spend it on
(not paid in vouchers)
It is paid on an
individual basis—
and not, for
instance, to
households.
It is paid to all,
without means
test.
It is paid without
a requirement to
work or to
demonstrate a
willingness to
work.
Recruit more doctors.
Our first key focus.
Many ways to structure a Basic Income
→ Who, how, and how much vary considerably depending on approach
→ Evidence is largely based on pilots conducted in small geographies
Weight of existing evidence shows strong support
for a BI program to improve social and economic well
being:
Education
Poverty -- and minimal effects on
labor force participation
Health
Pilots have not been around long
enough to evaluate sustained
impact on individual, family,
community and macroeconomic
outcomes, including whether BI
closes gaps in social, racial, and
geographical inequality
eg. wages, compensation, public
assistance
Atlanta Federal Reserve Tool:
https://emar-data-tools-
shinyapps.io/gi_dashboard
Need to consider how a BI program
intersects with other resources
Cash disbursements in the form
of guaranteed income have
gained support in the past years
& have been shown to improve
economic security
Guaranteed
Income
Programs
Stockton Economic Empowerment
Demonstration (SEED) (125 residents $500 per
month for 24 months)
Long Beach Guaranteed Income Program ($500 a
month to 500 households for 12months)
San Diego Resilient Communities for Every Child
($500 a month 150 families for 24 months)
Direct Investment Program in Sacramento (DIPS)
(100 households $300/month for 2 years)
Oakland Resilient Families 600 families
$500/month
Guaranteed
Income
Programs
Cont.
MOMmentum Marin (125 moms $1000/month 2
years)
Transition-Age Youth Basic Income Pilot Program Santa
Clara $1000/month 72 young adults 1 year with 6month
extension
Preserving Our Diversity $700 for a one-person
household or $1,225 for a two-person household
Compton Pledge $450/month 397 participants
Bimonthly, . Lump sum and quarterly payment
YBCA Guaranteed Income Pilot San Francisco
$1,000/month 130 artists
Map by Economic Security Project & Mayors for Guaranteed Income showing the guaranteed income programs established over past 5 years
GI in Contra Costa
Contra Costa Working Group
Richmond Rapid Response
Fund
Monument Impact
Collaborative Advocacy +
Power Partnership (CAPP)
Economic Equity Team
Community forums & focus groups
Financial wellness survey
Emergency Cash Response
2023 Fall Pilot
Pilot in Concord
Proposal to Concord City
Council using American
Letter Of Support for GI pilot in Contra Costa
Recommending young people aging out of
foster care
Rescue Plan Act dollars –
up for vote 2/28!
Hosted By Community Financial Resources funded by Y&H Soda GI Field is looking towards
longer-term
implementation
The field is transitioning towards thinking
about longer-term implementation and
sustainability of GI at scale, after three years of
momentum around setting up pilots and
building evidence on the impact of GI in
different settings
“There is no point in talking about guaranteed
income unless there is a sustainable funding
source.” - GI expert
“Mayors for Guaranteed Income is driving a shift
towards storytelling and policy work." - GI program
administrator
Federal Funding is the goal
for sustainable funding
source
Given that GI aims to be unrestricted and
recurring, it requires a sizable and sustainable
funding source only available at the federal
level
While supportive of GI pilots in order to build
evidence, philanthropy has not demonstrated
interest in funding a single GI program in the
long term
“It is tough to consider other funding pathways
[besides federal] because it is very expensive.” - GI
program administrator
“The conversation is not around how do we run
pilots in perpetuity because philanthropy will not do
it. It is around how do we pass policy." - GI expert
Current GI work must be
connected with advocacy
GI experts expressed that the current value of
doing a GI pilot is both in its a) direct impact on
people & b) contribution to the broader
movement conducting advocacy and narrative
change
GI pilots must therefore focus on evaluating
performance and gathering stories in order to
participate in advocacy
“Only reason to do a GI pilot right now would be
to become a part of the national advocacy
movement. We need a group of people who are
hungry to be in the news and down in
Sacramento for this.” - GI expert
Given the positive effects of guaranteed income, the field is looking to achieve scale and sustainability in the long term Conversations with GI experts and program administrators revealed a series of key insights...
What is
Narrative
Change?
Narrative change, "Rests on the premise
that reality is socially constructed through
narrative, and that in order to bring about
change in the world we need to pay
attention to the ways in which this takes
place".
Funders are generally supportive of a guaranteed income pilot, given their "trust-based philosophy" approach, if linked to longer-term plan Most funders are willing to support and respond to
what community members and local organizations
(such as R3F) identify as needs and opportunities,
given that most of these are now adopting trust-based
grant making principles
However, foundations will not support a long-term
guaranteed income program because it requires a
substantial amount of dedicated resources
Funders are supportive of a guaranteed income pilot
in Richmond, as long as it clearly outlines the long-
term objectives of the program, contains an
evaluation component, & is closely linked to local,
state, and national advocacy efforts
"We are supportive of whatever the
community decides and are interested in
learning alongside Richmond." - Funder
"It is not sustainable to fund this
privately for the long term." - Funder
"Both GI and advocacy are needed. For
GI to be sustained you need to build a
base of advocates in the community."
