Poverty and the Future

Addressing Poverty in California: A Conversation with EPIC President Devon Gray

In this episode of the Project Good podcast the focus is on combating poverty in the United States, with

special emphasis on California. The podcast features Devon Gray, president of End Poverty in California

(EPIC), who discusses the stark statistics of poverty in California, the systemic issues contributing to

economic disparity, and EPIC's work in advocating for equitable policies. Gray shares insights from his

personal journey and highlights the importance of changing the narrative around poverty. The

conversation explores potential solutions like increasing affordable housing, strengthening safety nets,

and implementing programs like baby bonds to reduce the wealth gap.

00:00 Welcome to Project Good Podcast

00:26 Understanding Poverty in the United States

01:48 Interview with Devon Gray: Ending Poverty in California

09:27 Defining Poverty in the U.S. and California

13:07 Policy Choices and Economic Security

19:27 The Role of Government and Public Perception

28:53 Empowering Communities Through Advocacy

31:06 Broadening the Lens on Poverty

32:50 The San Francisco Effect

34:59 Economic Refugees and Housing Crisis

35:58 California's Influence on National Trends

38:41 The Domino Effect of Housing Shortages

41:29 Burnout and Economic Security

44:47 California's Unique Strengths and Challenges

49:57 The Importance of Progressive Politics

54:59 EPIC's Future Focus: Baby Bonds Program

01:00:19 Conclusion and Call to Action

Guest Bio:

Devon Gray the President of End Poverty in California or (Epic). EPIC aims to end poverty in California by

elevating the voices of people experiencing it, creating and implementing bold policies rooted in their

needs, and advancing a state agenda focused on equal opportunity for all.Prior to joining EPIC, Devon was a director with Evergreen Strategy Group, where he advised gun

violence prevention organizations on policy and strategy.

Devon previously served in the Newsom Administration as Special Advisor to the Governor’s Chief of

Staff and is an alumnus of national and statewide political campaigns. He is a graduate of Stanford Law

School and the Stanford Graduate School of Education, and lives in Orange County where he serves as a

delegate to the California Democratic Party.

Connect with us:

- Subscribe to the Project Good Work Blog to read the article version of the interview.

- If you have a passion for an unserved community, a social justice problem or want to change minds

contact Project Good Work at www.ProjectGood.Work to start your project of change today.

Episode Transcript

Annmarie (00:00):
Hello and welcome to the Project Good podcast.
I'm your host, Anne Marie Hilton.
Project Good is a social impact podcastinterviewing experts and advocates
about the pressing problems that weface globally and hearing how they
suggest we move forward in the future.
The Project Good podcast is broughtto you by Project Good Work.
The goal of this podcast is to inspirepeople and organizations to develop a
mindset that can move others to positiveaction regarding the complex social

(00:23):
issues facing people and the planet.
For January, we're focusingon poverty in the future.
The United States is considered therichest country in the world, and yet, 37.
9 million of itsresidents live in poverty.
Income inequality in the United States isstill considered to be growing, with the
gap between the wealthy and the middleclass widening over the past few decades.

(00:47):
Inequality is also increasinggeographically, with income
disparities growing betweendifferent regions of the U.
S.
For example, 31.
1 percent of California residentswere poor or near poor in early 2023.
Those living in poverty often gohungry or receive poor nutrition,

(01:08):
miss out on good education, andare put at higher risk for disease.
Poor families tend to have lowintakes of fruits and vegetables
and higher intakes of junk food.
They also tend to suffer more from cancer,diabetes, obesity, and heart disease.
The economic disparities are a resultof historic racial segregation,

(01:28):
governmental policies, a stagnationin minimum wage, outsourcing,
globalization, changes in technology,and the waning power of labor unions.
Most concerning is theshrinking middle class.
which has left many people wondering ifAmerica still is the land of opportunity.
Today, I have the pleasure ofinterviewing Devin Gray, the president

(01:52):
of End Poverty in California, or EPIC.
EPIC aims to end poverty in Californiaby elevating the voices of people
experiencing it, creating and implementingbold policies rooted in their needs.
and advancing a state agenda focusedon equal opportunity for all.
Prior to joining EPIC, Devin was adirector with Evergreen Strategy, where

(02:15):
he advised gun violence preventionorganizations on policy and strategy.
Devin previously served in theNewsom administration as special
advisor to the governor's chief ofstaff and is alumni of the national
and statewide political campaigns.
He's a graduate of Stanford Law School andthe Stanford Graduate School of Education.

(02:38):
and lives in Orange County, wherehe serves as a delegate to the
California Democratic Party.
Let's get into the interview.
Over 4.
1 million Californians, including 1 in 10people and 1 in 10 children, face hunger.

(03:02):
An estimated 171, 000Californians were experiencing
hopelessness as early as 2022.
186 billionaires live in California,more than any other state in the U.
S., and more than any othercountry outside of the U.
S.
and China.
California is the fifth largest economyin the world when measuring GDP.

(03:24):
Yet nearly three out of ten Californiasare living below or near the poverty line.
The gap between high and low incomefamilies in California is among the
largest in the nation, exceedingall but three states in 2021.
Devin Gray, who leads the organizationEPIC, is focusing his efforts to help
change the narrative about povertyfrom one based on lies and stereotypes

(03:48):
to an authentic narrative based onstrengths, assets, and lived experiences
of individuals and communities.
Welcome, Devin.

Devin (03:57):
Thanks so much for having me.
Really excited to be here.

Annmarie (03:59):
Yes, I'm excited about this conversation.
I think it's the perfect conversation,um, starting the new year, especially
after, uh, an election year here in the U.
S., um, where I believe this topic wasa key driving factor that, um, you know,
maybe pushed, uh, the results, uh, forwhere they, uh, uh, where they went.

(04:22):
And so, um, I think this is, uh, extremelytimely, and, um, I especially wanted to,
uh, quote unquote, look into the crystalball of where we're going in the U.
S.
Um, I think a lot of people, um, are,uh, sitting on the edge of their seats
here, um, on, uh, you know, in the U.

(04:43):
S., but I think globally theywant to see what, where is the U.
S., what is the U.
S.
thinking?
Um, and so that's why I'm reallyexcited about the conversation
because I think it, um, is a goodway to set us up for, um, I guess you
could say even the next four years.
And so, um, before we get into the deeppart of the interview, I always like to

(05:05):
have a little bit of a fun question orsomething inquisitive to find out the
heart of the person I'm interviewing.
Um, so I was looking intoyour background a little bit.
And so, um, it seems that you, um, As ayoung person, and this is just something,
of course, I'm not in your mind, um,really already knew, uh, what they wanted.

(05:26):
And so you, um, jumped in alreadystudying, uh, political silence,
uh, science and public policy.
So I guess what drove youto become involved in this
field when you were younger?

Devin (05:38):
Yeah, I think it's a really good question.
Um, and sometimes these things make senseonly in hindsight, but I really do think
that growing up in Orange County, uh, aplace that has tremendous inequality in
many ways, I think is a microcosm forthe state and for the country where you
have such abundance, um, but so unevenlydistributed and such deep poverty, often
just miles away from extravagant wealth.

