Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Guaranteed Income topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Council votes to explore successor to Cambridge RISE after broad public support

Cambridge City Council · September 23, 2024
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

After extensive public comment from parents, nonprofit leaders and residents, the Cambridge City Council voted unanimously to request the city manager and relevant departments study a successor to the RISE/Rise Up cash assistance program and report on legal, fiscal and program options.

The Cambridge City Council adopted a policy order directing the city manager, finance, law and other relevant departments to explore the feasibility of a successor to the Cambridge RISE cash assistance program (RISE Up) on Sept. 23. Councilor Sadaf Siddiqui, lead sponsor, framed the order as a request for study rather than immediate appropriation: "This policy order is asking for the city to explore the options that are on the table legally, financially, economically, and come back with a report that will allow you guys to make an informed decision in the future," a public commenter (Dan Totten) said in support of the order.

Public comment in support of Policy Order 6 was extensive and included nonprofit leaders and many parents who described concrete effects on family stability, employment and children's wellbeing. Geeta Pradhan, president of the Cambridge Community Foundation, said early interviews with recipients showed the program was “life changing,” and attorney Deborah Harris (Massachusetts Law Reform Institute) summarized research evidence that direct cash reduces poverty and supports child development. Councilors who spoke in favor highlighted preliminary research findings and the program’s role stabilizing nearly 1,923 families, while some members raised practical questions about long‑term funding and legal implications of transitioning away from ARPA funds.

The roll call on the order (as amended) recorded nine yes votes and the motion passed. Councilors emphasized that the motion asks staff to analyze funding options, legal constraints (including benefit effect and program eligibility consequences), and possible target populations; it does not appropriate new funds. Councilors also said any future program design will require community outreach and clarifying reporting back to the council.