The City of Boulder’s first guaranteed income experiment will wrap up in December, and officials hope to use its results to raise money for a new cohort next year.
In 2023, the city used one-time Covid funding to launch Elevate Boulder, a two-year program that gave 200 residents $500 a month with no strings attached. A final analysis by consultants found participants were better able to afford housing, food and utilities, and reported modest mental and physical health improvements. But longer-term outcomes, including employment, savings, debt, childcare and healthcare coverage, showed little or no change.
To qualify, participants had to earn between 30% and 60% of the area median income, or AMI – about $30,000 to $60,000 for one person or $45,000 to $90,000 for a four-person household. They also had to show they had been negatively affected by the pandemic.
Matt, who asked not to use his last name to protect his family’s privacy, said Elevate helped his family of six after he lost his job in 2022 and switched to freelancing at a significant pay cut. He said the additional $500 covered about 80% of his family’s monthly grocery bill.
“It’s been very helpful for our family,” he said. “The biggest leg up probably has been in terms of putting that money towards food, heating, electrical and internet bills. That, in turn, has let us have a little more money to do things as a family that we might not have done otherwise that you might consider luxury spending, like a trip to the water park or Ikon pass for our kids.”
Alex Mitter, another participant, spoke in favor of Elevate at city council on Oct. 9.
“A few years ago, I experienced violence that resulted in having to leave an unsafe situation and losing housing, and this program was a huge part of my rebuilding process,” he said, adding that he was able to stop working two part-time jobs on top of his full-time job and meet important medical needs with the funding. “The unrestricted cash assistance gave me the agency to choose how I spent the money, and I was able to pay off the debt that I accrued while being unhoused.”
Surveys of participants found clear gains in short-term stability: Food insecurity scores improved, and the share of people likely to fall behind on rent or mortgage in a six-month period fell from 18% to 8%. Nearly a third pursued new training or educational courses, and most reported slightly better overall physical health and well-being.
However, other areas of participants’ lives remained unchanged, particularly those that could alleviate some financial strain after the program ended. There were no major gains in employment status, savings or debt reduction, and one-quarter of participants remained uninsured for the duration of the program. Many parents said childcare remained unaffordable or unavailable despite the extra cash. Parents described long waitlists and a lack of available options in Boulder.
These findings mirror national research, including a recent OpenAI-funded study that provided $1,000 to participants, showing that while guaranteed income can help stabilize households in the short term, it rarely addresses deeper structural gaps like healthcare or child care without additional support.
Elevate excluded households making less than 30% of the area median income to focus on those who earn too much to qualify for traditional assistance programs but still struggle to afford Boulder’s high cost of living. About one-third of survey respondents received no government assistance, and only 16% received Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits.
The city said it based eligibility in part on the Colorado Center for Law and Policy’s Self-Sufficiency Standard, which estimates that a Boulder family of four needs about $107,000 a year to cover basic expenses. That’s nearly four times the federal poverty level and more than three times the earnings from a full-time minimum-wage job in the city.
What’s next for Elevate Boulder
Whether Elevate continues depends on funding. The two-year pilot cost $3 million to run, and no federal money remains. Boulder’s broader fiscal picture has grown more uncertain: Sales tax revenue growth has flattened, and the city manager’s proposed 2026 budget seeks to close a $7.5 million shortfall in the general fund — the city’s main source of flexible spending. The proposed 2026 budget, set for final approval on Dec. 1, slightly increases overall spending but trims programs across departments, eliminates 19 mostly vacant positions and continues a citywide hiring freeze.
In this environment, major new social programs could be a tough sell. The city has allocated $200,000 in reserve funds in its proposed 2026 budget and will launch a new cohort only if it can raise another $200,000 from private sources. So far, it’s secured about $160,000.
If successful, the $400,000 would cover about four months of cash assistance for a new group of 200 residents. The city is working with the Community Foundation Boulder County to raise the rest, using a pilot-funded $50,000 storytelling campaign highlighting participants’ experiences and survey results to inspire donations.
Deputy Housing and Human Services Director Elizabeth Crowe said future rounds could operate at lower cost than the pilot. At a minimum, continuing the same model — 200 people receiving $500 per month for two years — would require about $2.4 million in direct cash assistance.
“I hope we can find support from our nonprofit partners so that we can run another round of the Elevate Boulder program,” City Councilmember Lauren Folkerts said during an Oct. 9 meeting. “I know that we’re not in a financial position to fully fund that ourselves, but I’m still really hopeful that we’ll find partners.”
Never been a big fan of this program. I think long-term outcomes would be better if they targeted a different demographic – those making less than 30% AMI or just leaving homelessness because they need that level of help just to become stable in housing. I read that the Denver program showed better long-term results with the population exiting homelessness. But for 30-60% AMI folks, this is just a finger in the dike. As stated in the article, there are so many structural challenges like health care and child care, etc., that $500/month is not enough to address those things (even double that amount wouldn’t cover child care expenses for one child). And most of these people who benefitted from the program do have families so are less flexible with living arrangements and likely even more vulnerable to constantly escalating housing costs (they can just add more roommates). Worst of all, it only served a tiny fraction of the people in that income range, and there will never be a way to scale this model. This was just another example of how we nibble around the edges of major problems and call it a win.