(06:01):
really put a seed into my head inan early age, um, to ask questions
around why government worked wellfor some people and not for others.
Uh, and that spurred an interestin politics and public policy.
It led to me studying political sciencein undergrad, led to me going to law
school, though I ultimately, uh, neverpracticed law formally, and then into
political campaigns and into governmentand now into the advocacy world.

(06:23):
But I, I really do think that the Justseeing how government worked so well
for some and how government invested invalue in certain communities, not others,
was a very defining experience for me.
And I think also recognizing thatthose policy choices around which
communities are invested in and whicharen't led to very real outcomes for

(06:44):
the kids that I went to school with.
I went to predominantly low incomepublic schools throughout my life.
Two thirds of what of my classmates wereLatino generally, uh, in a very diverse,
a very diverse part of Orange County, um,but again, you could see how a ceiling
was placed on so many kids that I grewup with, um, who experienced poverty, um,

(07:05):
and obviously that tracked with raciallines, with, um, status of, of their
parents in terms of immigration as well,and how kids who grew up in the gated
communities on the other side of townhad a real floor, um, where no matter
how many mistakes that they made, Um,or how well they did in school, there's
always going to be a safety net from themthat came in the form of familial wealth

(07:26):
that guaranteed that no matter what theydid, they were always going to be okay.
So I think that really shaped my worldviewin a pretty profound way and led to
the career choices that I've made.

Annmarie (07:36):
Wow.
So lived, I would say you had a livedin experience and, um, and being able
then to kind of, uh, I guess, um, be anobserver, even though you were, um, also
intimately involved in the experience.
Um, uh, you know, and to then, um,you know, push yourself so much
to, uh, want to be a change maker.

(07:59):
Yeah, I would say so, yeah.

Devin (08:00):
Yeah, I think that, I think that's well said.

Annmarie (08:02):
And so, um, I guess one of the things, obviously right now, um, you know,
uh, I guess there's mixed feelings, right?
So looking from, I'm going to gofrom a kind of a global perspective
and then jump into the U.
S.
So, you know, from a global perspective,the other countries that are, you know,
um, the, you know, maybe not the U.

(08:24):
S.
and don't have such astrong GDP, look at the U.
S.
as like, uh, I would say in some ways,like, why are those people always whining?

Devin (08:34):
Yeah,

Annmarie (08:34):
right.
Right.
Um, so they're, you know, like, uh,I think sometimes they would say,
like, you know, they don't know whatreal, real struggle is, you know?
Um, so, you know, when we start, so thenwhen we're talking about poverty in the U.
S., you know, I think it's a, asensitive topic when it comes out
from a global perspective, but thento, um, know that there is, I guess

(08:57):
you would say there's There's twotypes of, uh, of poverty, right?
There's, um, uh, kind of a, a relativepoverty, um, and then there's the, you
know, um, I guess, uh, a poverty that weall know, like, you know, you're, uh, when
we see the, the, um, uh, you know, sadcases is, uh, famine where, you know, the,

(09:17):
you know, uh, either, uh, from politicalreasons or there hasn't been rain for,
you know, years or something like thatand the people are starving to death.
Right.
Um, so when we come in to define,um, what is, uh, I guess, what does
poverty really look like in the U.
S.
and, uh, what does it look like, um, sinceyou specifically reside in California?

Devin (09:41):
Yeah.
I mean, I think it's a really goodquestion because, sort of to your point,
there are so many different ways for usto measure poverty, and even within the U.
S.
and even within California.
Uh, advocates and folks in government,uh, rely on a range of metrics, uh,
but I think simply put, I definepoverty along two main verticals.
The first is just simply not havingenough consistent income to meet

(10:03):
the basic costs of daily life.
Uh, and that is, I think, a goodexplanation as to why in some
countries that might have lower GDPand maybe lower, uh, median income.
The cost of living is such thatfolks are able to live comfortably
and meet their basic needs.
And you see that yieldingthings like disparate life
expectancies, where folks in the U.

(10:23):
S.
who were lower income often have lowerlife expectancies than folks in middle
income countries, just by virtue ofthe fact that people here struggle to
meet basic needs because things arepretty expensive, relatively speaking.
And then the second vertical, and I thinkmaybe even the more interesting one,
is not having enough wealth or assetsto be able to achieve real economic

(10:44):
security, such that you can exercisereal choice in the economy and are
protected against economic catastrophe.
And the caveat that I would add tothat is, when we're thinking about The
guarantees that you have in the economythat the government can provide well in
the US, you know, our biggest safety netis oftentimes our wealth, which is so

(11:04):
often tied up into property ownership.
But in other countries that againmight have lower per capita GDP,
there's a much more robust safety net.
And there is a protection against povertyfrom that because their governments
have made choices to protect peopleagainst economic catastrophe by
virtue of, um, a robust public housingnetwork or, uh, cash subsidies that

(11:24):
protect people if they lose their jobs.
So I think when we talk about wealthand assets, it's not just about,
uh, your equity in your home or theamount of money in your 401k, it's
also what are the safety nets thatthe government's going to provide
for you to make sure that you don'tfall below a certain living standard.

Annmarie (11:39):
Yes, and so I guess and this I guess is the thing that was kind of on
the election Yeah, you know governmentversus more government versus less
government kind of and so in I guess theUh, situation that we are in and I think,
um, you know, obviously one of the, thebiggest effects that, um, uh, you know,

(12:05):
um, not only hit here, but globally isthat we, this, uh, the pandemic, whether
people want to, you know, um, believe itor not, it has extreme aftershocks still.
Um, and so, you know, we're, we'renow, uh, five years out from 2020,
and, um, we're still experiencing,and I think we, we expected, unless we

(12:28):
were totally clueless, um, that, uh,there were going to be consequences
for, um, having that, uh, experience.
That's what I'll just call it, experience.
Ha, ha, ha, ha.
Um, and, and so now we find ourselves,um, in, I don't know, uh, if this was,
I'm sure from if I was an economist,this was probably one of the, um,

(12:53):
you know, uh, scenarios that werelooked at that could have played out.
And so now are we in a scenariothat you think is, um, going to,
uh, be possibly getting worse?

Devin (13:07):
I think so by virtue of I think the policy choices that we're going to
be seeing over the next couple of months,if not weeks, um, and I look to the new
Congress that was sworn in today andthe president that's going to be sworn
in in a few weeks, and we know what thepriorities are going to be for Republicans
in Washington, and it's basicallygoing to be to continue to redirect.
Wealth, uh, away from middleclass and towards the 1%.

(13:28):
Uh, and the chief priority for Congressgoing into this year is going to be the
renewal of the Trump tax cuts, whichtook place in 2017, which are set to
expire, uh, in 2026, the next year,and it's going to be a priority for
them to renew it for another 10 years.
Uh, and for folks who don't know, thetax cuts that took place back in 2017
essentially were, uh, a massive cut onhouseholds making over 400, 000 a year.