- Funder
Our teams had conversations with The California Endowment, Zellerbach Family Foundation, Hirsch Philanthropy Partners & San Francisco Foundation Community Dreams
Assessement
Reflections
Continued
Corinna Espino, MSW
Chief Empathy Officer
corinna@
empathyinactionconsulting.com
Empathy in Action Consulting Team
Sascha Owens, B.A.Director of EmpatheticOpportunities
sascha@
empathyinactionconsulting.com
Iris Wen, B.A.New Market ProjectConsultant
iris@
empathyinactionconsulting.com
Mac Layne, B.A.Development andLanguage Consultant
mac@
empathyinactionconsulting.com
www.empathyinactionconsulting.com
@empathyinactionconsulting
STRATEGYSUSTAINABILITY
To date, the process has involved a series of focus groups and surveys, facilitated through a trauma informed & liberation framework
The two formal focus groups included East Bay
Center for the Performing Arts service providers
and Safe Organized Spaces service providers and
residents. The process for formal focus groups
included asking all questions on the service provider
survey and allowing space for group discussion. The
focus group for service providers did not collect
specific demographic data of the participants.
The five informal focus groups were conducted
during outreach efforts at Brother’s Liquor, the
Spirit and Soul Festival in Downtown Richmond, the
Richmond Wellness Trail Grand Opening, and the
MLK Day of Service at Unity Park. This process
included covering the core community dreams and
needs, direct questions about direct cash
disbursement vs allocating funds to community
organizations and efforts, and identification of
community experts. Empathy in Action asked for
permission to take notes and tracked qualitative and
quantitative answers on survey forms.
Focus groups | Empathy in Action has conducted 2
formal focus groups and 5 informal focus groups
Survey development | Quantitative vs. qualitative questions Survey had significantly higher density of qualitative questions, as opposed to quantitative questions
Qualitative questions and interviews allowed for community education regarding R3F, guaranteed basic income, cash
disbursement, and policy work at City level
Focus on contextualizing quantitative answers with qualitative data Allowed community members to tell their story, in their own words and language
Wanted to avoid folks having to put numbers to entire lived experiences
Allowed for respondent authenticity, agency, safety and belonging Trauma-informed & liberation framework
Liberation model
Prioritized connecting with folks who were not connected to services Ensured opportunities for continuous feedback throughout the decision making process
Questions developed using human-centered, trauma-informed language
Safety
Ensuring folks they only had to answer what felt comfortable for them
Met them in locations they felt comfortable and safe in Presented options for answering questions
‹#›
Richmond is a multi-cultural community – the community
engagement seeks to reflect that rich diversity
Respondents' self-reported gender was 53.9% female,
43.6% male, 1.5% non-binary and 1% transgender.
Most did not identify their race/ethnicity, but among those who did, the top responses were Black, Latino/a/x, and
white. Other self-reported ethnicities include Indian,
Mexican, Hispanic, Han, Chinese, Laotian, Vietnamese,
German and Nigerian.
Around 35% of respondents were Spanish speakers, with
most of these being Richmond residents
The breakdown by type of respondent is as follow…
120 English
62 Spanish
38 Spanish and English
5 Chinese
3 Nepali
1 Laotian
1 Wom
The majority of respondents were under the age of 30
years old, with an even age distribution on both sides of the number line.
Respondents expressed financial security as the greatest community need Service providers ranked (1) Economic security; (2) Food/essential supplies; (3) Housing as the top three core areas of focus
Respondents ranked community needs in the following order: (1) Economic security 55.8%; (2) Housing 50%; (3) Food and Essential Supplies 48.6%; (4) Education 43.7%; (5) Mental health 42.7%; (6) Physical health 37.9% % = the percentage of respondents that noted that their needs in this category are not being met comfortably.
Of those who primarily speak English at home, they were more likely to feel their needs were being met in all the areas compared to homes where English was not the primary language Key insights:
Breakdown of responses regarding community needs
Building Blocks 4 kids x5
Deneshia Clemons x2
RPAx2
Empathy in Action Consulting
x2
Rich City Rides x2
Bay Area Rescue Mission x2
CBE x2
First 5 x2
1hundredyears Enterprise x2
During the next phase of community outreach, the team will start to create the community experts panel that will be part of R3F’s governing council List of community experts identified by respondents of community dreams assessment Family x 40
Parents x16
Neighbors x12
Urban Tilth x11
The people/communities are
the experts x10
Church x 7
Friends x6
Rich City Rides x5
Moving Forward x4
Organizations and groups with multiple nominations
Note: Some categories,
residents, and
organizations were
mentioned several times
by respondents of the
community dreams
assessment and were
noted with: “(x#)”
HUDSONUP GI PILOT
Hudson, New York
NEWARK MOVEMENT FOR
ECONOMIC EQUITY
Newark, New Jersey
ABUNDANT BIRTH PROJECT
San Francisco, CA
Governance
Structure
Community Role
Community Advisory Board comprising 7
members, including representatives from
implementing organizations, CSOs,
community members, and the Mayor
Ongoing implementation primarily in
partnership between the Spark of the
Hudson (under the Eutopia Foundation) and
the Humanity Forward Foundation, with
support from other community partners
Designated advisory role via Newark
Philanthropic Liaison
After pilot, functions mostly
independently of public agencies and
self-determines strategy
Community Governance Council
comprising 25-30 members, including
community experts (Black and Pacific
Islander mothers) & institutional actors
Fiscal sponsorship under Heluna
Health
Ongoing implementation by Expecting
Justice collaborative
GOVERNANCE
… with city representatives participating via an equitable governance model that prioritizes community voices and leadership
Exploratory task force comprising 30+
community organizations and Mayor’s
office launched report to catalyze
project
Fiscal sponsorship under the
Community Foundation of New Jersey
Ongoing implementation by NMEE
management team
CBOs are members of Task
Force
Public education program via
community ambassadors
Government Role
CBOs and community members
are members of Advisory Board
Designated seat for Mayor on
Community Advisory Board
Community Experts on Governance
Council provide monthly input into
questions regarding program design
and community engagement
Community Governance Council
includes representatives from
partnered government agencies
The City of Richmond will have the opportunity to participate in an inclusive, democratically-led process of collaborative community engagement