Sunnyvale City Council
October 29, 2024

F I N A L R E P O R T
M A R C H 202 4
Sunnyvale: Creation of a
Universal Basic Income Pilot
Program
Attachment 3

2 Executive Summary
I. Introduction and methodology
The Sunnyvale City Council introduced Study Issue CDD 22-07 in January 2022, initiating an exploration of a Universal Basic Income (UBI) pilot. Originally, City staff indicated that there was not sufficient capacity to work on the study; the City Council opted to hire external consultants through a competitive application process so that the study could be added to the list of projects for the Community Development Department.

Funding for this contract was approved in June 2022, and the study commenced in August 2023. Although the study referenced UBI, in these materials, the term “GBI” is employed to denote Guaranteed Basic Income, a concept similar to UBI but tailored for a specific targeted population.

Dalberg Advisors was engaged in mid-August 2023 to undertake the assessment of existing GBI programs and provide recommendations for Sunnyvale’s potential pilot. The study aimed to answer four fundamental questions: “Why fund GBI?”, “Who is the pilot for?”, “What are the design characteristics?”, and “How to fund and execute it?”.

To address these questions, Dalberg consulted with ~60 stakeholders and experts through a four-stage process. Dalberg also engaged with potential beneficiaries through two focus group discussions, gaining insights into their needs, challenges, and preferences. Additionally, Dalberg held two community outreach meetings that involved the broader Sunnyvale community, seeking input on strategic goals, potential beneficiaries, program characteristics, and success metrics to measure.

This comprehensive approach was meant to ensure that the pilot design and execution align with the unique needs and dynamics of Sunnyvale, setting a robust foundation for a potential GBI pilot program.

Attachment 3

3 Executive Summary
II. Key findings
Poverty in Sunnyvale: Despite its affluence, Sunnyvale grapples with a significant poverty issue, with approximately 8,000 residents in ~3,000 households (5.2% of the population) living below the Federal Poverty Line. Although people of color tend to have lower average incomes, poverty affects individuals of all races. Testimonies from community organizations and residents highlight the specific challenges that low-income residents face and emphasize the pressing need for intervention.

Overview of GBI pilots: Guaranteed Basic Income is gaining momentum nationally, with over 100 pilots established in the U.S. as of December 2023, and significant interest in California and Santa Clara County. Successful GBI pilots have demonstrated positive effects on employment, housing stability, mental health, and income volatility.

These pilots have served various objectives, ranging from addressing very specific local needs to serving as ‘proof points’ for the broader UBI movement. Eligibility criteria in GBI pilots also vary across a spectrum from broad (e.g., anyone with income under a given threshold) to very targeted populations (e.g., expectant/new mothers of color or foster youth aging out of the system). Based on Dalberg’s review of 35+ pilot programs and interviews with experts, common characteristics of GBI pilot programs include participant numbers of 100-325, monthly payments of $500-$1,000, durations of 1 to 2 years, and additional administration costs of at least 15%. A few programs have recently offered larger upfront payments as well.

Execution typically involves collaboration with an implementer, distributor, and researcher, each with distinct roles to ensure day-to-day support, efficient fund distribution, and data tracking and analysis, respectively. Funding sources for GBI pilots have comprised state, county, and local funds, private donors, and philanthropic grants.

Attachment 3

4 Executive Summary
III. Conclusions and recommendations (1 of 2)
Why? Dalberg recommends that Sunnyvale implement a GBI pilot, as there is robust support for the idea within Sunnyvale, and as evidence from across the nation demonstrates that GBI programs can make a meaningfully positive difference in beneficiaries’ lives. The pilot program should focus on addressing local needs, acting both as a "safety net" for immediate challenges or a "step ladder" for upward economic mobility. Contributing evidence to the national GBI movement is less important than addressing the needs of low-income residents of Sunnyvale.

Who? Dalberg recommends adopting broad eligibility criteria, such as residents earning under 30% of Area Median Income or those with income below 200% of the Federal Poverty Line. Although some groups were most mentioned by interviewees (e.g., low-income families with children, unhoused residents, and residents at risk of becoming homeless or recently housed individuals), there is no consensus on a specific target group. This broad approach allows for a diverse participant pool, encompassing many of the target groups highlighted by community stakeholders, with recognition that evidence so far does not favor one population over another for GBI programs. Additionally, this approach allows for comparison of impact across participants with different profiles.

What? An optimal pilot for Sunnyvale would incorporate several key features. These include a minimum of 100 participants, the flexibility to opt for either monthly or hybrid payments (i.e. an upfront payment of part of the total), an annual amount ranging from $12,000 to $14,400, and a two-year duration. The design must also address the “benefits cliff” (i.e., when additional income reduces public benefits for low-income residents). City measures for this should involve ensuring informed consent, structuring benefits as tax-free gifts, securing waivers from local and state agencies to exclude GBI from benefit calculations, and considering establishing a “hold-harmless” fund for potential benefit losses. Sunnyvale might also consider offering optional support services to pilot participants, specifically focusing on benefits counseling and day-to-day support.

Attachment 3

5 Executive Summary
III. Conclusions and recommendations (2 of 2)
How?: To enhance community engagement, Dalberg recommends a comprehensive outreach approach, utilizing virtual platforms (e.g., online newspapers, email, text messages, the City’s website, and social media), physical channels (e.g., newspapers, RV flyers, posters, and event presence), and collaboration with existing networks such as schools, food banks, places of worship, shelters, and local community organizations. A multi-step beneficiary identification process is suggested, involving outreach, application, randomized selection, and verification. The distribution of funds through reloadable debit cards is recommended for streamlined transactions and reducing potential barriers. For efficient execution, Dalberg suggests engaging a trusted community-based organization as project administrator (or ‘implementation partner’), who would also subcontract a distribution partner for fund disbursement. Even with outsourced project administration, the Community Development Department will need to allocate some staff time for oversight. In addition, Dalberg recommends tracking basic indicators (e.g., stable housing, food security, income, among others) through self-reporting surveys every six months or through existing mechanisms, avoiding costly research studies. Active participation in GBI communities of practice at the national, California, and Santa Clara County levels is also encouraged for collaborative knowledge-sharing.

Estimated pilot costs are a minimum of $1.4M to $2M annually, and securing external funding appears challenging. Potential contributions from major employers hinge on factors beyond the City's control, the County and State’s support for new initiatives is unlikely to materialize, and philanthropic funders are showing pilot fatigue, favoring initiatives contributing to the broader UBI movement and the transition from pilot to policy. This situation prompts consideration of using the City's own funds or waiting for a suitable co-funding source.

Attachment 3

6 Executive Summary
IV. Next steps and decision points for City Council
Following Dalberg's recommendations, the City Council is at a pivotal stage for a GBI pilot in Sunnyvale. For the program design, they must determine:
1) Their willingness to fund the pilot independently, facing estimated costs of $1.4M to $2M annually, or to wait until an external funding source is identified
2) The target demographic, deciding between broad or specific criteria for beneficiaries 3) The pilot's characteristics and budget, including participant numbers, support amounts, frequency, and duration 4) Their desire to engage appropriate partner(s) for implementation.

Finally, the City must identify and specific funding sources and allocate funds after refining the budget.

Regarding pilot execution, the City is tasked with (1) assigning roles for implementation, including outreach, participant screening, and day-to-day support; (2) designating responsibility for benefits cliff mitigation and securing waivers; (3) designating responsibility for fund distribution; (4) defining the desired metrics and data collection methods; (5) allocating responsibilities for the measurement and evaluation of these metrics, including collection, analysis, and insights sharing; and (6) formulating a communication strategy for the broader community, specifying responsibilities, desired levels of proactivity, and suitable communication channels.

Attachment 3

7 1. Introduction and methodology

2. Key findings
A. Poverty in Sunnyvale
B. Overview of GBI pilots

3. Conclusions and recommendations
A. Why?
B. Who?
C. What?
D. How?

4. Next steps and decision points for City Council
Attachment 3

In January 2022, the City Council of Sunnyvale introduced Study Issue (SI) CDD 22- 07 to evaluate a Universal Basic Income (UBI) pilot program Initially planned for in-house completion, the Study Issue faced challenges due to limited staff capacity in the Community Development Department and Housing Division in 2022, and therefore the project officially began in August 2023 The City opted to hire consultants through a Request for Proposals (RFP) and conduct a competitive application process
Sources: [1] City of Sunnyvale, Universal Basic Income Study Issue Follow Up (Information Only), 2022. 8 Sunnyvale's City Council introduced a Study Issue for a Universal Basic Income pilot
Attachment 3

• Universal Basic Income (UBI) provides all individuals a regular unconditional payment
• Guaranteed Basic Income (GBI) refers to a similar concept for a targeted population We use the term “GBI” in these materials
9 While UBI offers financial assistance to everyone, GBI targets specific populations
Attachment 3

 An assessment of other GBI programs, including those in California  Identification of potential funding sources, including public and philanthropic funding sources
 Identification of participant pool size, process to apply for the pilot, and amount distributed
 Outreach process
 Program administration requirements, including evaluation metrics  Process for distributing funds
Dalberg Advisors has been supporting this Study since mid-August 2023 Sources: [1] City of Sunnyvale, Universal Basic Income Study Issue Follow Up (Information Only), 2022. 10 Dalberg Advisors was engaged to support Sunnyvale’s GBI pilot study with a defined scope
Pursuant to the Study Issue, our work will cover the following elements1:

Attachment 3

11 Throughout this study, Dalberg and the City collectively considered four fundamental questions
Who? What? How?

NON-COMPREHENSIVE
Why?
Sub-questions
• Who is the pilot for?
The target population
can be defined broadly
(e.g., anyone with 30% of
Area Median Income) or
narrowly (e.g., new or
expectant mothers)
• What is the size of the pool of
participants?
• What is the amount of
support provided?
• What is the frequency of
support provided?
• What is the duration of the
support provided?
• What complementary
services will be included, if
any (e.g., benefits counseling)?
• What potential risks should
be considered? (e.g.,
recipients losing other
benefits)
• How will the City
execute the pilot?
— How will the City
verify eligibility
criteria?
— How will the City
disburse payments?
— How will the pilot
be governed?
• How will the City
measure impact (e.g.,
Randomized Controlled
Trials)?
• How will the City fund
the pilot?
• What are the
fundamental
objectives of the
pilot?

