The Stockton Economic Empowerment Demonstration, or SEED, was founded in early 2019 by the then-mayor of Stockton, a city of about 292,000 in California. SEED is midway through an experimental project to demonstrate the advantages of a guaranteed basic income. The project includes a “treatment” group of 125 individuals who will receive a guaranteed monthly stipend of $500 for two years, as well as a control group that does not receive the stipend. Participants were recruited from neighborhoods where the median income was $46,033 or below (although they didn't have to show proof of income). Of the 125 individuals in the treatment group, 100 comprise the core research sample and 25 serve as a “politically purposive, or storytelling cohort, or who publicly spoke about their experience with SEED.” (Preliminary Analysis: SEED's First Year, March 2021).

SEED is funded in part by the Economic Security Project (ESP), a self-described “network to support exploration and experimentation of a guaranteed income”. As explained on the ESP website: 

“Cash is one of the most direct and effective way to provide financial stability to those who most need it. 

Instead of a patriarchal approach of dictating how, where and on what terms individuals can build their lives, cash offers the dignity and self-determination that recognizes a one-size-fits-all approach is antiquated and rooted in distrust. Years of research show that when given unrestricted payments, recipients are able to pull themselves out of poverty and create economic stability for themselves and their families. That’s why we have invested in both on-the-ground and policy efforts to put more cash in the pockets of Americans who need it most.”

SEED is essentially an experimental demonstration project. It is not a scientific experiment as commonly understood - that is, as an organized and detailed series of steps to validate or reject a hypothesis. The project sponsors have already made up their minds about the merits of a guaranteed basic income, citing years of unspecified research. The project is also too small and carelessly implemented to provide strong evidence for or against a guaranteed basic income.

In a well-designed study, researchers keep study participants in the dark about the hypotheses they are testing, since such knowledge could very well change participants’ behavior and self-reports. When participants know what researchers want or expect to find, they may act accordingly, a well-known phenomena called study “demand characteristics”. Something similar happens when researchers give more attention or encouragement to individuals in the treatment group than those in the control group (aka the “Hawthorne effect” and “social desirability bias”). As far as I can tell, there was no effort on the part of SEED staff to hide their preference for stipend recipients to do well on various outcome measures.

As for key findings so far, the basic-Income recipients have reported greater emotional wellbeing and less income volatility than individuals in the control group. That much is to be expected, however. How could a reliable monthly stipend not increase emotional wellbeing and reduce income volatility, especially in low- and middle-income households? SEED describes the mental health improvement as "statistically significant” but not the reduction in income volatility. I don’t know what to make of that (it sure would be nice to see the actual data).

The most interesting preliminary finding had to do with the change in participants’ employment status. To quote:

“In February 2019, 28% of recipients had full-time employment. One year later, 40% of recipients were employed full time. In contrast, the control group saw only a 5% increase in full-time employment over the same one-year period - 32% of those in the control group were employed full-time in February 2019; one year later, 37% of control group participants were employed full-time.”

Given there were 100 participants in each group*, that means 40 individuals in the treatment group were employed full-time after one year, compared to 37 in the control group - an increase of 12 versus 5 individuals, respectively. SEED did not report this finding as statistically significant. Probably not, given the small numbers. But it is an interesting finding and the authors of the preliminary analysis provided a reasonable explanation: the stipend made it easier for some participants to get job training, thus improving their employment prospects..

However, it’s not clear to me that a guaranteed basic income across adulthood is the optimal approach to improving people’s employment prospects. A time-limited basic income** for adult students and trainees could achieve the same outcome at much less expense and macroeconomic risk. In fact, a time-limited basic income is more likely to facilitate and motivate skill upgrades than a guaranteed basic income for life, if only because the latter could very well encourage complacency and procrastination in those so inclined.

--

* While 125 individuals are receiving the monthly stipend, just 100 are part of the “core research sample”.

** My idea of an Adult Student Basic Income (ASBI) is one that would provide a $1000 monthly stipend up to six years total (minimum one month at a time) for adults enrolled at least part-time in approved postsecondary training and education programs, from ESL classes to apprenticeships to on-the-job training programs to graduate school. The benefit would not be means-tested, so recipients could work as much as they want without jeopardizing their payments. For more on the ASBI, see The Adult Student Basic Income: Better than a Universal Basic Income, Part I: An Affordable Approach to Fixing the Same Problems  The Adult Student Basic Income: Better than a Universal Basic Income, Part II: How to Pay for It  An Affordable Basic Income That Alleviates Poverty and Promotes Social Mobility.

Reference:

Preliminary Analysis: SEED's First Year; by Stacia West, Amy Castro Baker, Sukhi Samra, and Erin Coltrera/Stockton Economic Empowerment Demonstration. March 2021.