A look at multiple small universal basic income programs suggests they are effective in a number of big cities:

Pilot programs have sprung up across the country, from liberal strongholds such as Los Angeles and Baltimore to more centrist and conservative cities like Columbia, South Carolina; Birmingham, Alabama; and Gainesville, Florida. Just Income, the Florida program, also focused its stipends on formerly incarcerated individuals, with a rationale similar to Middleton’s. “It costs Floridians about $28,000 a year to hold someone in prison,” the director of the Gainesville program said in a press release earlier this year. “Alternatively, we’re investing just $7,600 directly to one of our valued neighbors, giving them a vital income floor.” In city after city and cohort after cohort — old, young, single parents, ex-convicts — universal basic income has improved health outcomes, raised employment, and bolstered childcare opportunities (and recipients have had consistently better outcomes than control groups).

According to Jefferson, guaranteed income — which she calls “unrestricted cash transfers” — impacts recipients’ lives almost immediately. Early results from her firm’s analysis, she said, “really show that cash can improve people’s financial stress and mental health remarkably and quickly.”

With more data at hand than theoretical projection, the evidence is overwhelming: Universal basic income is working nearly universally.

This article seems more interested in the political aspects of such programs working in both Democratic and Republican states and then wondering if there is political appetite for larger-scale programs.

I am interested in the place-based aspects of these programs. Does success across a range of cities mean that it could or should work in all American cities? Some programs or contexts might lead to particular successes or difficulties. Is there a model or two that can be emulated or do programs need to be tweaked?

Is the success limited to cities or would similar programs in metropolitan regions or rural areas get similar results? Disadvantage and lack of resources can be found across American contexts.

If places do not matter as much regarding effectiveness, does that mean a federal program would be more effective? Or, if there are local contexts that matter, could the federal government provide monies to states or municipalities to distribute?

It would also be interesting to see a timeline across different locations of when larger programs might roll out.