Attachment 3

Note: Please see annex for the full list of engaged stakeholders. 12 To address these questions, Dalberg consulted a wide range of ~60 stakeholders and experts, and conducted desktop research (1 of 2) Stage 1
Stage 2
Stage 3
Engage community stakeholders and City staff, as well as conduct desktop research and external benchmarking
Share initial findings with the City Manager, and engage external GBI experts and potential co-funders
Share intermediate findings with the City Council, hold two community outreach meetings, and conduct two focus group discussions with potential beneficiaries
Re-engage stakeholders as needed and share final findings with the City CouncilStage 4
Attachment 3

13 To address these questions, Dalberg consulted a wide range of ~60 stakeholders and experts, and conducted desktop research (2 of 2) Who? What? How?Why?
Will help answer entire question
Will help partially answer question
Community
stakeholders
Community members
& potential
beneficiaries
External experts
& potential
co-funders
Elected officials
and City staff
Attachment 3

14 Dalberg engaged potential beneficiaries through two focus group discussions, co-facilitating them with local service providers in Sunnyvale
The City of Sunnyvale, Dalberg, and local community organizations, collaborated to plan two focus group sessions. These were held on December 13, 2023, at the Columbia Neighborhood Center in Sunnyvale.

Community organizations assisted in nominating participants and potential co-facilitators. Dalberg curated the list of attendees and selected front-line staff, who were familiar with some of these participants, to serve as co-facilitators, ensuring a comfortable environment.

The sessions, characterized by informal conversations, aimed to understand potential GBI recipients' perspectives through prompt questions, while maintaining flexibility in the discussions.

Everyone was given the option to share openly or submit anonymous written responses, fostering a safe and participant-centric space for genuine dialogue.

The focus groups had 6-8 participants per session.

Participants were individuals with low incomes,
such as those below the Federal Poverty Line
(~$30,000 annually for a family of four).

The group was arranged to ensure a diverse mix of
participants, including individuals from different
genders, age groups, ethnicities, and life
experiences. This included residents experiencing
homelessness, facing rent burdens, or encountering
housing insecurity, as well as parents of preschool
or school-aged children.

Participants
The purpose of these sessions was to understand the needs, challenges, and preferences of individuals who could potentially benefit from Sunnyvale’s GBI pilot program. By engaging directly with potential recipients, the goal was to ensure that the program's design and implementation align with their realities and perspectives.

Objective
Description
Attachment 3

15 Dalberg also held two community outreach meetings with the extended Sunnyvale community
The City of Sunnyvale and Dalberg organized two community outreach meetings. These were held on December 14, 2023, one fully virtual and the other one hybrid (virtual and in-person at Sunnyvale City Hall).

The agenda included i) Introduction and context of GBI, ii) Discussion on key questions, and iii) Closing remarks.

Key questions focusing on the “Why?”, “Who?”, “What?”, and “How?” of the GBI pilot were presented to participants to gather their input on strategic goals, potential beneficiaries, program characteristics, and success metrics.

The meetings utilized an interactive approach, incorporating the use of Mentimeter (menti) to facilitate engagement.

Both sessions were led by Dalberg and City staff, offering attendees the option to contribute through written submissions and oral participation.

The broader Sunnyvale community was invited to
participate. Anyone interested was welcome to
join.

The city promoted participation in these meetings
by leveraging existing lists of interested individuals
or relevant stakeholders and groups.

Each meeting attracted 10-30 participants.

Attendees included members of community
organizations and general Sunnyvale residents,
both those with a broad interest in the topic and
those keen on potentially participating as
beneficiaries.

Participants
The objective of these meetings was to gather the community’s perspectives on Sunnyvale's potential GBI pilot program. The goal was to actively involve residents and the broader community in providing input for the potential design and execution of the pilot.

Objective
Description
Attachment 3

In the next section, we will present
the results of all this work
16 Attachment 3

17 1. Introduction and methodology

2. Key findings
A. Poverty in Sunnyvale
B. Overview of GBI pilots

3. Conclusions and recommendations
A. Why?
B. Who?
C. What?
D. How?

4. Next steps and decision points for City Council
Attachment 3

18 1. Introduction and methodology

2. Key findings
A. Poverty in Sunnyvale
B. Overview of GBI pilots

3. Conclusions and recommendations
A. Why?
B. Who?
C. What?
D. How?

4. Next steps and decision points for City Council
Attachment 3

Federal Poverty Line (FPL)1
Sources: [1] HealthCare.gov, Federal poverty level (FPL), 2024: [2] U.S. Census Bureau, Data for Sunnyvale City, 2022. 19 The FPL for a family of four is $30K, which may be an unrealistically low measure of need given Sunnyvale’s high living costs and median income Area Median Income (AMI)2: Sunnyvale's Median Household Income (2018-2022) is $174,506 Family size 2023 income numbers 2024 income numbers
Individuals $19,720 $20,440
Family of 2 $19,720 $20,440
Family of 3 $24,860 $25,820
Family of 4 $30,000 $31,200
Family of 5 $35,140 $36,580
Family of 6 $40,280 $41,960
Attachment 3

20 Sources: [1] U.S. Census Bureau, Data for Sunnyvale City, California, 2023; [2] Santa Clara County Office of Supportive Housing, City of Sunnyvale HOME-ARP Allocation Plan Data Analysis, 2022; [3] Sunnyvale Community Services; 2023; [4] Dalberg analysis; [5] U.S. Census Bureau, Data for Sunnyvale City, 2022.

Even though Sunnyvale’s median household income is over $170K per year, 5.3% of residents live under the poverty line (~8k residents)1
Although Sunnyvale is a wealthy community, approximately 8,000 residents still live below the federal poverty line
733 64
Unhoused2 Recently housed3 Additional residents
in poverty4
Residents below
federal poverty
line5
~7000 ~8000
Number of Sunnyvale residents living in poverty
The number of
Sunnyvale
residents living
in poverty is
likely greater,
given the high
cost of living
Attachment 3

Per Capita Income by Race in Santa Clara & San
Mateo Counties (2021)1
21Sources: [1] Joint Venture Silicon Valley, 2023 Silicon Valley Index, 2023; [2] City-Data, Sunnyvale, California (CA) Poverty Rate Data, 2021.

While residents of color tend to have lower average incomes, poverty impacts individuals of all races in Sunnyvale
$ 91,842
$ 71,667
$ 44,606
$ 33,291 $ 32,252
White Asian Black Multiple
& Other
Hispanic
or Latino
Break-down of poor residents in Sunnyvale by race (# of people with income below poverty level, 2022)2
Break-down of residents in Sunnyvale by race
(% with income below poverty level, 2022)2
American
Indian
Native
Hawaiian
Black Other
race
Hispanic 2+ races White Asian

0.9%

5.9%

6.8%

4.4% 4.5%

7.0%

6.1%

4.5%
10 24 167 398
1144
1528
2705
3195
American
Indian
Native
Hawaiian
Black Other
race
Hispanic 2+ races White Asian
Attachment 3

• Some local faith-based organizations have estimated
that the cost of living for a family of four is at least ~$90k annually1
• MIT’s living wage model* suggests that in Sunnyvale:
− A household of two adults working full-time and
one child must earn at least ~$115k to support
themselves2
− A household of one adult working full-time and
one child must earn at least ~$108k to support
themselves2
• In 2020, 31.2% of households earned less than
$100k (~17k households)3
22 Numerous households are falling short each month in their ability to fully support themselves
In Sunnyvale, nearly 1 in 3 households earn
under $100k, likely facing monthly shortfalls
14%
17%
18%15%
36% < $50k
$50K - $99K
$100K - $149K
$150K - $199K
> $200K
Household share by income (2020)3
Note: (*) The living wage model, as an alternative to federal poverty measures, calculates the minimum employment earnings ne eded for a family's basic needs, factoring in geographically specific costs for food, childcare, health care, housing, and other necessities.

Sources: [1] Dalberg interviews and community engagement; [2] Living Wage Calculator MIT, Living Wage Calculation for San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, 2023; [3] Data USA. Sunnyvale, CA – Household income, 2020.

Attachment 3

23 As a result, low-income Sunnyvale residents face severe challenges, as proven by interviews with local organizations and community members The growing number of people on the streets, including families with young children, is a significant concern […] There is a big need. Evictions and low-paying jobs are key factors. It’s basically a money game at this point.
- Community-based organization that supports vulnerable individuals The high cost of rent in Sunnyvale forces families to squeeze into single households. We've observed people renting parts of living rooms or kitchens, with residents alternating [...] Many children and their families face food insecurity. We are underserving those who need assistance the most.
- Nonprofit emergency assistance agency in Sunnyvale
Community Organizations
Housing is a major challenge. Finding employment is also a hurdle due to Sunnyvale's size. People keep running into roadblocks [...] People have a very small cushion month over month. They struggle to build savings. There is a very small window for a medical emergency, a car breakdown, etc.
- Nonprofit organization in California that addresses homelessness I have four children, and I'm the only one working. After reaching earnings of two thousand per month, you don't get any more help.

It can be very tough to get help. I became depressed and stopped asking for resources.
- Low-income Sunnyvale resident (potential GBI beneficiary) It doesn’t matter how many times you do a budget if you’re on a deficit. You can only cut expenses so far.
- Low-income Sunnyvale resident (potential GBI beneficiary) Community Members
Sources: Dalberg interviews and community engagement.

There is no breathing room […] In the past, an amount that might seem small, would seem big at that point, causing me to spiral negatively. If I just had received help at that time, everything wouldn’t have piled up because of one issue.
- Low-income Sunnyvale resident (potential GBI beneficiary) Attachment 3

The data shows that there are many
Sunnyvale residents who could
benefit from a Guaranteed Basic
Income program
24 Attachment 3

25 1. Introduction and methodology

2. Key findings
A. Poverty in Sunnyvale
B. Overview of GBI pilots

3. Conclusions and recommendations
A. Why?
B. Who?
C. What?
D. How?

4. Next steps and decision points for City Council
Attachment 3

• The Stockton Economic
Empowerment Demonstration
(SEED) was the first city-led
GBI pilot program in the
country3
• California has allocated $35M
over five years for local
governments interested in
setting up a GBI pilot
program1,2
• 20+ GBI pilots have been
launched in California, with
more on the way1,2
Note: (*) See annex on potential opposition for more information.

