• Home
  • Resources, by Type

After unveiling the Racial Justice Data Initiative, Tableau is building a new data hub to help organizations working in the fight against systemic racism.

80 of the Bay Area’s 101 Cities Have No Black Leaders Among Their Top Elected Officials

Our analysis shows that regionwide, the share of top Black electeds parallels the share of the Black population. Yet, many cities including those with increasing Black populations lack Black elected leaders.

The nation faces two deadly and interrelated pandemics that disproportionately impact Black Americans: the coronavirus and systemic racism. Health co-morbidities due to environmental racism and occupational hazards undoubtedly play a role in the virus’s toll on Black communities, but so too does a deeply rooted concept embedded in the national consciousness that goes back to the original sins of our country: a hierarchy of human value that places Black and Native American people on the bottom and Whites at the top. This ideology contributes to racial inequities in nearly every facet of American life, including politics as detailed by the diversity of local electeds dataset maintained by the Bay Area Equity Atlas.

The landscape of Black local elected officials in the Bay Area varies substantially, according to our analysis of data on the diversity of elected officials from 2018 and 2019. Regionwide, the share of Black local elected officials equals the share of Black residents – an indicator of representativeness – but Black residents are completely left out in 80 out of the region’s 101 municipal governments.

Beneath the regional level, however, some Bay Area cities did improve on the representativeness of their top electeds, while others fell behind. This post shares key findings from our analysis of how the region’s 101 cities are doing on this measure, which is calculated based on the share of top local elected officials who identify as Black. Note that the city electeds include both city council and county elected officials (supervisors and DAs) because county electeds also represent city residents. This means that the typical city/town has 11 electeds included in the analysis (5 council members, 5 county supervisors, and one county district attorney).

As Black Residents Move Inland, Some Suburbs Saw a Rise in Black Politicos

The Black population in the Bay Area declined by nearly 42,000 people from 2000 to 2015 – an 8 percent drop. And within the region, Black residents have moved outward from the regional core to inland communities. From 2000 to 2018, for example, the city of Richmond saw a 16 percentage-point decline in the Black population share from 36 percent to just 20 percent. Cities like Antioch and Oakley in Contra Costa County and Rio Vista in Solano County, on the other hand, saw five percentage-point plus increases in their Black populations.

Our most recent analysis of Black local elected officials partially reflects these shifting demographics. By 2020, two of the top three cities with the most Black representation in local elected governments – Pittsburg and Antioch – are located in Eastern Contra Costa County.

Pittsburg, Richmond, and Antioch each elected an additional Black representative in 2018. The city of Pittsburg had five Black elected officials (at the city and county level), but that number increased to six by 2020 when Pittsburg became the only city in the region where the majority of local elected officials are Black. Richmond also gained a Black city council member in the 2018 election, and by 2020, 46 percent of the city’s local elected officials were Black. The city of Antioch, where 36 percent of top local electeds are Black, surpassed Oakland to round out the top three.

At the same time, historically Black cities in the coastal core of the Bay Area with long histories of Black community organizing saw steep declines in the share of Black residents. Oakland, Richmond, and East Palo Alto experienced double-digit decreases in the share of Black residents from 2000 to 2018. Previous studies describe in great detail this reorganization of racial segregation in the Bay Area, and the findings from the diversity of electeds database suggests that outer suburbs in Contra Costa County are faring decently when it comes to Black representation in local elected government.

Black Residents Underrepresented Among Top Electeds in Vallejo, Fairfield, San Leandro, and Vacaville

A few cities, however, are notable for their lack of Black representation at the city and county levels. The first is the city of Vallejo, where one in five residents are Black but only 8 percent of local elected officials are Black. This is despite the fact that the city elected a Black city councilmember in 2018. Black residents are also underrepresented in the city of Fairfield, where Black residents make up 14 percent of the city’s population but are just 9 percent of elected officials.