(13:51):
And a big reduction in the corporatetax rate down to a flat rate of 21%.
Uh, and what's it, the shame aboutit all is that it's going to grow
our deficit by over four and a halftrillion dollars and instead of.
Uh, investing in families throughan expanded child tax credit or
in low wage workers through theearned income tax credit or in child
care subsidies to help families.
We're going to see, uh, the trendsof wealth being directed away from

(14:15):
the middle class and towards the topend continue in a more fervent pace.
So I think that when we're, we'recontemplating the results of the election.
And the economic insecurity that peopleare feeling, which I think is justified,
uh, because we have eyes and ears andwe know the statistics and we know that
poverty is still unacceptably high.
I think the sad irony is that theelection outcomes, which I think many

(14:36):
correctly viewed as a rebuke of thestatus quo, are probably going to
exacerbate the challenges even further.

Annmarie (14:44):
I have to go.
Depressing,

Devin (14:46):
sorry, but I think we've got to be sober about what
we're up against there, right?
I think it calls upon us totell a better story about
what's happening in the economy.
Because I think working families arebeing robbed blind at the moment.
And if we're not telling an effectivestory, it allows space for demagoguery
to Have the blame be shifted towardsimmigrants, towards poor people,

(15:07):
towards communities of color ina way that we've seen obviously
weaponized for many decades, if notcenturies now, but it's a shame that
we've not been able to correctlyidentify the villains in the story.

Annmarie (15:17):
Yes, and I guess, you know, um, I'll just jump to the
thing that everybody always wants.
Um, uh, what's, uh, I guess ifyou were going to give a list of
what would you say are maybe topsolutions that we could work towards?

Devin (15:31):
Yeah, absolutely.
I think the, I think it probablyrequires us to identify a lot of the
causes of poverty, which I think inCalifornia are really not terribly
different than the rest of the country.
Uh, the first is people are feelingpinched economically because of
exorbitant housing costs, right?
Uh, in California, that's particularlytrue, and it's the reason why.

(15:52):
California, uh, when adjustingfor cost of living has the highest
rate of poverty of any state.
It's because we don't buildnearly enough affordable housing.
We frankly don't build enoughhousing at all income levels.
And one of the things that I wasreally pleased that, uh, the Harris
campaign, at least, um, going intothe November election was discussing
was, uh, a massive expansion of ourhousing supply to ultimately drive

(16:13):
down costs and make homeownership morefeasible for middle income Americans.
That's the first thing we need to do,and luckily that's something that can
be done at a state and local level.
It doesn't require federal action,though it would help, obviously,
to reduce some of the, um, therestrictions on building housing.
I think the second isstrengthening our safety net.
Um, we leave a lot of money on the table,uh, because programs like TANF, which

(16:37):
is a temporary aid for needy families,it's our nation's welfare program that
is distributed to states, is often verydifficult to access, uh, and our uptake
rates nationwide hover around 50 percent.
So that's, you know, billions and billionsof dollars that we don't have access.
Uh, but further, uh, expanding thetypes of safety net programs and
tax credits that worked successfullyduring the Biden years, um, the Child

(16:58):
Tax Credit, which was part of theAmerican Rescue Plan in 2021, saw,
uh, this tax credit, which gave directcash aid of 3, 000 to 5, 600, 6, 700.
to middle and low incomefamilies across the country.
Remarkably successful program that cutchild poverty in half in a single year.
Uh, that was ultimately not renewed bycongressional Republicans and Joe Manchin,

(17:20):
unfortunately, the following year.
And the catastrophic part of it wasthat we saw the single largest one year
increase in poverty in American historyonce this program was rolled back.
So I think it's something that we canfocus on, hopefully in a bipartisan way
because the results were so successfulback in 2021, uh, for reducing poverty.
And then, uh, finally, I thinkthe earned income tax credit

(17:40):
expansion is also really important.
I doubt it will be a priorityof Republicans in Congress, but
it is a really effective toolfor putting more money into the
pockets of, uh, low income workers.

Annmarie (17:51):
Now, I guess, uh, so essentially getting, you know, our, our
safety nets up and getting more moneyin the pocket of people to, you know,
uh, not only do daily lives, but to,uh, I guess fuel, fuel the economy.
And one of the biggest things, you know,um, Uh, people, I'm sure you get this
question a lot, is that, you know, um,just creating, you know, yet another

(18:17):
program, um, you know, why can't weever get to, I guess, um, uh, is it just
because nobody wants to, like, this isgoing to sound maybe, um, uh, I guess,
uh, I'll just say a little, um, Whoopsyda inventory a little bit for the, the
question, but, you know, why can't we,um, just get to solve the, the solution?

(18:43):
Is it because everybody wants to, Iguess, quote unquote play the game
and keep, um, uh, such a, such ainequality disparity to be a winner?
Yeah.
I guess.
Um, you to say yes, . Yeah.
Yes.
Is this a game?
Okay.

Devin (18:58):
You know, we allow these ties.
Mm-hmm . We allow for these policychoices to take place because.
First off, a lot of peoplebenefit from poverty.
There's a lot of money to be made inlarge swaths of the American public
and folks in California in particularnot having enough to meet basic needs.
It's very profitablefor certain industries.
I don't believe it's profitablefor the economy writ large.

(19:18):
I think we all suffer in aggregate,but there are certainly vested
interests that spend political moneythat benefit from the status quo.
But I think another piece of this reallyis The set of underlying beliefs that
that people use to explain why povertyexists and why it applies to some
communities and individuals and notothers that make it challenging to what.

(19:43):
Make the kinds of policychanges that we know will work.
Uh, and what I'm getting at really isa foundational belief that many people
subscribe to that poverty is at itscore, principally an individual failing,
that people are poor because they'vemade bad choices or because they're
not smart enough or because they'vedone something morally corrupt or

(20:05):
they're lazy or whatever it might be.
And I think in this world of abundance,where we live in the richest state and the
richest country in history of the world.
We recognize and we should recognize thatwe have enough abundance to go around
and that ultimately we allow poverty topersist because we make policy choices
that make poverty an inevitability forat least a segment of the population.

(20:25):
So, I think the first step is goingto be challenging those beliefs.
And I want to make a call back tothe child tax credit because I think
it is just such a clear exampleof how those beliefs have led to
really disastrous policy outcomes.
So, like I mentioned, we hada single program that was able
to cut child poverty in half.
An unambiguously positive outcome.

(20:47):
We saw workforce participationrates stay fairly stable.
People used the money on essentialgoods like any of us would, on
groceries, on school supplies, onutilities, whatever it might be.
But there was a deeply held belief, andthis was expressed by Joe Manchin, and
I'm sure by other folks in Congress,particularly on the Republican side, that

(21:07):
giving money to low and middle incomefamilies was going to lead to people
using the money on drugs and alcohol.
There was a stated belief when thosemembers of Congress voted to discontinue
the expanded child tax credit.
And it didn't matter that we had allthe data, to the contrary, what mattered
more was this deeply ingrained beliefthat people in poverty Are a product

(21:30):
of their own choices and nothing else.
No other structural conditions andultimately can't be trusted with money.
And it's just such a shame because.
It just demonstrates that the story thatwe tell is oftentimes far more powerful
than the data that people get to see,which was unambiguously positive and
should have made it a slam dunk that wecontinue programs like Child Tax Credit.