Sources: [1] Economic Security Project, Champions for Guaranteed Income Celebrate, 2022; [2] New York Times, Guaranteed Income Programs Spread, City by City, 2022; [3] Stockton Economic Empowerment Demonstration, Preliminary Analysis: SEED’s First Year; [4] Santa Clara County, County of Santa Clara Expands Guaranteed Basic Income Pilot Program to Additional Vulnerable Populations - Office of Communications and Public Affairs - County of Santa Clara; [5] City of Mountainview Elevate MV | Guaranteed Income Pilots Dashboard, 2023; [6] Destination: Home, Announcing the Launch of the Silicon Valley Guaranteed Income Project, 2022.
26 Guaranteed Basic Income is gaining momentum across the U.S., and in Santa Clara County in particular
• There have been around 100+
GBI pilots established in U.S.
cities since late 20181
• Policymakers have become more
receptive to GBI and UBI, given
actions taken by the federal
government during the onset of
the COVID-19 pandemic2
• While there is active opposition
to race-based or other non-
economic targeting in CA,
broader opposition to GBI is
largely unorganized and
concentrated in “red” states*
• In August 2023, Santa Clara County
announced 4 new GBI pilots focused
on former foster youth, young moms,
justice-involved individuals, and
unhoused high school seniors4
• Mountain View has invested ~$2M
in a GBI pilot for 166 parents with
30% of the Area Median Income
(AMI)5
• The Silicon Valley Guaranteed
Income Project provides $1,000 per
month, for 24 months, to 150 Santa
Clara County families experiencing or
at risk of homelessness6
I
Attachment 3

Research on Guaranteed Basic Income has shown it has
significant effects on people’s livelihood, including:
— Higher probability of finding full-time employment1,2 — Increased housing stability (e.g., in the New Leaf
project in Vancouver, beneficiaries saw a drop in days
homeless from 77% to 49% in the first month)3
— Improved mental health, with fewer signs of
depression and anxiety among participants2
— Reduction in household income volatility (e.g., in
Stockton, monthly income fluctuation was 46.4% for
participants and 67.5% for non-participants)2
— Increased opportunity for self-determination, agency, goal-setting and risk-taking 2
27 Sources: [1] Stanford Basic Income Lab, The Guaranteed Income Pilots Dashboard, 2023; [2] Stanford Basic Income Lab, Basic income and local government - a guide to municipal pilots, 2022; [3] Foundations for Social Change, Statement of Impact, 2021; [4] Stockton Economic Empowerment Demonstration, Preliminary Analysis: SEED’s First Year, 2021.

Percentage of population having full-time
employment, from Stockton Economic
Empowerment Demonstration4
Control group GBI recipients
32%
37%
28%
40%
+5 percentage
points
+12 percentage
points
2019
2020
Building on the success of other pilots, Sunnyvale’s pilot can help improve social outcomes for residents
Attachment 3

28 Why? | Other GBI pilots have served different objectives, ranging from addressing local needs to contributing to the broader UBI movement Based on our prior work and a review of 35+ pilots, GBI pilots may serve various objectives, that are not necessarily mutually exclusive:

Contribute to
broader UBI
movement
Address
local needs
Safety net
Work as a “safety net” to address
immediate needs and safeguard
the most vulnerable in the
community from severe hardship
Cultivate advocates
Cultivate national UBI advocates,
raising awareness and fostering
positive perceptions, to advance
and build momentum for the
national UBI movement
Step ladder
Work as a “step-ladder” to be
catalytic and provide people
opportunities for self-
improvement and upward mobility
Compare effectiveness
Compare the effectiveness of
direct cash transfers vs other
policies, generating knowledge
and insights to inform broader
policy discussions
Catalyze a permanent program
Provide insights that support and
catalyze a permanent (local) GBI
program after the pilot is
conducted
Sources: [1] Dalberg Analysis.

Attachment 3

Eligibility: Artists in targeted
neighborhoods who received
support from the Coronavirus
Personal Emergency Relief Fund
• Participants: 25
• Amount: $500 monthly
• Duration: 1.5 years
Eligibility: Mountain View residents
regardless of immigration and
housing status, with income below
30% of Area Median Income, caring
for at least one child under 18
• Participants: 166
• Amount: $500 monthly
• Duration: 2 Years
Eligibility: Santa Clara County
families who are experiencing or at
risk of homelessness, referred by
the County's Coordinated entry
system or ¡Sí Se Puede! Collective
• Participants: 150
• Amount: $1000 monthly
• Duration: 1.5 years
Sources: [1] Dalberg Analysis; [2] The Stanford Basic Income Lab, The Guaranteed Income Pilots Dashboard, 2023; [3] Mayors for a guaranteed income, Resources, 2022; [4] Mayors for a guaranteed income, End of Year Report, 2022. 29 Who? | GBI pilots in California and beyond vary in terms of the degree to which their eligibility criteria are targeted or broadly defined (1 of 2) Based on our prior work and a review of 35+ pilots, GBI pilots exhibit a spectrum of eligibility criteria, ranging from broad to targeted approaches
Eligibility Criteria TargetedBroad
Mountain view – Elevate MV Santa Clara County - Silicon Valley Guaranteed Income Project
St Paul Springboard - Guaranteed
Income Pilot for Artists
Example pilots
Attachment 3

30 Who? | GBI pilots in California and beyond vary in terms of the degree to which their eligibility criteria are targeted or broadly defined (2 of 2) Broad Targeted
Eligibility: Alachua County residents who are within six months of their release from federal/Florida state prison, released from jail with a felony or beginning felony probation Gainesville - Just Income
Eligibility: 18 years old, Atlanta city residents, with an income up to 200% the Federal Poverty Line
Atlanta - Income Mobility Program for Atlanta Community Transformation (I.M.P.A.C.T)
Eligibility: Young adults exiting out of the foster care system Santa Clara County
Eligibility: Single (unmarried) caregiver of at least one child under the age of 18, resident in Cambridge, with an income below 80% of the Area Median Income
Cambridge - Cambridge Recurring Income for Success +
Empowerment (RISE)
Example pilots
Eligibility: 18-24 years old and residing in specific
neighborhoods (California, Russell, and Smoketown)
Louisville - Young Adult Louisville Income for Transformation (YALift!)
Eligibility: Madison residents 18 and older with a household income less than 200% of the Federal Poverty Line, and with a child under 18 years old living at home
Madison - Madison Forward Fund
Sources: [1] Dalberg Analysis; [2] The Stanford Basic Income Lab, The Guaranteed Income Pilots Dashboard, 2023; [3] Mayors for a guaranteed income, Resources, 2022; [4] Mayors for a guaranteed income, End of Year Report, 2022.

Attachment 3

Note: The ranges for number of participants, frequency of payment and duration of pilot reflect the 20 th to 80th percentile of the pilots reviewed. The range for the amount of support provided is based on expert interviews.

Sources: [1] Dalberg analysis and interviews; [2] Stanford Basic Income Lab, The Guaranteed Income Pilots Dashboard, 2023; [3] Mayors for a Guaranteed Income, Resources, 2022. 31
What? | Our review of 35+ pilots and expert interviews indicate common pilot traits
— Participants: 100 – 325
— Frequency: Monthly or Hybrid (lump sum payment upfront + monthly) — Amount: $500 - $1,000 per month
— Duration: 1-2 Years
— Complementary services: Optional
Typical Characteristics of GBI pilots1,2,3
Attachment 3

Sources: [1] San Francisco Office of Financial Empowerment, Protecting Benefits in Guaranteed Income Pilots: Lessons Learned from the Abundant Birth Project, 2021. [2] California Government, California Partners With Philanthropy to Boost Guaranteed Income Pilot Program, 2022; [3] Joint Venture Silicon Valley, Modeling Guaranteed Basic Income & Household Income Adequacy In Santa Clara County, 2023; [4] City of Mountain View, Council Report:

Guaranteed Basic Income Pilot Program—“Elevate MV", 2022.; [5] Dalberg interviews. 32 How? | Similar pilots have been implemented with partner organizations and funded with some help of private donations (1 of 2) Execution:

GBI pilots tend to be implemented through collaborative efforts. These partnerships may involve:
i) An implementer, ideally equipped with an understanding of beneficiaries and the capacity to provide them the necessary support
ii) A distributor, who ensures efficient fund distribution iii) A researcher, in charge of collecting data, conducting analysis, and generating reports Funding:

Most GBI pilots have been funded at least in part by private donations1. For example:
• In 2023, California launched the Guaranteed Income Pooled Fund to support GBI pilots. Contributors include Sierra Health Foundation, California Wellness Foundation, Silicon Valley Community Foundation, Blue Shield of California Foundation, May and Stanley Smith Charitable Trust, and the Weingart Foundation2 • The Silicon Valley Guaranteed Income Project has been supported by Google.org, the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, Silicon Valley Community Foundation, and Sobrato Philanthropies3 Execution and Funding
Attachment 3

Sources: [1] San Francisco Office of Financial Empowerment, Protecting Benefits in Guaranteed Income Pilots: Lessons Learned from the Abundant Birth Project, 2021. [2] California Government, California Partners With Philanthropy to Boost Guaranteed Income Pilot Program, 2022; [3] Joint Venture Silicon Valley, Modeling Guaranteed Basic Income & Household Income Adequacy In Santa Clara County, 2023; [4] City of Mountain View, Council Report:

Guaranteed Basic Income Pilot Program—“Elevate MV", 2022; [5] Dalberg interviews. 33 How? | Similar pilots have been implemented with partner organizations and funded with some help of private donations (2 of 2) Execution:

The pilot program is conducted in collaboration with Community Services Agency (CSA) for implementation and counseling, Community Finance Resources (CFR) for money distribution, and the University of Pennsylvania (UPENN) for research
• Community Services Agency (CSA) is responsible for implementation, including benefits counseling, screening applicants, income verification, and providing general support to participants • Community Finance Resources (CFR) manages the distribution of funds to participants through reloadable debit cards and tracks spending data
• University of Pennsylvania (UPenn) conducts surveys every six months to collect data on participants' health, well-being, and livelihood improvements, and will publish report after the pilot is completed Funding:

Primarily funded by Mountain View with ARPA funds (American Rescue Plan Act) + $100,000 grant from Silicon Valley Community Foundation
Spotlight: Elevate Mountain View4,5
Attachment 3

34 1. Introduction and methodology

2. Key findings
A. Poverty in Sunnyvale
B. Overview of GBI pilots

3. Conclusions and recommendations
A. Why?
B. Who?
C. What?
D. How?

4. Next steps and decision points for City Council
Attachment 3

35 1. Introduction and methodology

2. Key findings
A. Poverty in Sunnyvale
B. Overview of GBI pilots

3. Conclusions and recommendations
A. Why?
B. Who?
C. What?
D. How?

4. Next steps and decision points for City Council
Attachment 3

36 Recommendation: Align the pilot’s strategic objective with the community's preference for addressing local needs.

Rationale: The community is inclined to support a GBI Pilot with the objective of addressing local needs. Sunnyvale's pilot should aim to function as a “safety net” (addressing immediate needs and safeguarding the most vulnerable from severe hardship) and/or a “step ladder” (being catalytic and providing opportunities for self-improvement and upward mobility), depending on the target population of the program. The community does not seem very interested in a pilot that seeks to contribute to the broader UBI movement, so it is advised to deprioritize this as an objective.

