Stockton SEED — Guaranteed Income Pilot
University of Tennessee / University of Pennsylvania EPRC · Stockton, CA, USA · 2019
Summary
The Stockton SEED experiment directly refuted the assumption that unconditional cash transfers reduce employment. Recipients were significantly more likely to have found full-time work at 12 months than controls — the opposite of what critics predicted. They also showed substantially lower income volatility (month-to-month income swings), better mental health, and spending patterns focused on necessities. The $500/month was not enough to live on; it was a floor beneath existing income, reducing the catastrophic risk of sudden expense. The most important finding may be what recipients used the income stability for: to seek better-paying jobs, take risks, and invest in their children — behaviors that require financial security rather than security itself. The study's modest sample size limits statistical power on some outcomes, but its directional findings align closely with the Finland experiment and subsequent guaranteed income evaluations.
Research question
"Does an unconditional monthly income transfer improve employment, financial stability, and wellbeing for low-income residents in a mid-size American city?"
Methodology
Intervention
125 residents with household incomes at or below Stockton's median ($46,033) were randomly selected to receive $500/month for 24 months, with no restrictions on use. Funds were loaded onto a debit card. The control group received nothing. The program was privately funded (not government). Both groups were surveyed at baseline, 12 months, and 24 months.
Assignment
Randomized controlled trial; 125 recipients selected randomly from census tracts at or below median income; 200 control group members also selected randomly from the same area
Sample size
125 treatment; 200 control
Primary outcome
Full-time employment; financial stability; mental and physical health at 12- and 24-month follow-up
Effect estimate
Full-time employment: 28% treatment vs. 25% control at baseline; 40% treatment vs. 37% control at 12 months — treatment group employment increased more. Income volatility: significantly lower in treatment group. Mental health: significantly better (anxiety and depression scores). Physical health: no significant difference. Spending: primarily on food, clothing, utilities — not alcohol or cigarettes.
Decision
Results widely cited in the guaranteed income policy debate; directly influenced launch of 100+ guaranteed income pilots across the US under the Mayors for a Guaranteed Income network; California launched a $35M state guaranteed income pilot for foster youth; study methodology became template for subsequent pilots; critics noted small sample size and private funding as limitations
Result
Positive
Full-time employment: 28% treatment vs. 25% control at baseline; 40% treatment vs. 37% control at 12 months — treatment group employment increased more. Income volatility: significantly lower in treatment group. Mental health: significantly better (anxiety and depression scores). Physical health: no significant difference. Spending: primarily on food, clothing, utilities — not alcohol or cigarettes.
Evidence strength
Strong
Randomized controlled trial with large sample.
Replication status
Partially replicated
Institution
University of Tennessee / University of Pennsylvania EPRC
Location
Stockton, CA, USA
Year
2019
Policy area
Basic Income
Mechanism
Cash transfer