(21:51):
So I think if we're, you know,being honest about what we're coming
up against and why poverty is soentrenched, it really is those underlying
beliefs that make it so hard to beat.

Annmarie (22:00):
You know, this makes me want to scream a little bit and
say, you know, uh, I get, um, tiredwhen I go to the grocery store now.
Everybody always, like, strangers cometo me and they're like, look at the eggs.
I'm like, I'm sick ofhearing about the darn eggs.

Devin (22:15):
Yeah.

Annmarie (22:16):
Well,

Devin (22:16):
I mean, but that's another good example though, right?
Like,

Annmarie (22:19):
it's Everybody talks about these eggs.
I'm like, any, I'm like, I don'twant to hear anymore about the eggs.
They keep going up.
I don't know.
The chickens haven't changed that I know.

Devin (22:29):
Well, but it's, it's such a good illustration though, of I think
our failure as, as advocates to tellan effective story about how corporate
greed, uh, how it operates, right?
Like, I think there is thisdeeply ingrained belief that the
economy is this entity that isessentially like a deity, right?
Like it exists without individual agency.

(22:51):
Um, it's, it's, it's this God thatrules all of us and it's bound by.
Laws of nature that human choicescan't impact, um, and when we have
this belief about the economy and thisbelief that we've at least not seeded
the belief that corporate greed andprofiteering and price gouging is a
very common feature of the economy, uh,the response that people have towards

(23:15):
egg prices being higher is not well.
Uh, these grocery store folksare really trying to rip me off.
The conclusion that they draw insteadis, well, well, it just must be, uh,
inflation due to all of the social safetynet spending that we're doing or because
of immigrants or whatever it might be.
And so.
I think the pump hasn't been primedsufficiently by folks on our side of
the debate for the average American toidentify price gouging as the main culprit

(23:40):
behind rising aid costs rather than,um, people blaming individuals or the
government's social safety net spending.

Annmarie (23:48):
Yes, you just, you know, you, you said something in that.
And it made me, I, I think inpictures, um, and I started to think
of like, uh, I don't know if you'reinto, uh, superhero movies or not.
A little bit.
Yeah.
Um, I feel like we need one now.
Right.
But, um, but, uh, you know, um, Istarted thinking of the government of

(24:13):
like this, this, uh, you know, likethe ultimate villain that everyone has,
um, and maybe not even a villain, but.
That it has become, uh, its ownmonster, that it just runs itself.
Um, that's how people have notseen that they are, I guess,
uh, a component of it, right?

(24:33):
Like, there's, there's, you know,obviously there's millions and millions
and millions of us here, right?
Um, but, uh, I guess it's the, theold saying that, you know, um, oh,
John will take care of it, right?
Um, because it's so, youknow, I have my own problems.
It's so overwhelming.

(24:54):
I don't even know what to start.
What is this thing even called?
You know, I'm, and does it really matter?
I'm just a clog, a clogin the wheel, right?
Right.
Um, and, and That, I think, you hit ona point that I think that has made the,
the biggest shift maybe in what used tobe the, um, I'll just say the, the engine

(25:19):
or the fueling power of what the U.
S.
used to be.
So if we were going to take, I guess, um,uh, the saying from MAGA that I believe is
what should be the thing of what used tomake, make America great again, is that.
We lost that touch of individual, um,I guess you would say accountability,

(25:43):
but not only accountability,but, um, maybe motivation.
I don't know if I'm using the right word.
Agency, right?

Devin (25:50):
Like we have agency over the direction the country goes.
Yeah, I totally agree.
Um, yeah.
And I, I'd also even say thatsome of this is by design, right?
Like I think if you are part ofa political movement that is hell
bent on making government not work.
Um, it is in your interest todisempower people's in their beliefs

(26:12):
that they themselves can makegovernment work for their themselves
in their communities, right?
And then you can makegovernment really inefficient.
You can make government ineffectiveand delivering tangible policy aims.
And then your original premise thatgovernment is the enemy is proven true.
So I think we have to be very awareand cautious of the The challenges

(26:33):
that we're facing because there arefolks who were hell bent on making
government completely ineffectivebecause it serves their political ends.
And disempowering us fromengaging in government work.

Annmarie (26:43):
Yes, and that's, you know, and that's the real danger that is, you know,
um, is that I don't know if a lot ofpeople, well, I guess I would say a lot of
people are asleep, gave up, or just, youknow, um, want to do the, the ostrich and,
uh, you know, put their head in the hole,um, that that is the, the real thing.

(27:03):
Um, you know, essence is that we need to,if people really want, um, uh, not only
change, but want to get that spark back.
Because I think that's the, that isthe thing I think that, um, is, I'm
going to use, uh, I guess emotion.
That's the thing I think that's weighingthe heaviest on people's hearts, is that,

(27:24):
that emotion of, um, I guess for lack ofa better term, of feeling like one nation.
You're right.
Bye.
Is, is, is, uh It's gone.
It's like, uh, you know, uh, it's a,it's a broken, it's like a, a broken,
uh, family relationship, broken marriage.
The love is, you know,uh, is waning, right?

(27:47):
Um, and, um, and people, you know,they feel, um, You know, a little bit,
uh, I would say discouraged, but, butbeyond discouraged, it's, yeah, it's a,
it's a heartbreak of like, uh, I guessyou would say a broken dream, right?

Devin (28:07):
Yeah, that's right.

Annmarie (28:09):
And so You know, how we get, so the problem is so, so much deeper than
just even, you know, yes, policies and,and, and, and government is important,
but to really get to, I think, the,the heart of Um, the issue, um, yeah,

(28:31):
people need to have like a, a deeper,uh, a deeper, I guess, uh, healing.
And I don't know how, um, I guess, haveyou, and I know I just went a little
bit woo woo, but uh, but how, I guess,um, since you're, you, you know, you
work at Epic, how do you, I guess,get that, that spark in people again?

Devin (28:53):
Well, I think it's through a couple of ways.
I think one is showing up anddemonstrating that there are
advocates who are willing to comeinto communities up and down the
state to be able to hear people'sconcerns and their ideas and solutions.
Um, and be able to elevatethose and scale those statewide.
And to date, I think we've beento 23 of California's 58 counties.

(29:14):
We've been, you know, from theOregon border down to San Diego
and a lot of places in between.
And I think showing up and Both as, um,folks in the advocacy world, but also
bringing in elected officials, I think hasbeen useful for really trying to hammer
home the point that people have a voiceand agency over the policy decisions
that are being made on their behalf.