A GBI Pilot should be implemented in Sunnyvale to address community needs, as endorsed by community stakeholders, members, and officials Contribute to
broader UBI
movement
Address
local needs
Based on our engagement with community stakeholders, community members, city staff, and elected officials, there is strong community support for a GBI Pilot in Sunnyvale with the main objective of addressing community needs.

Attachment 3

37 1. Introduction and methodology

2. Key findings
A. Poverty in Sunnyvale
B. Overview of GBI pilots

3. Conclusions and recommendations
A. Why?
B. Who?
C. What?
D. How?

4. Next steps and decision points for City Council
Attachment 3

Note: (*) According to the U.S. Census, Sunnyvale's Median Household Income in 2018-2022 was $174,506. This means that households earning 30% of the AMI would have an income of approximately $52,000. Similarly, the Federal Poverty Line (FPL) for a family of four in 2024 was $31,300. Therefore, families of four with 200% of the FPL would have an income of approximately $62,000. 38 Given the absence of a clear consensus on a specific target group, it is advisable for the pilot to adopt broad eligibility criteria TargetedBroad
Based on our engagement with community stakeholders, community members, city staff, and elected officials, there is no clear consensus on a specific target group for the pilot program.

Recommendation: Have a broad eligibility criteria (e.g., Sunnyvale residents under 30% of Area Median Income, income below 200% of the Federal Poverty Line, etc.).*
Rationale: The community lacks a consensus on a specific target group for the pilot program, and various options have been proposed by different stakeholders and community members (e.g., low-income families with children, residents at risk of becoming homeless or recently housed, unhoused residents, among others). There is no compelling reason to favor one narrow group, and existing evidence doesn't suggest that GBI pilots are more effective for one population over another. As a pilot program, a broad approach also facilitates learning by including a diverse mix of people. This will help capture many of the target groups suggested by stakeholders, assess effectiveness for different groups in Sunnyvale, and allow for potential future tailoring based on insights gained.

Attachment 3

39 1. Introduction and methodology

2. Key findings
A. Poverty in Sunnyvale
B. Overview of GBI pilots

3. Conclusions and recommendations
A. Why?
B. Who?
C. What?
D. How?

4. Next steps and decision points for City Council
Attachment 3

40 The pilot design should blend proven practices from other programs with Sunnyvale's characteristics, incorporating community and expert input
Recommendation:
i. Participants: 100 minimum.
ii. Frequency: Give the option for monthly or hybrid (lump sum payment upfront + monthly). iii. Amount: $12,000 – $14,400 per year.
a) Monthly: $1,000 – $1,200.
b) Hybrid: Up to 50% upfront from the first-year total (i.e., up to $6,000 – $7,200 the first month), with the remaining amount from the first-year total equally distributed (i.e., $500 - $600 the eleven subsequent months). iv. Duration: 2 Years (if possible).

Rationale:

According to expert interviews, pilots typically require a minimum of 100 participants to be meaningful and suitable for study.

Most pilots have provided monthly cash assistance, with only a few experimenting with a lump sum payment upfront (e.g., The Denver Basic Income Project and the New Leaf Project in Vancouver). However, based on our focus group discussions with potential beneficiaries, it makes sense that individuals have the choice to receive a larger upfront sum if they are in need to cover a bigger expense (e.g., car repair) and have the remaining amount equally distributed in the subsequent months.

While many pilots offer a $500 monthly stipend, in pricier areas like Sunnyvale, a larger sum is needed to be meaningful. For instance, pilots like 'Breathe: LA County's Guaranteed Income Program' and 'The Silicon Valley Guaranteed Income Project' provide $1,000 per month, and the upcoming pilots by Santa Clara County aim for $1,200 per month.

Pilots usually have a duration of 1 to 2 years, with the latter option serving as a means of providing participants with support for a more extended period.

Attachment 3

Sources: [1] San Francisco Office of Financial Empowerment, Protecting Benefits in Guaranteed Income Pilots: Lessons Learned from the Abundant Birth Project, 2021; [2] Stanford Basic Income Lab, Basic income and local government - a guide to municipal pilots, 2022. 41 The City must also work with beneficiaries and different agencies to avoid any “benefits cliff”-related challenges
GBI pilots commonly encounter a hurdle known as the “benefits cliff”. This cliff signifies the point at which additional income triggers reductions in important public benefits that low-income residents may already have access to, such as food assistance and health insurance. Additionally, GBI payments may also inadvertently lead participants into a “benefits trap”, in which taxation or benefit rules hinder them from increasing total income by reducing or ending eligibility for benefits when working.

Recommendation: The City should take proactive measures to address challenges linked to the benefits cliff. This should involve:

A) Collaborating thoughtfully with beneficiaries to ensure informed consent and benefits counseling.

B) Structuring GBI payments as a gift to avoid issuing tax forms and prevent them from impacting eligibility for other benefits.

C) Securing waivers by engaging local and state government agencies to exclude GBI from benefit calculations.

D) Considering the establishment of a “hold-harmless" fund to compensate participants for potential losses in benefits.

Rationale: The recommendations draw from established best practices observed in other GBI pilots.

Ensuring informed consent empowers participants to make educated decisions by providing comprehensive information on benefit impacts, financial-aid eligibility, and tax implications.

Structuring payments as gifts prevents tax form issuances and helps safeguard eligibility for other benefits.

Obtaining waivers from relevant agencies excludes GBI from benefit-income calculations, and also fosters a collaborative environment between the pilot program and regulatory bodies.

Having a hold-harmless fund serves as a last-resort safety net, compensating for benefit losses and ensuring financial security.

The Benefits Cliff1,2
Attachment 3

42 Offering optional benefits counseling and day-to-day support services for participants throughout the pilot might also prove advantageous I would recommend benefits counseling and working with
folks who already do these things. Benefits counseling in general exists, but having a dedicated service specifically for guaranteed income would be good for a pilot.
- GBI external expert
Receiving support and having communication is very
important […] Some may prefer to communicate over email because you don’t want to take time off to go to
appointments, some will prefer a phone call with an advisor.

In any case, it's good to have somebody to support you - have someone to go to.
- Low-income Sunnyvale resident (potential GBI beneficiary) When it comes to adding financial services, many researchers would say no […] I believe data has not suggested that
financial coaches have added to results and have only added costs.
- GBI external expert
For complementary services, one key thing is being very clear that this is an option people have, not something mandatory [...] Because of the nature of the program, it’s easy to set coercive dynamics if you’re not careful.
- Leading advocate for GBI
Recommendation: Provide optional support services for
participants throughout the pilot, specifically benefits counseling and general day-to-day support.

Rationale:

The pilot should draw from the best practices of other programs and offer optional support services to participants.

Benefits counseling can be particularly crucial for a) navigating the benefits cliff and b) maximizing the impact of Sunnyvale's GBI pilot by also informing beneficiaries about additional benefit programs from the city, county, state or local non-profits that they may not be using (e.g., Tenant-Based Rental Assistance).

Focus group discussions also revealed the desire among potential beneficiaries to receive ongoing support and have a reliable point of contact.

Research suggests deprioritizing financial coaching as a complementary service, as it does not seem to add value and would imply additional costs.

In any case, it is essential to maintain the optional nature of any complementary services so that it aligns with GBI's no-strings- attached approach, empowering individuals to take decisions for themselves.

Attachment 3

43 1. Introduction and methodology

2. Key findings
A. Poverty in Sunnyvale
B. Overview of GBI pilots

3. Conclusions and recommendations
A. Why?
B. Who?
C. What?
D. How?

4. Next steps and decision points for City Council
Attachment 3

44 A comprehensive outreach approach will maximize engagement and reach potential beneficiaries with different characteristics Recommendation: Adopt a comprehensive approach to communicate the pilot and reach out to potential participants by utilizing varied methods and strategies. This should include:
− Virtual channels: Online newspapers, email, text messages, the City’s website, and social media. − Physical channels: Physical newspapers, flyers on RVs, posters in physical spaces (e.g., library), sharing information at fairs and events, and word of mouth.
− Leveraging existing networks: Spread information through the school system, food banks, churches, shelters, and all relevant local community organizations or service providers.

Rationale: Adopting a comprehensive approach using virtual, physical, and existing network avenues is key for inclusiveness and maximizing engagement. The use of virtual channels caters to those inclined towards digital communication, while physical channels acknowledge individuals without internet access or digital literacy. Additionally, leveraging existing networks taps into established connections, allowing for targeted outreach. This strategy recognizes diverse community preferences, aiming for an inclusive effort to ensure program visibility and maximize participation.

The best way to reach out to people depends on age and
generations. The younger ones may prefer email, but having other alternatives is also necessary.
- Low-income Sunnyvale resident (potential GBI beneficiary) Just use all methods: email, flyers, news outlets for public visibility, social media, etc.
- Low-income Sunnyvale resident (potential GBI beneficiary) Attachment 3

Sources: [1] Dalberg interviews, [2] City of Mountain View, Council Report: Guaranteed Basic Income Pilot Program—“Elevate MV", 2022. 45 Drawing from successful pilot practices, a multi-step approach has been deemed effective for the identification and screening of beneficiaries Recommendation: Follow a multi-step approach for identification and screening of eligible beneficiaries.

