SF DA Boudin Announces Co-Sponsorship of Senate Measure to Provide $1000 UBI for Foster Youth

Share:
SF DA Chesa Boudin

By Alana Bleimann

SAN FRANCISCO, CA – Senate Bill 739, designed to financially support youth across California’s foster care systems, has received co-sponsorship of San Francisco District Attorney Chesa Boudin.

SB 739, or the Universal Basic Income (UBI) for Transition Age Foster Youth Act, was introduced by Senator Dave Cortese (D-15) earlier this year.

Under the three-year pilot project, any California resident who exited foster case upon reaching 21 years of age would receive a universal basic income of $1,000 per month for three years.

If this bill were to become law, California would be the first state in the nation to provide UBI to former foster youth.

Boudin has a personal relationship with the co-sponsorship because from the age of 14 months he grew up without either of his parents, who were incarcerated with extremely high sentences.

Youth, like Boudin, who was lucky enough to find adoptive parents, or who are funneled through the foster care system, are often unable to find stable employment, housing, and education.

This oftentimes leads to homelessness, and “transitional age youth without familial support far too often end up victimized or arrested and incarcerated for committing crimes to support themselves”, according to DA Boudin.

SB 739 offers a temporary solution to this issue affecting thousands of young adults across the country.

Boudin stated that this financial support “promotes public safety” and closes “that gap for those who age out of foster care to ensure they get the support they need.”

Additionally, Sen. Cortese stated that UBI “can serve to provide stability to a vulnerable population and increase the likelihood that they succeed in their education, employment, and physical and mental health.”

Boudin and Cortese said they are “proud to co-sponsor this important legislation” and hope to see it manifest into law in the near future.

Alana Bleimann is a junior at the University of San Francisco majoring in Sociology with a minor in Criminal Justice Studies. She is from Raleigh, North Carolina. She is the team leader on the Chesa Boudin Recall – Changing the Narrative Project.


To sign up for our new newsletter – Everyday Injustice – https://tinyurl.com/yyultcf9

Support our work – to become a sustaining at $5 – $10- $25 per month hit the link:

Share:

About The Author

David Greenwald is the founder, editor, and executive director of the Davis Vanguard. He founded the Vanguard in 2006. David Greenwald moved to Davis in 1996 to attend Graduate School at UC Davis in Political Science. He lives in South Davis with his wife Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald and three children.

Related posts

15 thoughts on “SF DA Boudin Announces Co-Sponsorship of Senate Measure to Provide $1000 UBI for Foster Youth”

  1. Keith Olsen

    There are so many questions about this.  What if the former foster youth already has a decent paying job, do they still get the UBI?  What if they were only in foster care for 6 months, do they still get the UBI?

    1. David Greenwald Post author

      As I understand – and we might be dealing with this personally soon – the individual has to be a current foster child who has “aged out of the system.” I believe it extends the benefits until age 21. I don’t know if they have to be income qualified, but I imagine most 18 to 21 year old aged out foster children are not in a position to be making a lot of money. In fact, statistically we know it’s the reverse.

    2. Bill Marshall

      And, following up on Keith, who pays for the proposal?  All taxpayers (and is that an increase in taxes, or ‘re-allocation’?), or certain income brackets?  If a state tax, it will not be deductible (Fed tax) for many in the $100 k to $200 k range (thanks to the Republicans who gave the tax breaks to the highest brackets, but ‘mitigated it’, as far as Federal deficits, by capping SALT for the middle class, focused on ‘blue states’)…

      Concept seems noble, but where will the rubber hit the road?

      And David, in your 4:38 post are you showing overt, inherent, or unconscious bias?

      My bad… forgot… “it’s for the kids”…

      1. David Greenwald Post author

        Bill – are you aware that foster children who age out are at high risk for crime, incarceration, etc. So this is actually a long term cost saving measure.

      2. Edgar Wai

        The person/system at fault for creating the need for fostering should be paying.