(29:36):
I think that's really important.
And then I think second, and perhapseven more important, is trying
to provide a real platform forpeople to be able to tell their
own stories and their own voices.
I think a lot of advocates, um,oftentimes to our own detriment.
Try to filter people's stories throughlike non profit speak in a way that

(29:57):
oftentimes is playing to the You know,playing to the audience that we already
have rather than trying to push backagainst the prevailing myths that are
so rampant within the broader society.
So we do a lot of storytelling work,whether it be written, video, uh, we
produced a documentary, uh, last yearthat highlights people's stories and
experiences about what poverty looks likein California and the various ways that

(30:19):
it manifests across our various regions.
And I think that there is somethingempowering in the ability to tell your
own story in your own words and todemonstrate your own three dimensionality.
Uh, because again, the beliefs aboutpeople in poverty are so narrow in the
broader culture, and I think for folkswho themselves either are not in poverty
or have never experienced poverty, uh,the lens through which they see people

(30:43):
in poverty is often quite narrow as wellas either through A very narrow media
prism or frankly through your car windowand not much else that's, um, you know,
encompassing of people's broader humanity.
So there's power to befound in storytelling.
I think that to the extent that we cancontinue doing that, I think that's
the way that we build power and amovement more broadly in the state

(31:04):
and hopefully in the country as well.

Annmarie (31:06):
Yes.
And I like that you are working on, youknow, um, uh, widening the lens on poverty
because, um, you know, I think especially,um, When people think of poverty, they're
usually thinking, you know, of the imageof you're like homeless or, um, you
know, uh, or just, you know, uh, uh, darnnear, you can't hardly, hardly, hardly

(31:30):
get, uh, you know, something to eat or,um, uh, or things like that, but it's
such a wider scope, especially when Ialways, I guess the, the best illustration
to me has always been San Francisco.

Devin (31:42):
Right, right, yeah.

Annmarie (31:44):
And what I mean by that is.
Like, you know, I, I have, uh, friendsup there that are like, you know, trying
to figure out, like, I gotta get out.
They're like, you know, here I ammaking over, you know, I'm making
like 250, 000, but I'm scraping by.
They're like, what the heck, right?
Yeah.
Well,

Devin (32:02):
and what are the consequences of that?
Like people get pushed out and maybeyou're somebody who was born and
raised in San Francisco and you'redoing okay and you're played by the
rules and you've gotten an educationand you're making decent money, uh,
really good money in many cases.
Um, but we create economic refugeesand the spillover effect of that is.
You know, someone starts in San Franciscoand they can only afford a place in

(32:24):
Oakland and then the prices in Oaklandgo up because San Francisco didn't build
enough housing and then people in Oaklandget pushed out into, uh, you know, into
Richmond and then so on and so forth.
And then next thing you know, peopleare leaving the state entirely.
So, um, I think it's also a lesson thatthe, the local politics and the local
policy choices have a spillover effectinto the broader state and region.

Annmarie (32:46):
Yes.
And that's, you know, um, well now Ihave like two questions in my head.
So, you know, um, because of whatI'll just call the San Francisco
effect, like, you know, uh, you're,uh, quote, unquote, considered the
one, one, the, uh, what did they say?
Um, the, uh, the, uh, upper, oh, Iforget what the, the, the term is, but

(33:08):
you're like, um, so you're, you're, um,Uh, making lots of money, but you're
just still, uh, you know, uh, in therate of poverty, um, because you can't
afford, like, you know, a place to live.
You can't, um, you know, um, uh,darn near, uh, afford groceries.
Like, I even had one friend thathe found that it was better for him

(33:28):
to fly into work at San Francisco.
It was cheaper than living there.

Devin (33:32):
Wow.
Wow.

Annmarie (33:34):
He was like, He's like, I'll make San Francisco money,
but he goes, I'll live, uh,I'll live, uh, somewhere else.
And he goes, it's cheaper toget up every morning and do a
commuter plane than live there.
I was like, that's a real thing.
That's

Devin (33:46):
unbelievable.

Annmarie (33:48):
I was like, that's really bad.
I was like, what's the That's

Devin (33:51):
unbelievable.

Annmarie (33:52):
I was like, what's the point?
He was like, collect and get out.

Devin (33:56):
Wow.
Wow.
Uh, that's, that's really remarkable.

Annmarie (33:59):
Right.
And so, you know, so we, we've,we've created this like it's, you
know, and I, and I laugh because it'slike, this is, this is ridiculous.
Right.
Like, um, when we, wethink about that, right.
Like, um, but also San Francisco, it'skind of a, the hub of billionaires.
Right.

Devin (34:20):
Well, yeah, I mean, you know, you spend any time in San Francisco
and you see just the most extremeinequality that you could ever imagine.
Right.
You see, um, People who are living on thestreet, having, you know, going through
a nightmare situation and you look upand there's a Salesforce tower, right?
And you have, uh, you know,billion dollar tech companies.
Um, basically running the city, which,you know, uh, it's not to integrate

(34:41):
people's wealth, but the problem is,is that we're leaving so many people
behind and the middle and low incomepeople have just been pushed out.
Uh, and there were so many people whoI know who are in places in the Bay
Area, they themselves are San Francisconatives, um, but they just couldn't
afford to stay in their own neighborhood.
And it's just such a tragedy that, um.
Folks have essentially kind of pulledthe ladder up behind them, um, because

(35:04):
the home valuations in San Franciscohave gone so far through the roof,
uh, and there's not been a politicaldesire to build enough housing to make
things affordable for folks becauseit comes at the expense of people
who benefit from a supply shortage.
It's a real shame.
It's a real shame becauseit's a great city.
I love spending time in San Francisco,but it just seems so impossible to
live there if you don't have Likeliterally millions of dollars to spend.

Annmarie (35:28):
Yeah, so now I'm going to ask the question because, uh, for
people who are not in California,they're probably thinking these are,
you know, these are, uh, um, youknow, interesting problems that these
Californians are complaining about, right?
But why, I guess, should, um,other, uh, places and states
care about what's going on?
In California, why is this soimportant that we focus on poverty

(35:55):
specifically in California?

Devin (35:58):
Well, I think like in many issues, California tends to be around
10 to 15 years ahead of the rest ofthe country, both for good and for bad.
You know, in the 90s, we saw, um.
debates around immigration thatreally were sort of the canary in the
coal mine for national debates andimmigration and sort of where we are now.
Um, and in the positive sense, youknow, we've been on the forefront of

(36:20):
a lot of social issues that have cometo shape the rest of the country.
But I think in particular, our housingcrisis is something that maybe is,
has been for a long time, somewhatunique to California, but it's
becoming more typical of especiallycities across the rest of the country.
And hopefully what we can do in Californiais not just be a warning for the, the

(36:45):
problems that come when we don't buildenough affordable housing or frankly
housing at all income levels, buthopefully we can also demonstrate the
solution that if we do decide to buildenough housing and we're frankly around.
A million affordable units shortof where we should be as a state,
which is a really daunting figure.
Uh, but if we can overcomethat, then I think it can be
a model for other states too.
But, you know, as a state,we're pushing people out.