1. Outreach and application.

2. Initial screening (based on applications) and randomized selection of participants.

3. Final screening to verify income and other desired criteria (potentially with help of an implementation partner).

4. Refinement of participant pool after screening and verification.

Rationale: The recommendation to employ a multi-step approach for the identification and selection of eligible beneficiaries is based on its success in similar pilot programs. Starting with extensive outreach and a simple application process facilitates broad community engagement. The subsequent randomized selection minimizes bias and fosters transparency. Screening for eligibility and income verification, possibly with an implementation partner, efficiently maintains program integrity. The last step refines the participant pool after screening, ensuring alignment with all intended criteria.

Mountain View's beneficiary identification and
screening process began with extensive community
outreach, resulting in over 800 applications.

The University of Pennsylvania (UPenn), the research
partner, screened applicants for eligibility and randomly selected 166 participants who met the criteria based on their applications.

Community Services Agency (CSA), the implementation
partner, handled income verification and eligibility
confirmation. If an applicant failed verification, they were excluded from the program, prompting UPenn to
add another randomly selected person until reaching
166 participants who truly met all desired criteria.

Once this refined group was established, CSA managed
paperwork to set up accounts with the distribution
partner (CFR) and initiate the pilot.

Spotlight: Elevate Mountain View1,2
Attachment 3

46 The use of reloadable debit cards for fund distribution allows for streamlined deposits and minimizes barriers for participants Recommendation: Use reloadable debit cards for the
distribution of funds.

Rationale: The use of reloadable debit cards is a
streamlined and convenient method for depositing funds
that draws from potential beneficiaries’ input, as well as insights from external experts and successful practices from similar pilots. This empowers participants by putting them in control, aligning with their needs and
preferences, and minimizing barriers, such as the
requirement for a bank account or potential residency
issues. Additionally, the use of debit cards allows for easy tracking of spending patterns if desired.

However, a limitation is that individuals may use the
debit cards for responsible spending while resorting to cash for other expenses, making it difficult to gauge and understand how other income is utilized.

I would prefer reloadable debit cards to not depend on a bank account.
- Low-income Sunnyvale resident (potential GBI beneficiary) The standard is either direct deposits or a debit card. I would say that it makes sense to lean into debit cards more than bank accounts. With a debit card, you can set the situation for people to have more control.
- GBI external expert
We are doing reloadable debit cards. It's designed so that if you have certain paperwork, it works as a bank card, and if you don't, you could still debit money into it without getting into residency issues.

We wanted to make sure everyone would be able to get money. - GBI pilot implementer
Attachment 3

Sources: [1] City of Mountain View, Council Report: Guaranteed Basic Income Pilot Program—“Elevate MV", 2022. 47 The combination of strategic implementation partners and in-house oversight allows to maximize efficiency
Recommendation: Engage a project administrator to serve as the implementation partner (ideally trusted by the community, possessing an understanding of beneficiaries, and with the ability to provide necessary support).

Ensure that the implementer is also tasked with subcontracting the distribution partner, who will be responsible for disbursing the funds every month to beneficiaries and tracking spending data.

Allocate internal resources from the community development department to oversee the implementation partner, anticipating heavier involvement initially followed by a reduced workload throughout the implementation process.

Rationale: Sunnyvale's limited in-house capacity necessitates hiring an external project administrator, as research suggests that GBI staffing models range from one to three full-time equivalent positions. Additionally, best practices indicate that establishing partnerships with trusted entities embedded within the target community is the best pathway for success. Furthermore, comparable pilots (e.g., Mountain View) have effectively adopted the approach of having implementation partners.

Subcontracting fund distribution under the implementation partner streamlines operations for the City, centralizing communication and decision-making. Given that the implementation partner may lack the necessary capabilities for fund distribution, it is essential to have another partner who is capable and accountable for carrying out this task efficiently. Moreover, subcontracting facilitates close collaboration between the implementer and distributor, fostering smooth program execution.

Oversight using internal resources is also crucial for effective project management and accountability. This capitalizes on the City's valuable in-house expertise while also ensuring continuous alignment with the established program goals. Moreover, the community development department can serve as a point of contact and project leader, potentially managing transparent communication with relevant stakeholders. Initially, intensive tasks are anticipated, such as supporting outreach, applications, and selection. However, when execution begins, workload should decrease, shifting focus to program monitoring.

Attachment 3

Sources: [1] City of Mountain View, Council Report: Guaranteed Basic Income Pilot Program—“Elevate MV", 2022; [2] City of Pomona, Request For Proposals Pomona’s Flourishing Families Pilot Project Administrator RFP NO: 2023-50, 2023. 48 The effective selection of an implementation partner entails defining the desired role and specific requirements
Even with outsourcing, some resources will still be required from the Community Development Department to oversee implementation The specific role for the implementation partner will depend on the City's needs and preferences, but potential tasks may include:
• Facilitate outreach and initial participant engagement • Support application processes, verify eligibility, and assist with the selection of participants
• Provide benefits counseling, including informed consent, share additional benefits information, and facilitate connections with other services
• Aid with relevant documentation, enrollment and onboard selected beneficiaries (e.g., assist with paperwork to set up accounts for debit cards)
• Offer general participant support and provide case management • Ensure smooth program administration and daily operations • Oversee fund disbursement through subcontracting
• Assist with data collection, as needed
• Engage broader community and share updates, if desired Potential role of implementation partner1,2
Selecting an implementer partner should be a competitive process (e.g., though an RFP) and potential requirements may include:

1. Trusted community presence: Established reputation and connections within the community

2. Administrative capacity: Ability to handle tasks like application, eligibility verification, participant enrollment, etc.

3. Subcontractor engagement ability: Capability to identify and engage subcontractors for payment distribution.

4. Relevant experience and expertise: Proficiency in providing ongoing support, case management, benefits counseling, et.

5. Regulatory compliance and transparency: Adherence to regulations and demonstrated commitment to transparency and accountability

6. Program comprehension: General understanding of program, eligibility requirements for participants, objectives, etc.

7. Flexibility and adaptability: ability to respond flexibly and adaptively to changing circumstance.

Potential requirements for implementation partner1,2
Attachment 3

49 In alignment with the fundamental objectives of the pilot, it should track basic metrics through simple or existing mechanisms (1 of 2) Recommendation: Track basic indicators through existing systems and self-reporting, de-prioritizing a more rigorous study like a randomized controlled trial (RCT).

Suggested metrics to track include:
i) Stable housing
ii) Food security
iii) Income & income volatility
iv) Employment & full-time jobs
v) Mental health, vi) Physical health
vii) Education & attendance of school children
viii) Sense of self-determination.

Metrics can be monitored via self-reported surveys every six months, and/or by leveraging existing tracking mechanisms.

Although not a priority, if the City desires to monitor participant spending, it can do so through the debit card data.

Consider refraining from prioritizing having a research partner, and if necessary, explore cost-effective partnerships.

Attachment 3

50 In alignment with the fundamental objectives of the pilot, it should track basic metrics through simple or existing mechanisms (2 of 2) Rationale: Conducting a rigorous study ranks low in priority for Sunnyvale's community, as evidenced by stakeholder engagement and community outreach. Additionally, potential high costs associated with elaborate studies have been observed in other pilots.

Suggested metrics are drawn from variables measured in other successful pilots, expert insights, and priorities identified during community engagement. These metrics also encompass areas where the GBI payments are expected to have a positive impact on beneficiaries.

The use of self-reported surveys, while less rigorous, allows for optimized tracking without incurring high costs or requiring excessive time and resources. The city can also potentially leverage existing tracking mechanisms (e.g., school attendance may be tracked through the established systems within the school district, local community organizations may possess tracking capabilities of variables such as housing status among the individuals they assist, etc.). This aligns with the need for a practical and efficient approach, primarily serving to internally measure the success of the pilot in a simplified manner.

Spending data from participants should not be a prioritized metric based on input from the broader community outreach and external experts, and caution should be exercised to prevent unintended coercive dynamics.

Research partnerships would introduce additional costs, and conducting a rigorous study is not a primary objective as previously stated. Alternatively, if a research partner is deemed necessary, cost-effective options should be explored to ensure efficient resource allocation.

Attachment 3

Note: Here is the link to join either the national or California GBI Community of Practice, where the City should specify the group(s) they would like to join.

Additionally, coordination with relevant Santa Clara County staff (e.g., Deputy County Executive) is advised to explore parti cipation in the emerging local community of practice. 51
The City should consider participating in relevant communities of practice, both to continue acquiring knowledge and to share learnings Recommendation: Join the national community of practice, California community of practice, and emerging Santa Clara County community of practice.

Rationale: Joining GBI communities of practice positions the City to actively contribute to and benefit from collaborative knowledge-sharing and synergy. By engaging with all three, the City can tap into a spectrum of experiences and ideas, ranging from a wide network offering diverse insights at the national level, to more localized spaces for focused discussions and exchanges specific to regional challenges. Additionally, this has been endorsed and advised by external GBI experts and leaders within these communities.

A community of practice refers to a network where individuals with shared interests or expertise convene to exchange knowledge and experiences. Through collaborative efforts and formal or informal interactions, members collectively enhance their expertise and contribute to the advancement of the field.

There are several communities of practice around GBI that convene policy experts, advocates, researchers, leaders, funders, practitioners, elected officials, and interested stakeholders to facilitate knowledge sharing and collaboration. These include the national community of practice (~9,500 people) and the California community of practice (~50 active group members). Additionally, an informal community of practice is developing in Santa Clara County, fostering local engagement and exchange.

Communities of practice
Attachment 3

Note: (*) Administration costs may reach up to 40%, depending on choices related to research, implementation partners, and fu nd distribution methods. 52 Based on the design recommendations, estimates indicate minimum total costs of $1.4 million per year
— Participants: ~100
— Amount: ~$1,000 per month
— Duration: 1-2 Years
— Administration costs: ~15%* of distribution (~$180,000 per year) Potential characteristics of Sunnyvale’s pilot
This implies minimum total costs of at least $1.4M - $2M per year Attachment 3

53 Significant external funding is unlikely, with uncertain prospects from the public sector, and growing pilot fatigue from philanthropic funders (1 of 2)
County & State
Major employers
If we have the resources, it aligns with our
priorities, and there aren't other competing
initiatives in Sunnyvale, we can evaluate
programs […] As long as it’s community-led and
folks feel good, then it's a question if it falls
under our funding priorities.
- Major employer in Sunnyvale
Receiving funding from major employers is potentially feasible, but contingent on external factors the City may not have control over.