        This is one of the situations where people get in the trap of home economics, taking on a burden that they shouldn’t need to shoulder.

    3. Eric Gelber

      UBI has no strings attached; but few people aging out of foster care have decent paying jobs. Those aging out do not have a family to help support them or have the option of living with their families as is the case with many young adults these days. A disturbingly high percentage of people aging out of foster care end up homeless.

      One doesn’t enter the foster care system beyond age 17, so those aging out at 21 would have been in the system for far more than 6 months.

      I don’t believe the source of funding for SB 739 has been worked out at this point.

  2. Chris Griffith

    If everyone was honest, knew how to manage their finances, didn’t expect any handouts from the government, took responsibility and accountability for their own situation, well being, etc… a UBI may in fact be beneficial.

     

    But reality is completely different. We have people in the US who, when they lost their job due to COVID-19 and started receiving unemployment plus the extra $600 a week from the US Government, they were making more than when they were working, so their new short-term career was to live it up while the money was coming.

     

    We also live in the “me me me” society. If anything, COVID-19 has demonstrated how society cannot even work together on a single goal – managing the spread of COVID-19.

     

    Get rid of the greed, the pride, the “me me me” mentality, the hubris, the not being accountable for your own situation, not expecting the government to provide for you mentality, and maybe UBI would in some form work.

     

    It seems socialists are taking over California and this cannot happen it’s kind of behavior is going to destroy California and its economy this district attorney and people like him need to be run out of California.

     

    This is just one person’s humble opinion

     

     

     

      1. Edgar Wai

        He said stimulus check is good if it is given to responsible and productive people. Basically he is saying that stimulus checks shouldn’t be universally given. So, no UBI.

  3. Chris Griffith

    I got a brilliant idea why don’t we let companies employ these people I think that might be a novel approach just think we could give large corporations tax breaks to hire these poor children and show them the ropes.. But of course that doesn’t fit the socialist agenda though😳

    1. Edgar Wai

      That is how “welfare” should be.

      When someone calls for help, the reward goes to anyone who helps. The key point here is that it should be anyone, not just large corporations. By doing that, even if you are a mom & pop store, you are in equal competition footing as large corporations as long as the person calling for help chooses to get help from you.

      The problem with something like UBI is that it ends up channeling the money back to large corporations because there is no other provider in the market. They all get priced out by the large corporations.

  4. Chris Griffith

    From my perspective I think people would be much more receptive to government provided jobs. Raise the minimum wage to $15/hour and if you can’t find a job, have the government guarantee you a job at $10/hour plus benefits. That job can be picking up trash, volunteering at homeless shelter, pulling invasive weeds at a local park, or whatever else the local governments can come up with.
    Better yet, get rid of the minimum wage. If the government guaranteed a $10/hour job to anyone that wanted it, you could completely eliminate the minimum wage. Kids could work for $5/hour if they wanted. Employers would be forced to either pay more than the government’s $10/hour or have better working conditions, more flexible hours, or some other way to entice people not to work for the government instead.

    1. Edgar Wai

      A way that could work is that if a store wants to hire more help due to business demand, the government can pay for the wages directly.

      This means that a good store, regardless how small, will never run out of funds to hire new hands to expand. As long as people choose your store and want to work for your store, they get paid.

      Minimum wages has the same effect of helping large corporation instead of promoting freedom.

  5. Alan Miller

    y’all aware the U stands for “universal”, no?  Thus by definition, pilots are not universal, and giving to a particular group ain’t universal.  What it is, rather than UBI is “M”, also known as ‘money’.

    this is actually a long term cost saving measure.

    Depends on what the M is used for.  If drugs & alcohol, not so much.  If food & rent, the receivee has a chance.  Oh, wipe that smirk off your face.  It’s not like persons using government free money to accelerate their own destruction is a concept from Neptune.

Leave a Reply

X Close

Newsletter Sign-Up

X Close

Monthly Subscriber Sign-Up

Enter the maximum amount you want to pay each month
$ USD
Sign up for