Strengthening Safety Nets: Guaranteed Income Pilot and the January 2025 Los Angeles County Wildfires

• In Event: How Timing, Dosage and Place Influence Guaranteed Income Programs

Abstract

Background and Purpose: In January 2025, Los Angeles County (LAC) experienced a series of devastating wildfires, among the deadliest and most destructive in California’s history. These fires burned more than 50,000 acres and destroyed over 15,000 homes and businesses. Past wildfire disasters have been linked to significant adverse outcomes, including economic hardship, physical health challenges, and increased mental health needs. This study aims to assess both the direct and indirect impacts of the 2025 wildfires on individuals across LAC. The study capitalizes on a preexisting guaranteed income (GI) pilot program in LAC to assess differences in the impacts of the wildfires for residents receiving guaranteed income payments and for those in a control group.

 

Methods: Breathe is a GI pilot program that provides $1,000 per month to 1,000 eligible LAC residents, along with a control group of 2,000 residents who applied but were not selected. Since the program's launch in 2022, all 3,000 participants have been invited to complete biannual surveys. The survey cycle conducted in February 2025 (just weeks after the wildfires) included 33 wildfire-related questions and an open-response section for participants to share additional insights. We conducted descriptive and bivariate analyses of these wildfire-related questions, comparing impacts of the wildfires on the treatment (GI recipient) and control group respondents. We employed thematic analysis to examine the responses to the open-ended question.

Results: Among all respondents (n=1,626), the most commonly reported wildfire-related impacts included smoke-related discomfort, feelings of helplessness, disrupted sleep, and anxiety about potential property damage or harm to themselves or their families. Participants in the treatment group—those receiving guaranteed income payments—were significantly less likely than those in the control group to report several negative outcomes, including income loss, inability to work, evacuation planning or displacement, physical injury, or job closures. Approximately 5% of respondents (n=88) provided open-ended comments detailing the personal impacts of the wildfires. These qualitative responses revealed four primary themes: disruptions to employment and income, loss or damage to property, physical health concerns, and mental health challenges.

 

Conclusions and Implications: GI programs offer a promising and efficient mechanism for rapidly delivering financial support during times of crisis. The value of GI extends beyond the monetary transfer; its strength lies in the role that unconditional cash plays as a flexible safety net. By providing recipients with the autonomy, dignity, and resources to address their most immediate and diverse needs, GI can help buffer the effects of acute stressors related to job loss, housing instability, and daily disruptions, whether caused by crises like wildfires or by more routine economic strain.

Author

• Judith L. Perrigo, University of California - Los Angeles
  Presenting Author