Major employers in Sunnyvale appear to adopt a flexible approach to initiatives, without specific requirements. The decision-making process for financial support is influenced by alignment with their priorities and resource availability. Employers seem to prefer backing community-led projects with local support and appear to be cautious about maintaining transparency (e.g., they may not support requests that come directly from elected officials to prevent perceptions that they're engaged in transactions).

While the County and State have contributed to GBI funding, it now seems unlikely for Sunnyvale's pilot to receive their support.

Funding from the public sector seems unlikely to materialize at this point. Insights from interviews reveal that the State-funding rounds for GBI pilot programs have concluded, with no anticipation of additional rounds in the foreseeable future.

Meanwhile, the County, having already committed funds to four county -level GBI pilots, including programs for various demographics, poses challenges for allocating additional resources specifically for Sunnyvale.

We can’t allocate funds to match Sunnyvale’s
pilot [...] We are not going to have that money,
and we have already put in funds for our
County-level pilots.
- Santa Clara County
We did complete our round of funding for GBI
pilot programs. We don’t anticipate any
additional rounds at this point.
- California State
Attachment 3

54 Significant external funding is unlikely, with uncertain prospects from the public sector, and growing pilot fatigue from philanthropic funders (2 of 2)
We are now looking into shifting the movement from
pilot to policy […] Frankly, we don’t need a whole
bunch more pilots to prove that this works.
- Philanthropic funder
While we are managing a grant in support of a GBI
pilot, I do not have additional grant funding
available for other GBI pilots at this time.
- Philanthropic funder
The current wave of pilots is intended to answer
some of the final research questions, such as serving
target populations that haven’t been studied […]
There are some scenarios in which I can see us
supporting Sunnyvale’s pilot, depending on its
design and objectives. Of course, I can’t commit to
that.
- Philanthropic funder
After 100+ pilots in the nation, there is growing pilot fatigue from philanthropic funders, and interest is likely to be strongest in a pilot that contributes to the broader UBI movement and the transition from pilot to policy.

Currently, funder interest is anticipated to be most pronounced towards a pilot that contributes to either the broader UBI movement or the path to policy.

Foundations seem to be more interested in initiatives that expand the body of knowledge by addressing remaining research questions or serving unstudied populations. Moreover, funders wish to see the transition to policy development, as GBI is perceived to be the government’s responsibility long- term, and there is currently political momentum to create windows of opportunity and garner attention from policymakers.

If philanthropic funders do consider supporting a new GBI pilot, they may have specific considerations or preferences (e.g., prioritizing the active involvement of the target population in the design, having a rigorous evaluation framework with a reputable research partner, among others).

Based on this context, Sunnyvale should design its pilot based on its own objectives and then seek a co-funder interested in supporting it, rather than tailoring the initiative to meet specific funder requirements.

I don’t think philanthropy long-term will just
continue to sustain GBI because that doesn’t seem
like the proper role of philanthropic dollars, it does
seem like the role of the government.
- Philanthropic funder
Philanthropic funders
Attachment 3

Funding for the pilot most likely has
to come from the City
Alternatively, the City can also wait
until a co-funding source is found
55 Attachment 3

Although the pilot program does not utilize gender as part of the criteria for targeting, it is imperative to consider gender-related factors throughout outreach, application, screening, disbursement, and monitoring. This may include:
• Design inclusive materials: Ensure outreach and application materials are designed inclusively and are accessible to all genders • Prevent gender bias: Avoid inadvertently disadvantaging any gender through the screening criteria and verification processes • Offer tailored assistance: Provide support for potential gender-specific barriers, considering gender norms that may influence comfort levels in seeking assistance (e.g., have suitable schedules and spaces for assistance, facilitate childcare support if needed during any stage, etc.)
• Validate gender inclusivity: Confirm gender inclusivity and representativity in the final participant pool, despite the randomized selection process
• Recognize household financial dynamics: Consider power dynamics within households during screening and implementation, and ensure that the delivery mechanism of debit cards allows recipients, especially women, to control how money is spent • Address financial barriers: Evaluate potential financial inclusion barriers across genders (e.g., financial literacy, required documentation, etc.)
• Monitor gender-related issues: Continuously monitor and proactively assess for unintended gender-related consequences, taking prompt action to address any issues that arise
Sources: [1] Dalberg analysis and interviews. 56
As an additional consideration, it will be helpful to keep gender-related factors in mind during design and implementation of the pilot While Dalberg has endeavored to integrate a gender lens into the development of this study (e.g., by incorporating insights from gender experts familiar with local contexts, considering gender during research inquiries and interviews, ensuring representativity in focus group discussions, etc.), we recommend that the City remain mindful of gender considerations moving forward Gender considerations
Attachment 3

57 1. Introduction and methodology

2. Key findings
A. Poverty in Sunnyvale
B. Overview of GBI pilots

3. Conclusions and recommendations
A. Why?
B. Who?
C. What?
D. How?

4. Next steps and decision points for City Council
Attachment 3

58 The City Council has five decision points regarding pilot design Decision points:

Are you willing to fund the pilot if no co-funding is available, considering an estimate of minimum total costs of $1.4M - $2M per year? (yes or no)1
Who will be the target population in the pilot program? (Broad or targeted criteria. If targeted, which specific group and why?)
What will be the design characteristics and what budget will they imply? (i. Number of participants, ii. amount of support, iii. frequency, iv. duration of the pilot program, v. complementary services, if any) 2 3
After the budget has been refined, where will the funds come from?4 Will the City partner with outside agencies to implement and manage the pilot? (If yes, what types of partners and how to select them?) – see next slide5
Attachment 3

59 The City Council has six decision points regarding pilot execution Decision points:

Who will be responsible for the implementation of the pilot? (outreach, screening of participants, benefits counseling, day-to-day support, etc.)1
Who will be responsible for mitigating the benefits cliff? (secure waivers) Who will be responsible for the distribution of funds to participants? 2 3
What metrics do you want to measure and how will you gather the data? (Potential metrics: full-time job, mental health, etc. Potential methods: Self-reported surveys, interviews, etc.)4 Who will be responsible for measuring and evaluation? (Collecting and analyzing data, generating reports, sharing learnings, etc.)5
What will the communication to the broader community be like, and who will be responsible for it? (How proactively does the City want to communicate, and through which channels?)6 Attachment 3

• B A C K G R O U N D O N O T H E R G B I P I L O T S • C O M M U N I T Y E N G A G E M E N T
• K E Y F I N D I N G S F R O M T H E C O M M U N I T Y E N G A G E M E N T P R O C E S S • P O T E N T I A L O P P O S I T I O N
• B E N E F I T S C L I F F
Annex
60 Attachment 3

61 In order to understand best practices, we reviewed 35+ GBI pilots from around the country, including those in California
Sources: [1] Dalberg Analysis; [2] The Stanford Basic Income Lab, The Guaranteed Income Pilots Dashboard, 2023; [3] Mayors for a guaranteed income, Resources, 2022; [4] Mayors for a guaranteed income, End of Year Report, 2022. • Alameda
• Atlanta
• Baltimore
• Birmingham
• Cambridge
• Chapin Hall
• Columbia
• Denver
• Durham
• Gainesville
• Ithaca
• Long Beach
• Los Angeles
• Los Angeles County
• Louisville
• Madison
• Mountain View
• New Orleans
• Indianapolis
• New York City
• Newark
• Oakland
• Paterson
• Providence
• Richmond
• San Diego
• San Francisco
• Santa Clara County
• Santa Fe
• Shreveport
• Silicon Valley Guaranteed Income
Project
• South San Francisco
• St Paul PPP
• St Paul Springboard
• Tacoma
• Vancouver (New Leaf Project)
• West Hollywood
• West Sacramento
Pilots reviewed:

Attachment 3

62 Retail sales & services along with food & groceries make up over 67% of participants’ expenditures
Sources: [1] Stanford Basic Income Lab, The Guaranteed Income Pilots Dashboard, 2023.

Spending data from 7500+ participants show that GBI Beneficiaries use the money for1:
36%
31%
9%
9%
6%
4% 2%
1%
1%
Retail sales & services
Food & groceries
Transport
Housing Utilities
Financial transactions
Travel/leisure
Healthcare
Miscellaneous
Education
Attachment 3

Alaska Permanent Fund1: It is direct cash assistance, but it is different from GBI pilots since funds are disbursed in one lump sum, rather than a recurring (monthly or bi-weekly) cash payment. 63 Current permanent UBI programs:

Cook County (Illinois) - Promise Guaranteed Income Pilot2: Cook County spokesman Nick Mathiowdis said that county officials are “committed to a permanent program” after the pilot ends.

New York City - The Bridge Project3: Megha Agarwal (co-founder), said they are transitioning from a piloting-and-research phase into a more permanent one, and despite uncertain funding it is committed to continue indefinitely.

At the moment, there are few permanent programs or pilots that are committed to continue
GBI pilots committed to continue:

Sources: [1] Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation, The Permanent Fund; [2] Chicago Sun Times, Are guaranteed-income programs working?, 2023; [3] Bloomberg, NYC Guaranteed Income Program Goes From Pilot to Permanent, 2023.