(37:09):
Obviously, people who desire tohave the wealth that comes with home
ownership are coming to other states.
And If they are coming with Californiaincomes, they're going to be able to
pay for homes and cash, which is greatfor them, but it will probably drive up
the housing costs for other places astheir populations grow and maybe their
housing supply stays relatively flat.

(37:30):
So, you know, ultimately, if Californiadoesn't solve its problems, especially
around housing, it's going to bleedinto other states in the same way that
For example, San Francisco spendingdecades not addressing its housing
shortages has affected other citieswithin the Bay Area and then within
the rest of the state as a whole.
So, I just don't think that problemsthat pertain to the housing market

(37:50):
in particular really recognizearbitrary lines like state borders.
Ultimately, uh, we all aresort of in the same pool.

Annmarie (37:59):
Yes, and you are speaking of, uh, actually people that I know
that, uh, you know, left Californiafor Idaho or Texas used to be the
Texas used to, specifically Austin,used to be where all the Californians
are like, I'm moving to Austin.
I had enough.
Um, that's like, you know,a tagline saying over here.
And not so much now.

(38:20):
Now people have expanded from Austinand they go to Idaho or, um, I guess
what's the, the, um, The latest hotor what was the, um, Oh, what's the
other one that, uh, Montana actuallyhas been come hot, but then all
the stars that was their escape.
And now they're like, no, don't do it.
Right.
Right.
But, but it's

Devin (38:41):
just this, it's this giant domino effect.
Right.
And ultimately there has to be somejurisdiction that is willing to build
enough housing, even if it's politicallyunpopular to do so to keep prices in
a way that are at least somewhat sane.
And give people a fair shot at beingable to, you know, actually have
a nest egg for themselves and fortheir Children, because otherwise.

(39:01):
We're just going to be constantly pushingpeople and shifting people from one
state and one city to the next becausepeople are always going to prioritize
their own economic security over, um,sort of a tie to a geography, or at least
that's always going to be a big fraction.
And if we aren't doing that, and inCalifornia, if we aren't building enough
housing, Yes, we're gonna lose people.
But the other reality is that willalso create a permanent underclass

(39:25):
of people who will always be rentersand will never be homeowners.
And that further entrenches the wealth gapthat we already know is incredibly large.
So there's no good outcomes for thestate, uh, as a whole, at least.
If we don't build enough housing, again,both affordable housing, subsidized
housing and even market rate housing,uh, but it will certainly benefit
the folks who are already winnersin the economy because their home

(39:49):
valuations will continue to rise.

Annmarie (39:52):
Yes.
And the other thing is not onlyhousing when you were talking, I was
thinking about, you know, um, beingthat California has been, I guess you
would say the tech innovator, um, orat least the, the, the West Coast.
Um, well, we won't forgetthose people up in Seattle.
Um, and so, uh, being that is the techinnovator for, I would say the world, um,

(40:16):
you know, the loss of, uh, people, um,You know, has suspense, uh, substantial,
um, effects not only for housing, but,you know, um, uh, jobs, uh, economics.
I know, you know, obviously people canwork remote and out of, uh, states, but,
um, the loss of, uh, that, that powerall in one hub, um, you know, could, uh,

(40:42):
prove quite significant in the long run.

Devin (40:46):
Right.
Well, it makes it more expensiveto recruit talent, right?
Like if, um, if you have an employeewho's willing to be geographically
mobile and he's choosing between goingto Austin and coming to Silicon Valley,
um, you're gonna have to have a muchhigher job offer in terms of pay in
order to make it worth their while.
Now, granted, this is not to say thatTexas is some paradise for homeowners.

(41:06):
I mean, they pay a ton inproperty taxes, and frankly, it
oftentimes doesn't balance out.
But, um, Just the pure economics of it.
You're going to have to pay more.
And I think Silicon Valleyalready is this way.
We've already seen the effects of this.
Um, their salaries are obviously muchhigher than other places in there
and the rest of the country becausethey have to remain competitive.
But if we don't, uh, turn this around,it's only going to be exacerbated.

Annmarie (41:28):
Yes.
And so, you know, one of the otherthings, since this, you know, obviously
is a domino effect that people,um, you know, are, are seeing, um,
is, there's, you know, I'm going togo a little bit kind of wonky and
twist it, is there's a, I'm going tocall it the burnout factor, right?

(41:50):
Um, I guess that's the thing that Iam, I'm, I'm, I'm feeling from people,
there's the, the, there's a burnoutfactor and what I mean by that, it's
just like, um, it's, uh, the oldthing of trying to, you know, uh,
roll up a, a ball up a hill, right?
Um, and You know, I think, I don'tknow, and I don't want to, I guess

(42:16):
I have to say this with a little bitof caution and soft, and softness,
but people are, you know, they're,they're losing their durability.
They're not as durable as maybe theywere in, you know, I don't know, 1940.
Right?
Um, and so, um, you know, I guess I'm, Iguess I'm concerned not only, you know,

(42:42):
this is in California being that we are,you know, uh, the fifth largest economy,
um, that, um, you know, and that's, andthat's impressive and that we are going
to like, uh, lose our, lose our motivationand, and, you know, I don't know, I
don't want to say all chaos will breakout, but I feel it coming or something.

(43:06):
Yeah.

Devin (43:07):
Well, I think the burnout is real and I think it's particularly real for
folks who have a hard time envisioninga future of economic security, right?
I think it's really easy to findenergy and motivation if the future
is one where you see optimism, right?
And there's some survey data that cameout, um, not too long ago, a couple
of weeks ago that I think showedonly a third of Californians believe

(43:29):
that the American dream is still,it's still valid, it's still viable.
If you have pessimism over your ownfuture and your own future economic
prospects and those that for yourchildren as well, I think it's very
easy to be run down by the challengesthat life offers all of us, right?

(43:49):
But I think it's a lot easier to findenergy and motivation to keep pushing
forward and continue to innovate and tobe on the front foot if your economic
prospects and your economic security,um, are sort of shaped by optimism.
And so I think what we have to do asadvocates really is In addition to putting
real points in the board and puttingmoney in people's pockets to change

(44:09):
the material conditions is also try topaint a really compelling vision of what
the future of the state can look like,where all of us have a shared stake in.
The abundance of the state and of thecountry and where people feel like
they're going to have a fair shot anda fair opportunity at being able to
be upwardly mobile, because I thinkwe're not doing that at the moment.

(44:30):
I think that makes us very prone tonot just burnout generally, but also
prone to political disengagement and forallowing demagoguery to really dictate
our politics in a way that ultimatelyis going to be counterproductive against
the challenges that we're trying to face.

Annmarie (44:46):
Yeah.
And then Yeah.
You know, when I think about California,the other thing is, you know, I think,
well, um, well, I don't know if theimage is still strong, but, you know, the
rest of the, the, uh, United States werealways like the crazy Californians, right?
So I guess we probablystill are crazy out here.

