In Colorado, full-time workers need to earn at least $36.79 an hour to afford monthly rent of $2,000, which is less than the federal fair market rate for a two-bedroom unit in the Denver area.
More than 87% of low-income Coloradans spend more than one-third of their pre-tax income on housing—a common benchmark for housing affordability. Colorado’s high housing, child care and transportation costs are the main reasons why the state’s cost of living is 12% higher than the national average.
For many Coloradans, earning a few hundred dollars more each month is enough. Today, however, America’s safety net appears more fragile than ever and unlikely to meet all their needs.
Nationwide, 1.4 million federal workers have not received paychecks during the 43-day government shutdown that began on October 1, 2025. The U.S. private sector laid off more than 150,000 jobs in October alone.
As layoffs increase, fewer people are being hired into new positions. Meanwhile, the federal government shutdown has created an emotional roller coaster for families receiving federal food aid, as promised assistance was later withdrawn.
Recent federal funding uncertainty has resurfaced the idea of state or local programs that provide money to people with no strings attached.
The rise of guaranteed income plans
Guaranteed income programs were first proposed nationally during the 1970s during the Nixon administration and have become increasingly popular in the United States
The concept got a big boost when entrepreneur Andrew Yang proposed a $1,000 monthly stipend during his campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination. Yang’s proposal calls for providing funds to all Americans to help them cope with the economic problems caused by job losses related to automation and new technologies.
In Colorado, Boulder and Denver have both piloted guaranteed income programs. In both cases, the projects were studied using a rigorous randomized controlled trial research design.
We are an academic research team composed of social scientists with backgrounds in economic analysis, social work scholars who study policy approaches to reducing health and wealth disparities, and urban planning scholars with expertise in state and local policy.
We are contracted to provide independent evaluation and cost assessment for the administration of a statewide cash assistance program for Coloradans. Our estimates include projections of demographic changes, such as an aging workforce, and three tiers of support: from low ($25 per month) to mid ($100 per month) to high ($500 per month).
Launching a state program that provides funding for everyone would be expensive, so we also estimated the cost of launching a program just for the lowest-income Coloradans.
What is a guaranteed income plan?
Guaranteed income programs are policies that support people by providing them with money on a regular basis, regardless of their income. They are called universal basic income plans.
More common in practice is cash dividends. Dividends provide cash assistance to qualifying groups or segments of the population, such as people who earn below a certain level or have a qualifying disability. One example is Michigan’s Rx Kids program, which provides cash assistance to pregnant women, parents of newborns and babies.
Income security programs can be administered at the community, city, or state level. Programs in Cambridge, Massachusetts; Richmond, California; and Baltimore have all shown effectiveness in meeting the needs of their local communities.
For example, people who participate in the Cambridge Rising program are more likely to find work, have adequate food and housing, and make more money than those who do not receive cash assistance.
Most cash assistance programs have been successful. Research from GiveDirectly and the Stanford Basic Income Project similarly found that recipients of cash assistance programs were more likely to be involved in their local communities.
These programs can provide support for people who have lost their jobs or are experiencing a health crisis. In Colorado, a statewide guaranteed income program can help low-income Coloradans facing high housing and child care costs.
Likewise, this program could help Colorado’s growing population of fixed-income seniors.
It could also address concerns that the rise of artificial intelligence will lead to job losses and lower wages for many workers. Researchers at Columbia Business School predict that the share of total national economic output spent on worker wages will fall by 5% due to the advent of artificial intelligence.
Solution, not a panacea
While guaranteed income programs can help those who receive funds from them, they are complex, expensive and difficult to administer.
Implementing a guaranteed income program requires significant deployment and management capabilities. The state must make it easier for more than 5 million Coloradans each month to register, update mailing addresses or banking information and oversee transfers. Some of this data may already exist in state agencies, but no one agency has all of this information.
For example, only 80% of adults in Colorado (about 3.3 million people) filed a tax return in 2023; only 175,000 workers filed family and medical leave insurance claims in 2024; and about 1 million adults are enrolled in Healthy First Colorado, the state’s Medicaid program. Even merging data from these agencies — an effort ongoing but just beginning — would miss some households across the state.
With budget constraints, statewide universal programs must be smaller per capita, limiting their benefits. Giving $100 a month to all Colorado residents would cost more than $7 billion a year. That’s more than half of Colorado’s annual general fund. However, it’s half the price – $3.30. Billion dollars – Provides $500 per month to 554,000 Coloradans below the federal poverty level, or $32,150 for a family of five.
Finding that money within the state budget may require cutting spending elsewhere — possibly from other state-funded programs that benefit low-income families.
Policymakers’ trade-offs
If federal food assistance, including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, is disrupted again by funding freezes or new changes in eligibility rules, supportive assistance programs across the state may help offset the impact.
In 2024, Americans receiving SNAP benefits will receive an average of $6.11 per day, or less than $200 per month. 1 in 10 Coloradans, or 584,500 people, receive SNAP benefits.
However, guaranteed income programs may have the unintended consequence of harming family welfare by causing some families’ incomes to exceed the eligibility thresholds of programs like SNAP. It’s unclear whether aid from the Basic Income Program counts as reportable income.
In the case of AI-driven unemployment, guaranteed income programs can help smooth the transition for laid-off workers who need to upskill or shift industries. However, the scope or generosity of guaranteed income programs may not be enough to buffer workers from the potential restructuring of the labor market that may have already begun.
Assessing public support
Given the high cost of creating a statewide guaranteed income program in Colorado, strong public support is necessary.
Recent election results show Coloradans can support programs that help the most vulnerable families, with voters approving a new tax to provide free school meals to all students.
A recent privately funded poll in Colorado (based on our estimates) found that 56% of voters support a $500 monthly payment for all new parents, the homeless and low-income families. Polls find Coloradans are less likely to support plans that provide smaller benefits to all Coloradans, regardless of their income.
Overall, these polling results suggest that many Coloradans would support some form of need-based income assistance. However, the cost of implementing any statewide guaranteed income program may shock them.
Read more Colorado stories.
This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization that provides you with facts and trustworthy analysis to help you understand our complex world. Author: Jennifer C. Greenfield, University of Denver;Caitlin Sims, University of Denver; Institute of Humanitiesand Stefan Chavez-Norgaard, University of Denver
Read more:
Jennifer C. Greenfield was retained as a consultant by Thinking Forward, LLC and the Denver Basic Income Project to conduct cost estimates and analysis of a potential cash dividend program in Colorado, as described in this article.
Kaitlyn M. Sims receives funding from the Wisconsin Department of Children and Families, the Arnold Venture Foundation, and the Humane Institute. She was contracted by Thinking Forward, LLC and the Denver Basic Income Project to provide a cost-benefit assessment of a statewide cash dividend for Colorado.
Stefan Chavez-Norgaard contracted with Thinking Forward, LLC to provide a cost-benefit analysis and extensive evaluation of Colorado’s statewide cash dividend program. He also has connections with organizations mentioned in this article, including the Denver Basic Income Project (DBIP) and Compton Promise supporter Fund 4 Guaranteed Income Fund.