NON-EXHAUSTIVE
Attachment 3

• B A C K G R O U N D O N O T H E R G B I P I L O T S • C O M M U N I T Y E N G A G E M E N T
• K E Y F I N D I N G S F R O M T H E C O M M U N I T Y E N G A G E M E N T P R O C E S S • P O T E N T I A L O P P O S I T I O N
• B E N E F I T S C L I F F
Annex
64 Attachment 3

65 Education & Youth:
• Bill Wilson Center (Pilar Furlong)
• Foothill-De Anza Board of Trustees (Patrick Ahrens)
• Sunnyvale School District (Mike Gallagher, Jeremy
Nishihara, Paul Slayton, Bridget Watson)
Housing & Homelessness:
• Benioff Homelessness and Housing Initiative (Oanh
Nguyen, Celeste Enriquez)
• Destination: Home (Chad Bojorquez)
• Downtown Streets Team (Chris Richardson, Erika Laguna, Jocelyn Chavez)
• HomeFirst (Maggie Crowder, Kelcy Fleming)
• Livable Sunnyvale (Agnes Vieth)
• Mid-Pen Housing (Brenda Castillo-Garza, Dominique
Cohen)
Gender & Poverty
• YWCA (Cristal Olivas, Amie McClane)
Our community engagement included interviews with ~60 stakeholders, external experts, and potential co-funders (1 of 2)
Community & Faith-Based Organizations:
• Our Daily Bread (Donna Beres)
• Sunnyvale Community Services (Marie Bernard,
Catherine Farry, David Hernandez)
• Helping Hands (Alpana Agarwal, Pratima Gupta)
• Trinity Church of Sunnyvale (Ernie Morales)
• Sunnyvale Presbyterian Church (Hardy Kim)
• Rotary Club of Sunnyvale (Michelle Lewis)
Employment, Training & Financial Services:
• Edward Jones (Shane Jacksteit)
• NOVAworks (Marléna Sessions)
Elected Officials and City Staff
• City Council (Larry Klein, Omar Din, Russ Melton, Richard Mehlinger, Murali Srinivasan, Linda Sell)
• City Manager (Kent Steffens)
• Community Development Director (Trudi Ryan) and other CDD Staff – Ernie DeFrenchi, Jenny Carloni, Ryan Dyson
Attachment 3

66 National Experts:
• Economic Security Project (Mona Masri, Shafeka
Hashash)
• Jain Family Institute (Jack Landry)
• Mayors for Guaranteed Income (Cameron Burns,
Kathrine Cagat)
• Miracle Messages (Madeline Mazzocchi, Nelly Stastny,
Benjamin Henwood)
• My Path San Francisco (Margaret Libby)
• Policy Engine (Max Ghenis)
• Stanford Basic Income Lab (Sean Kline)
• The Universal Income Project (Jim Pugh)
• City of Los Angeles Department for Community
Investment For Families (Aaron Strauss)
• Mountain View (John Lang)
Public Sector Funders:
• Santa Clara County (Office of the County Executive)
• California Department of Social Services
Our community engagement included interviews with ~60 stakeholders, external experts, and potential co-funders (2 of 2)
Philanthropic donors:
• Blue Shield of CA Foundation
• California Endowment*
• California Wellness Foundation
• eBay Foundation*
• Golden State Opportunity*
• Irvine Foundation
• Packard Foundation
• Rosenberg Foundation
• San Francisco Foundation
• SH Cowell Foundation*
• Silicon Valley Community Foundation
• Tipping Point Community
• Y&H Soda Foundation
Major Sunnyvale employers:
• Google
• Intuitive Surgical
Note: (*) Engaged via email.

Attachment 3

67 Our approach to engaging the focus groups & town halls was grounded in principles and best practices derived from other successful GBI pilots Sources: [1] Dalberg Expertise; [2] Queensland Government, Community engagement toolkit for planning, 2017; [3] Oakland Thrives, Oakland Rooted & Rising: A 10-Year Strategic Investment, 2023; [4] Stanford Basic Income Lab, Basic income and local government - a guide to municipal pilots, 2022.

7. Applying a racial and
gender justice lens

1. Centering the
community 2. Ensuring inclusion

5. Ensuring
transparency

6. Sharing timely and
clear information

3. Fostering
participation

4. Guaranteeing
respect

8. Remaining open and
flexible
Attachment 3

68 – GBI payments: ~$1 M
– Administration and implementation: ~$270 K
– Payment distribution: ~$38k
– Research and external evaluation: ~$212 K
– Community engagement: ~$2 K
– Benefits conservation fund: ~$50 K
– Project contingency: ~$8 K
Total budget: ~$1.6 M for the first year
Mountain view had a budget of $1.6M for their first year, without considering internal resources
Basic budget estimate
• Research indicated that GBI staffing models range
from one to three full-time equivalent positions
• Mountain View allocated funding to their
implementation partner (CSA) equivalent to two full-
time employees for case management-level
assistance at $240,000 for up to 18 months, along
with $30,000 for temporary hourly staff
• Mountain View did not allocate additional budget for
City Staff, opting to use existing resources
designated for the pilot as part of the Strategic
Roadmap Action Plan for 2021-2023
• The City Staff's role encompassed helping with the
coordination of the research design,
communications, outreach, application development,
and other general support efforts
Resources for implementation
Attachment 3

• B A C K G R O U N D O N O T H E R G B I P I L O T S • C O M M U N I T Y E N G A G E M E N T P R O C E S S • K E Y F I N D I N G S F R O M T H E C O M M U N I T Y E N G A G E M E N T P R O C E S S • P O T E N T I A L O P P O S I T I O N
• B E N E F I T S C L I F F
Annex
69 Attachment 3

70 Interviews with Sunnyvale stakeholders suggest a strong interest in a GBI pilot that addresses community needs and tracks success • Most community
stakeholders would
prefer a low-risk pilot
that addresses
community needs and
follows an already proven
approach (e.g., GBI pilot
for individuals with
incomes below the
Federal Poverty Line)
• Community stakeholders
highlighted a wide range of
communities in need
– Most mentioned groups by
interviewees included:

Unhoused residents,
residents at risk of becoming
homeless or recently housed,
and low-income families with
children
– Less mentioned groups by
interviewees: Low-income
community college students,
Domestic violence survivors,
Low-income seniors,
Undocumented residents,
Foster youth, BIPOC
communities, LGBTQ+
population
• Suggested characteristics:
− At least 100 participants
− $500-$1000 monthly
− Duration of 1-2 years
• There was interest in offering
financial coaching as support
for GBI recipients
• Other considerations include:
– Losing other benefits due to
an increase in income (i.e.,
the “benefits cliff”).
– Amplifying the impact of the
cash distribution by
leveraging existing services
or benefits GBI recipients
may have (e.g., TBRA)
• Stakeholders want to
ensure the pilot has an
evaluation component to
track success and provide
learnings
• Some key metrics include:
– Enabling access to
housing or keeping
beneficiaries in housing
– Ensuring access to
shelter (e.g., allowing
those sleeping in vehicles
to maintain their
vehicles)
– Boosting food security
– Promoting emotional
well-being and reducing
stress and trauma
Who? What? How?Why?
Attachment 3

71 Community outreach meetings indicate support for a pilot that contributes to community well-being, even without available co-funding • The community supports
a pilot focused on local
needs, leaning towards a
“safety net” approach to
address immediate
concerns and protect the
most vulnerable, while
acknowledging an overlap
with the “step ladder”
objective of fostering
self-improvement and
upward mobility
• A “successful” pilot would
be characterized by
enhanced stability in
housing and food,
increased self-
sufficiency, and a positive
shift in overall
community well-being
• While there isn't a unanimous
agreement on a specific target
population for the program,
there appears to be a slightly
higher level of interest in
addressing the needs of
residents at risk of
homelessness or those
recently housed, along with
low-income families with
children
• The community generally
supports the adoption of
design characteristics
observed in successful pilot
programs and research
recommendations (i.e., at least
100 participants, amounts of
$500-$1000 monthly, duration
of 1-2 years)
• There is backing for the
concept of offering participants
the option to choose between
monthly and hybrid systems
• There is a desire to
establish metrics for
measuring success, and
there appears to be
interest in measurements
related to stable housing,
food security, income,
employment, mental and
physical health, and
education, including school
children's attendance
• The community generally
endorses the idea that the
city should undertake a
GBI pilot, even in the
absence of available co-
funding
Who? What? How?Why?
Attachment 3

72 Focus groups with potential beneficiaries revealed their most pressing need is financial assistance and a positive outlook on GBI • High living costs, particularly in rent, present a significant challenge
• Individuals and families experience monthly struggles and could benefit from additional financial support to cover expenses such as rent, groceries, transportation, utilities, education, healthcare, and work-related needs (e.g., clothes) • Some parents face challenges in balancing childcare
responsibilities with full-time employment
• Residents acknowledge the value of assistance from various organizations and service providers but also highlight the difficulty, exhaustion, and potential demotivation associated with navigating some support systems
• Participants mention difficulties related to entrepreneurship, stemming from challenges in accessing information and
advice, particularly among migrants expressing concerns about violating laws
• In some cases, residents may lack knowledge about available programs and opportunities from which they could benefit, especially among migrants
Challenges & Needs Perceptions on GBI
• Strong enthusiasm exists for the GBI concept, and potential beneficiaries express a desire to participate in such a program
• There is a general desire to receive support and have a reliable point of contact throughout the program
• Individuals have different communication preferences and desire flexibility to receive support (e.g., through email or phone calls, to avoid taking time off for appointments) • Participants highlight the importance of offering options for the frequency of disbursements, recognizing that personal preferences vary between a stable monthly amount and a
larger upfront sum to address immediate financial needs • Suggestions were made for diverse methods for outreach and program application, using both digital and physical approaches, recognizing different community preferences, knowledge levels, and accessibility to digital media
• There is acknowledgment of potential hesitancy among
migrants to participate due to document concerns and fear of impacts on their status
Challenges & Needs Perceptions on GBI
Attachment 3

• B A C K G R O U N D O N O T H E R G B I P I L O T S • C O M M U N I T Y E N G A G E M E N T P R O C E S S • K E Y F I N D I N G S F R O M T H E C O M M U N I T Y E N G A G E M E N T P R O C E S S • P O T E N T I A L O P P O S I T I O N
• B E N E F I T S C L I F F
Annex
73 Attachment 3

Sources: [1] Philanthropy News Digest, Is Helping Black Moms Out Financially Unconstitutional?, 2023; [2] Los Angeles Times, Backlash to affirmative action hits pioneering maternal health program for Black women, 2023; [3] The Guardian, Californians on universal basic income paid off debt and got full-time jobs, 2021; [4] Dalberg Interviews; [5] SDPB, State lawmakers consider preemptive ban of guaranteed income programs, 2024; [6] State of Arkansas House of Representatives, District Daily Summary, 2023; [7] Business Insider, Texas state lawmaker criticizes 'universal basic income' programs: 'We can't just hand out money like popcorn on street corners', 2024; [8] The Center Square, New legislation seeks to ban government-backed guaranteed income programs in Wisconsin, 2023; [9] The Quad-City Times, Proposal would bar universal basic income programs in Iowa, 2024; [10] BoiseDev, Bill would preempt Idaho cities, counties starting universal basic income program, 2024. 74 While there has been opposition in California to racially-targeted programs, some other states have shown greater resistance to GBI At a national level, local GBI initiatives have recently been blocked in states that tend to be more conservative Legal challenges to race explicit (vs. race conscious)
and other non-economic targeting criteria probably
represents the greatest risk to GBI programs.4
- GBI expert
In California, opposition to racially-targeted programs exists, but unlike in other states, there doesn't appear to be significant or coordinated resistance to the concept of GBI. While national negativity persists, it shouldn’t be a local concern if non-economic targeting is avoided In recent months, a small group of Republican state lawmakers in several states has emerged, proposing or passing laws preemp ting municipal governments from implementing GBI programs. For instance:
• In South Dakota, lawmakers mull banning guaranteed income programs, citing concerns about work dignity and government depende ncy5 • In Arkansas, Bill HB1681 was passed in 2023 prohibiting state or local governments from implementing universal basic income p rograms6 • In Texas, Senator Paul Bettencourt opposes GBI programs, aiming to declare them unconstitutional through the state attorney general7 Other states such as Wisconsin8, Iowa9, and Idaho10 also show significant opposition to GBI programs, although it is unlikely to impact support in more favorable states like California.