(45:08):
Um, you know, we're always, uh, they likeour innovation, but they're always like,
okay, that's what they're doing now.
Um, You know, and we, one of the thingsI think that makes us kind of, um,
and I'll take out the crazy, but, uh,I'll say, uh, innovative, or, um, the
people who are willing to, you know,uh, push the envelope, um, is that

(45:33):
we have a diverse population, right?
Um, and so California, you know, um, the,the thing that I love about living here,
you know, I live in Southern California,but, you know, it's still even Northern
California is there so much, um, Youknow, uh, you can meet so many different
types of people, um, and then, you know,the state itself, like, I don't know a

(45:57):
lot of states that you can, you know,one moment be in the mountains, then go
to the beach, then, you know, um, uh,swing by, get a taco, then go up to, you
know, uh, a Michelin star restaurant inthe evening, um, um, And, you know, uh,
there's a lot of, it's just, there's, uh,a lot of, um, I guess, culture, diversity,

(46:20):
and a lot of experiences that you get in,um, in just one place that I don't think
can, you know, there's very few places,I guess, that you can do all of that.
Right.
Well, you know,

Devin (46:35):
we have so many strengths, so many strengths, and so much intellectual
capital, and so many, you know,vibrant, powerful industries here.
Right.
You know, our, our ability to challengeto tackle these challenges is not for,
you know, not my virtue of a lack ofgood things that we have going for us.
Right.
People are always goingto want to live here.
And my fear is that the desirability ofCalifornia somewhat insulates us from the

(47:01):
consequences of bad policy choices, right?
Because there's always going tobe demand to live here because
it's awesome in so many ways.
Um, I love being from California.
I'm really proud of being from California.
Um, but I think about.
You know, what happens when in otherplaces that aren't maybe as appealing
on paper, if they screw things up, uh,and make it not a not viable place for

(47:24):
the average person to live, people votewith their feet in a really obvious way.
Uh, but in California, that'sprobably not the case, right?
Like people are always goingto want to be here because
it's great for so many reasons.
And my worry is that we sometimes getshielded from the, the blowback and the
consequences of a failure to address.

(47:44):
People's real, real needs and realchallengers because people will give
us a long leash and I don't thinkwe should take that for granted.
And my worry is that we're goingto eventually push people to their
breaking point where they say, youknow what, I love living at a beach.
I love having access to diversity anda variety of cuisine and everything
else and great public universities andwhatever it might be, but ultimately

(48:08):
I need to be able to buy a house.
I'm going to move to Boise and I'llsacrifice all those things because.
Ultimately, my economic securityand that of my kids is more
important than the great featuresthat California has to offer.
So I just really don't think we shouldtake, uh, we should take that for granted,
uh, that people are always going to.

(48:28):
Um, the people would be pushedand pushed and pushed without
eventually, uh, deciding to leave.
Um, because again, we get along atleast by virtue of having all the
great things that we have, but Ijust, I would hate to see us abuse
that, um, abuse that goodwill.

Annmarie (48:41):
Yes, definitely.
Um, yeah, I call it the, you know,um, Well, I, I have an internal joke
that, uh, especially here in SouthernCalifornia, they're like, well, if we
didn't do it today, we can do it tomorrow.
That, that feeling.
Or, go have a taco.
You'll be, you'll feel better.

Devin (49:00):
Right.
Yeah.
Yes,

Annmarie (49:01):
which is, you know.
And that works

Devin (49:02):
for some, that works for some amount of time, right?
Yes, yes,

Annmarie (49:06):
yes, yes.
But look,

Devin (49:07):
eventually, I was going to get tacos too.
I mean, they do, you know.

Annmarie (49:09):
And

Devin (49:10):
that's how it'll go.

Annmarie (49:12):
Yes, yes.
Um, so yeah, so it's important that, youknow, all of us kind of, I guess, wake
up, you know, um, get out of this, um,um, you know, uh, I guess we're, are,
uh, get out of the fog, I guess, um,and, and start seeing that, you know,
although, yes, it is a wonderful placeto live with so much, um, that it offers,

(49:36):
that we do have to do the, the hard work.
Um, um, And so, uh, because we reallyare in a, um, a dangerous situation
that I don't know, um, is going toturn around anytime quickly because,
uh, people here also like money.
Like everywhere else.
Right.
Yes, yes.
Um,

Devin (49:57):
but yeah, no, my, my, in my world worry is that, um, even more
broadly, uh, in the national picture,if we aren't able to demonstrate that
progressive politics can lead to, Reallytangible, positive results for people.
It's going to make it harder forus to achieve the kind of political
capital that we need to take the bigpolicy swings that could do something

(50:21):
as radical as ending poverty acrossthe state and across the country.
Um, I think we really struggle if westruggle to do the basic things well.
Um, it makes it harder for us to dothe hard things, or at least you can
get a chance to do the hard things.
So, I think, you know, as we're talkingabout what the future looks like, um,
and what the future of poverty in Americalooks like, I think it's going to be

(50:42):
incumbent upon those of us who, you know,are on the political center left or the
left, who are committed to ending poverty,that when we achieve real political power,
that we're demonstrating tangibly positiveresults because We have to earn people's
trust because I think we're starting froma predisposition that people have across
the country that, um, government is notalways going to be a force for good, which

(51:04):
is the bias that we have to overcome.
So, uh, there's just real consequences,I think, nationally if we aren't able
to turn things around in California,um, it's not to say that we haven't
made really big strides, we have,and I'm happy to talk about that.
If we don't ultimately.
Make things more affordable for folksif we don't change our statuses.

(51:24):
The state that has the highest povertyrate out of all 50, if we don't make
our safety unit easier to access, uh,we're not going to get the mandate
to govern at a national level and totake big swings that we need to do.

Annmarie (51:36):
Yes.
And so what can the every day,if you were give, give, uh,
all, I'll just ask for three.
Um, what can the be, I guess,everyday Californian do to start
working towards ending poverty here?

Devin (51:50):
Well, I think that's a great question.
The first thing that I would tellpeople is contribute to telling
and reshaping a better story aboutpoverty, its consequences, its causes,
and the people experiencing it.
I think we have to eliminate the stigmathat exists around poverty by again,
shifting away from the narrative thatblames people for being poor towards one

(52:12):
that Identifies the systems and structuresthat make poverty and inevitability
and really making sure that we're beingcareful about how we view, um, The
people who are experiencing it becauseultimately if we, if we reflexively blame
people for their own condition, we'renever going to have the political will
to end poverty at a structural level.

(52:32):
Um, and so I think that requiresspending time in community.
I think it requires uplifting thevoices of people who are experiencing
poverty and ultimately hopefullysupporting the organizations that
are trying to do that work at scale.
And then I think, writ large,um, particularly with how people
interact with government, I thinkwe have to demand tangible results.
Um, I think talk is increasingly cheapwhen it comes to public policy, especially

(52:56):
in California, where we talk a reallygood game, and we're really good at
espousing our values, but we're not sogood at changing the material conditions
for people, at a, at scale at least.
And so, I think we have to Demandreally tangible results from folks
and not be, uh, bound to the beliefthat poverty is always going to
be some feature of our economy.

