(The Center Square) — After months of discussion and the adoption of similar programs by some of its neighbors, Loudoun County leadership voted down a guaranteed income pilot program.
In a surprising turn of events, Loudoun County’s Board of Supervisors abandoned the pursuit of a new economic mobility pilot in a 3-5-1 vote. Months earlier, in May, the board had voted 6-2-1 in favor of appropriating $2 million of county fund balance dollars to the program’s development.
Supervisors Michael Turner, D-Ashburn, Kristen Umstattd, D-Leesburg, and Caleb Kershner, R-Catoctin, joined those opposing (Kershner was absent for the May vote) and Laura TeKrony, D-Little River, abstained from voting. However, she had supported May’s motion.
The City of Alexandria, Arlington and Fairfax counties have all implemented guaranteed income pilots – short-term, experimental programs that give participants monthly direct cash benefits to help meet economic needs. Loudoun had discussed doing the same.
Ultimately, the “no strings attached” aspect, a defining feature of such programs, gave the majority pause. In order to qualify as a guaranteed income program, the program can’t stipulate how recipients spend the money, nor can it require them to respond to program surveys, though the county can offer additional incentives for participation in data collection.
“This is not going to be scientific. We can fool ourselves into thinking that we’re doing a scientific trial but we’re not because the quality of the data coming back is going to be self-selected,” said Supervisor Matthew Letourneau, R-Dulles, during Tuesday’s board meeting. Letourneau opposed the program from the beginning.
Loudoun had considered giving 60 families living at 30%, or just under $50,000, of the area’s median income level a $500 monthly cash benefit. Umstattd, who recently voiced her disapproval of the program at a finance committee meeting in favor of more targeted assistance programs, reiterated her concerns.
“We are creating a whole new infrastructure to give money… to folks whose need is well-demonstrated, without guardrails at this point for any use they might care to put these funds to,” Umstattd said. “Our critical needs in the county are food, shelter [and] medical care, and I think we should use our existing infrastructure to potentially beef up those areas.”
Though TeKrony did not outright oppose the program, she asked a series of pointed financial questions. Before the board’s vote in May to support the program through county surplus funds, it was thought that money for the program would come from the federally funded American Rescue Plan. As staff researched the program and details became more apparent, supervisors were asked more specific questions about expenses.
TeKrony seemed to have issues with implementation costs, as the direct cash benefit to households only accounted for roughly 20% of the total program cost, as well as with remaining financial unknowns.
“Why wasn’t the temporary staffing included in the budget estimate?” she asked.
“There are several temporary staffing options that are being employed in neighboring jurisdictions, so we would like to explore that as part of either additional supports or through the contract administration, there would be supports built into that,” replied Megan Cox, division manager for the county’s finance department.
Vice Chair Juli Briskman, D-Algonkian, a staunch supporter of the program, expressed disappointment over the decline in enthusiasm and surprise that the board wasn’t moving forward after making room for it in its budget.
“I feel as if everyone was okay with this when we were going to use ARPA funds,” Briskman said. “For me right now not to support this, I feel like would kind of be going a little bit back on what I feel like was kind of an agreement.”
“I feel as if there are more statistics out there supporting the success of these programs,” she added, citing articles and reports from other programs of increased part-time work, entrepreneurship, success in paying down credit card debt and positive effects on mental health and family relationships. “This is a pilot program; I’m happy to support it and see how it goes.”
Chair Phyllis Randall, D-At Large, chose not to support the program, likening it to school vouchers in that it “benefit[s] a small group” and has “very few guardrails.”
“This is school vouchers on steroids. If I don’t support school vouchers, why would I support this?” Randall asked.
Though Supervisor Koran Saines, D-Sterling, who had championed the program, remained committed and pleaded with his colleagues – nearly all mentioned their “deep respect” for Saines when sharing their objections – the proposal was killed Tuesday.