An evident instance of backlash in California is exemplified by the Abundant Birth Project (ABP) • A lawsuit has been filed against the city of San Francisco and the state of California over the Abundant Birth Project, alleging violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by providing exclusive funds to women of color1
• The lawsuit also targets other San Francisco GBI programs, including those for artists, transgender individuals, and Black young adults 2
Yet, general opposition to GBI in California does not appear to be widespread or organized, coming mainly from conservatives who dislike big government programs and some labor unions concerned about sacrificing other social safety net programs3 California tends to support and promote GBI, but there has been considerable opposition to the practice of targeting by race and other non-economic criteria These government-sponsored and publicly funded
programs are designed to select beneficiaries on a
racially exclusionary basis. This is unconstitutional […] Defendants’ payment schemes also discriminate
unlawfully on the bases of gender/gender identity and
sexual orientation.1
- Abundant Birth Project Lawsuit
Attachment 3

No hesitant comments were noted during the community
outreach meetings and stakeholder engagement sessions,
although the City did receive one email containing a
negative comment and another one seeking clarification1 75 The concept of GBI also received a few negative or hesitant comments from Sunnyvale residents via email and media
Some negative comments were also observed under The San Jose Spotlight article covering the city council meeting of October 24, 2023, during which initial discussions were held regarding the potential GBI pilot program2
The San Jose Spotlight reports the Sunnyvale City Council is considering sending monthly checks to certain residents. It is appalling to learn my city is interested in joining the list of government agencies, from Washington down, who are actively working to increase the number of citizens who are dependent on the government for their income. This is Communism by whatever fancy name you wish to apply to it. Please drop this misguided scheme.
- Sunnyvale resident
May I please get some additional details on this pilot program […] I was a little concerned about the way it sounded. But it sounds more like a welfare assistance program based on socio-economic need. - Sunnyvale resident
Another California handout from the socialist state. Maybe we should build homes for these folks so they can live here. What a concept. - Sunnyvale resident
I wish Sunnyvale would stop giving away my money. The property tax here is obscene. Income tax, sales tax, gas tax are the most of anywhere.

I'm low paid, but I have never taken a cent from the government (minus the covid direct deposits). Now you want to give another $500 unearned money to my neighbors? Crazy.
- Sunnyvale resident
If the city of Sunnyvale can find third-party funding sources to pay for this program other than local taxes, then great! If instead the city decides to burden residents and taxpayers I hope they have the courage to put it up for a vote, and live by the results.
- Sunnyvale resident
Sources: [1] Community Development Department; [2] San Jose Spotlight, Sunnyvale wants to give residents in need monthly checks, 2023.

This situation reflects the landscape in California, where some opposition exists but does not appear to be substantial or organized. Thus, while there is some negativity present, it is unlikely to pose a significant concern for Sunnyvale.

Attachment 3

• B A C K G R O U N D O N O T H E R G B I P I L O T S • C O M M U N I T Y E N G A G E M E N T P R O C E S S • K E Y F I N D I N G S F R O M T H E C O M M U N I T Y E N G A G E M E N T P R O C E S S • P O T E N T I A L O P P O S I T I O N
• B E N E F I T S C L I F F
Annex
76 Attachment 3

• Receiving basic income payments under current benefit rules can trigger reductions in critical benefits like housing, food assistance, and health insurance • Participants may also get caught in a "benefits trap" due to taxation and rules, limiting their ability to increase total income through paid work • Complexity arises from differing state and federal laws, agency interpretations, and income and savings calculations
• Mitigating the 'benefits cliff' risk is possible through strategic measures. 77 GBI poses a risk to participants because of the “benefits cliff”, where extra income reduces existing public benefits
Sources: [1] San Francisco Office of Financial Empowerment, Protecting Benefits in Guaranteed Income Pilots: Lessons Learned from the Abundant Birth Project, 2021; [2] Stanford Basic Income Lab, Basic income and local government - a guide to municipal pilots, 2022.

GBI pilots often face a challenge referred to as the “benefits cliff”, a threshold at which additional income cause a reduction in public benefits
Attachment 3

78 Low-income residents in Sunnyvale currently have access to several benefits (2 of 2)

NON-EXHAUSTIVE
Sources: [1] San Francisco Office of Financial Empowerment, Protecting Benefits in Guaranteed Income Pilots: Lessons Learned from the Abundant Birth Project, 2021; [2] Stanford Basic Income Lab, Basic income and local government - a guide to municipal pilots, 2022. • Social Security or
Social Security
Disability Insurance
(SSDI)
• Supplemental
Security Income (SSI)
Federal level
• MAGI Medi-Cal
• Non-MAGI MediCal
• CalWORKs
• CalFresh
• WIC (Supplemental
Nutrition Program
for Women, Infants,
and Children)
• Unemployment,
state disability
insurance, and paid
family leave
State level
• Childcare Benefits
County Level
• Rental and
Ownership Below
Market Rate Housing
• Utility Discounts
City level
Attachment 3

79 Low-income residents in Sunnyvale currently have access to several benefits (2 of 2)
✓ Social Security or
Social Security
Disability Insurance
(SSDI)
✓ Supplemental
Security Income (SSI)
Federal level
✓ MAGI Medi-Cal
× Non-MAGI MediCal
o CalWORKs
o CalFresh
× WIC (Supplemental
Nutrition Program
for Women, Infants,
and Children)
✓ Unemployment,
state disability
insurance, and paid
family leave
State level
✓ Childcare Benefits
County Level
o Rental and
Ownership Below
Market Rate Housing
✓ Utility assistance or
discounts
City level
✓ Unaffected
o Needs waivers
× Probably cannot be saved

NON-EXHAUSTIVE
Sources: [1] San Francisco Office of Financial Empowerment, Protecting Benefits in Guaranteed Income Pilots: Lessons Learned from the Abundant Birth Project, 2021; [2] Stanford Basic Income Lab, Basic income and local government - a guide to municipal pilots, 2022.

Attachment 3

80 Other GBI pilots have shown several lessons learned in terms of the benefits cliff
Locally controlled benefits are
likely easiest to navigate, if the
local government is in alignment
Pathways exist to waive cash
transfers for federally funded
welfare, food, and housing
benefits
Some federal benefits are likely
impossible to protect
Benefits that exclude gift income
from eligibility determinations
can be protected
Other strategies exist to address
the impact of GBI but are less
effective than waivers (e.g.,
screening)
To secure long-term benefits
protection, legislative and policy
reforms are needed
Sources: [1] San Francisco Office of Financial Empowerment, Protecting Benefits in Guaranteed Income Pilots: Lessons Learned from the Abundant Birth Project, 2021; [2] Stanford Basic Income Lab, Basic income and local government - a guide to municipal pilots, 2022. 1 2
4 65
3 Attachment 3

81 Sunnyvale’s GBI pilot should take four steps to help participants make the best choices and reduce benefit eligibility risks
Step 1
Ensure informed consent
Step 2
Structure benefits as a gift
• Secure informed
consent by explaining
potential impacts on
benefits, financial aid,
and taxes
• Provide personalized
benefits counseling to
address eligibility
questions
• Allow potential
participants to
transfer involvement
within their family if
consent issues arise
• Engage local and state
government agencies to
obtain waivers excluding
basic income from
benefit-income
calculations.
• Seek waivers from
relevant state agencies to
waive eligibility
restrictions for pilot
participants if income and
asset requirements are
state-mandated.
• Acknowledge waivers
may not always be
available
• Structure payments as gifts
(if privately funded) or
nontaxable, non-reportable
payments (if publicly funded)
below the IRS gift exclusion
amount
− This Avoid 1099 tax form
issuance and protect
benefits eligibility
• Ensure government
payments meet "general
welfare exclusion" criteria
for tax purposes.

Step 3
Secure waivers
Step 4
Hold-harmless fund
• Consider establishing
a hold-harmless fund
to compensate
participants for lost
benefits
• Ensure this is a last
resort (i.e., address
informed consent,
payment structure,
and benefit waivers
before resorting to
this)
Sources: [1] San Francisco Office of Financial Empowerment, Protecting Benefits in Guaranteed Income Pilots: Lessons Learned from the Abundant Birth Project, 2021; [2] Stanford Basic Income Lab, Basic income and local government - a guide to municipal pilots, 2022.

Attachment 3

Payments can qualify for the
general welfare exclusion if they
meet all these criteria:
• Made to individuals, not entities
or businesses
• Part of a government program
promoting general welfare
• Provided to participants based
on need
• Not linked to specific services
(e.g., job training)
• Not duplicating expenses
covered by insurance
• The IRS sets an annual limit on
the total amount of gifts an
individual can receive
• This limit varies annually, with
the 2024 annual exclusion
amount being $18,000
82 The pilot design should also remain aware of additional considerations “General Welfare Exclusion1,2 “IRS Limit3

NON-EXHAUSTIVE
Sources: [1] San Francisco Office of Financial Empowerment, Protecting Benefits in Guaranteed Income Pilots: Lessons Learned from the Abundant Birth Project, 2021; [2] Stanford Basic Income Lab, Basic income and local government - a guide to municipal pilots, 2022; [3] IRS, Frequently Asked Questions, 2024; [4] Dalberg analysis and interviews; 5. CDSS, Guaranteed Income Exemption Requests.

Private donations may ease the
acquisition of some waivers,
especially at the state level,
although this may vary depending
on the benefits in question4
– For instance, for GI payments
to be excluded from CalFresh,
they must be partially funded
by private dollars, irrespective
of the amount or source5
• Collaborating with a research
partner may also facilitate the
acquisition of some waivers (e.g.,
by Santa Clara County Housing
Authority)4
Acquisition of waivers4
Attachment 3