(53:18):
Um, there is a belief I think that'svery wide, widely held that poverty
is an inevitability and that thereare always going to be some percentage
of the population that experience it.
Uh, I think we have toreject that out of hand.
And I think that we have to demand betterresults from government because at the end
of the day, um, they're going to be theones who have the power and the resources

(53:38):
to put enough money into people's pocketsto, to make poverty a thing of the past.
And my hope is that generations,generations from now, we'll be able to
look back at the work that we're doingtoday and say, wow, I mean, It seemed
inevitable that poverty would end.
Um, and, and hopefully we have thebelief in the same way that we look
back in the 1860s and, and think that,oh, it was inevitable that slavery

(54:00):
would end because it's such a, anatrocious feature to have in society.
I can assure you that historianswould say that people in that
era did not think that it was aninevitability and that it required a
lot of Vision and political will andfight to end an awful institution.
I think we have to have the samevigor that abolitionists did back
then towards abolishing poverty today.

Annmarie (54:20):
Yes, well said.
And my last and final questionfor you is going back to Epic.
Um, and so now it is 2025, um, and,uh, um, obviously we just have, uh,
we have a, uh, I'll just call itthe changing of the guard coming up.

Devin (54:37):
Yes.

Annmarie (54:38):
Um, and so, um, Uh, what would you say, and, you know, I don't
know, um, if you're, you're, uh, youknow, uh, waiting to see how things
unfold in the first quarter, um, butwhat would you say is going to be one
of the main focuses in 2025 for EPIC?

Devin (54:59):
Well, I think we're It's going to be a little bit of wait and see to
a certain extent because, um, I knowthis for a fact, but the state and the
legislature and the Department of Financewho set the budget every year are really
trying to make sure that we set somemoney aside to be able to protect the
most vulnerable Californians from anyaction that the federal government might
take, um, particularly for immigrants,and there's going to be a lot of money

(55:22):
set aside for Engaging in litigationagainst the Trump administration.
That's all well and good.
Um, it does make our fiscal picture asa state a little bit more challenging
than we were hoping for, but thatsaid, the thing that we're focusing,
uh, a good bulk of our time on is.
The state's first and nation'slargest baby bonds program.
It's a program that we got passed a coupleof years ago, um, that sets a hundred

(55:46):
million dollars in one time funding asideand 15 million ongoing funding aside
to create state funded, uh, trust bondaccounts of around 4, 500 for around 60,
000 young people in the state, uh, whoare principally either folks who have
been in long term foster care or childrenwho were low income and lost a parent or

(56:07):
guardian to COVID during the pandemic.
They will each get a baby bondstarting sometime within the next
12 months, which is really exciting.
So we're doing a lot of work with thestate, with the treasurer's office, uh,
and other advocates and local partnersto make sure that that program, uh,
hits the ground running next year.
That's a really big developmentbecause When we're talking a lot
about wealth and assets, this ishow we cut the racial wealth gap.

(56:28):
It's by seeding wealth in thecommunities and the individuals who
have been systemically disinvested in.
And I think Both foster youth andkids who have been COVID bereaved are
a really good place for us to start.
Obviously the hope is over the nextdecade or so that we can expand that
program to include all low incomeCalifornians, but at the very least I
think this is a really interesting placefor us to start and it's a tangible

(56:49):
impact for the around 58 to 60, 000 kidswho will be recipients of this fund.
So it's a really big win for us and forfolks who believe in asset building and
for direct cash aid for folks who arethe most vulnerable and we just have to
make sure that the program, um, works.
It's a home run because, um, It'sa really good opportunity for us
to demonstrate that investing inpeople, uh, as a state is not just

(57:12):
symbolically valuable, but it's goodfor all of us in a really tangible way.

Annmarie (57:17):
I absolutely love that because, um, not only, of course,
you're helping, um, uh, children andyoung people, but it is something that
everyone, um, not only in California,but the, the planet can relate on.
relate to because we all wentthrough that, um, tragedy.
Um, and so it is, uh, I guess, uh, theperfect demonstration of, um, you know,

(57:40):
how poverty, it's exactly what you weresaying that it takes off that, um, uh,
I guess we'll say stereotype of whatpeople think poverty is because, you know.
Uh, at least we didn't know, um, that,uh, you know, we were gonna be having
this, uh, uh, invisible disease thatwould, uh, come in and, and wipe out,

(58:02):
uh, you know, uh, millions, millionsof people and, you know, um, and
leave this all locked up for years.
Um, so, you know, that itselfshould, uh, you know, that hits.
That should hit home for every singleperson, uh, you know, entirely,
entirely because they experienced it.

(58:24):
Yes.

Devin (58:25):
And I think that, you know, even if you yourself are not a beneficiary
of a program like this, what I think isobvious is we're trying to reshape the
ways that government can invest in people.
And I think if we're really seriousabout trying to close the wealth gap,
and the racial wealth gap in particular,which, by the way, is as wide today

(58:47):
as it was when, The Civil RightsAct of 1964 was passed nationally.
Um, the way that we do thatis by providing types of.
Investments and nest eggs that rich kidsand middle income kids probably take
for granted, which is, you know, a nestegg of cash that people can access to

(59:07):
to build wealth, whether it be start abusiness or to start to save money for
a down payment for a home or startupcapital or money for higher education.
Those are the kinds ofassets and tools that.
Rich kids have easily right?
Uh, and if we're able and it'show they're able to build wealth,

(59:27):
uh, starting at a very early age.
And if we're able to start thatprocess for the most vulnerable
kids, which in this case are kidswho don't have parents, right?
Which is how most of us receiveany sort of wealth or a leg up.
I think it's really, um, I thinkit's a really powerful demonstration
of what government can do.
And I expect that it will go really well.
And I have no doubt that, um, theresults of of this program will differ

(59:51):
from the other kinds of baby bondsprograms around the country and and
the guaranteed income pilots, um, whichis slightly different but a similar
philosophy that we've seen that startedin Stockton and have been proliferated
throughout the rest of the state andthe country that show unambiguously
positive results for the people whoreceive those kinds of investments.
So I'm really excited to see where itgoes and I'm really excited to be able
to have it be a test case that can beexpanded to even more low income kids

(01:00:15):
around the state and around the country.

Annmarie (01:00:17):
Yes, love it.
Thank you, Devin, yourfor your time and insight.
To learn more about Deon Gray and Endoverin California, go to endover INC a.org.
Once again, go to endover INC a.org.
If you have a passion for an unservedcommunity, a social justice problem,

(01:00:39):
or want to change minds, contactProject Good Work at projectgood.
work to start yourproject of change today.
Subscribe to our mailinglist at projectgood.
work slash subscribe to get our episodesand blog articles sent to you each month.
To our listeners, thanks fortuning in to Project Good, where
we're focused on what matters.