San Leandro, Berkeley, and San Pablo, each lost a local Black elected official in 2018. Today, just 15 percent of local elected officials in San Leandro are Black. The city of Vacaville, which has roughly the same Black population share as East Palo Alto, lacks any Black representation in local government at the city or county level.

Two other cities have relatively small Black population shares but saw sizable increases in Black residents despite no Black representation among top local electeds. The city of Rio Vista in eastern Solano County saw a six percentage-point increase in the Black population since 2000 but lacks Black representation in top local elected positions. The San Mateo County city of Brisbane similarly saw an increase in the Black population share of five percentage-points but none of city or county top elected officials identify as Black.

Two Peninsula Cities Gain Big and Make History

Our analysis also reveals that Menlo Park saw the largest increase in Black representation from 2018 to 2020. In 2018, Menlo Park was one of 59 cities without any Black representation in top local elected offices. But with the election of Mayor Cecilia Taylor and Vice Mayor Drew Combs in 2018, the city gained two additional Black representatives, making up 18 percent of top local elected officials.

The neighboring Peninsula city of Los Altos made history in 2018, electing their first Black city council member: Vice Mayor Neysa Fligor. After losing her 2016 election bid by just 6 votes, Vice Mayor Fligor came back in 2018 to win every precinct in the city. The Vice Mayor is also the youngest councilwoman on the only all-female city council in the region.

A Clear Need for Action

While representation does not ensure the passage of more equitable policies, it matters for political power. Local officials hold considerable power over the everyday lives of Bay Area residents, including local police and sheriff’s departments, and they ought to reflect the diversity of the communities they serve. Improving on this indicator involves directly addressing the multiple barriers that hold Black residents back from running for political office whether they are economic, institutional, or political. It also requires a bold agenda to curb Black displacement in the region and the passage of policies that allow Black residents, especially low-income residents and renters, to stay put.

Even before the coronavirus epidemic and nationwide uprisings against racial injustice, working class people in the region were struggling to make rent, find affordable childcare, and secure living-wage jobs. The historic spike in layoffs and unemployment brought about by COVID-19 has only exacerbated economic insecurity. Many families are struggling to make ends meet and are focused on finding work and paying bills rather than increasing political involvement.

But political inclusion is a critical part of building a more equitable region, and we, along with our partners at Bay Rising, lift up the following recommendations to move us towards just and fair inclusion into a region where all can participate and prosper:

  • Local governments (cities, towns, and counties) should pass structural reforms including public campaign financing and campaign finance reform to curtail corporate contributions, secret Super PACs, and “pay-to-play” politics.
  • Local and national philanthropies and corporations should fund equity-oriented leadership development programs, like Urban Habitat’s Boards and Commissions Leadership Institute that prepare people from underrepresented communities of color to effectively engage in public policy.
  • Policymakers and funders should support voting reforms and civic engagement efforts that increase voter registration and turnout among underrepresented communities, especially in local elections.

Advancing Water Equity to Create Communities of Opportunity

Who Is Low-Income and Very Low Income in the Bay Area?

Our analysis of the demographics of low-income and very low income families in the region reveals the possibilities and limits of using income targetting to advance racial equity.

By Ángel Mendiola Ross and Sarah Treuhaft

Last month, we received a data request for the racial/ethnic composition of very low income and low-income families in the five-county Bay Area. These income classifications, as defined by the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), are incredibly important in determining eligibility for affordable housing resources, such as housing vouchers, yet few outside of the housing field know what they represent. In this post, we explain these classifications and share insights from this data. To download and explore the raw data for the five-county region and each county within it, click here.

Nearly half of all five-county Bay Area residents are low income or very low income.

Income classifications are based on the Area Median Income (AMI), which is the income of the family in the exact middle of the income distribution (half above, and half below), with adjustments for family size. For the purposes of determining the AMI, the five-county Bay Area is divided into two different “Fair Market Rent” areas: Oakland-Fremont Metro (Alameda and Contra Costa Counties) and San Francisco Metro (Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties). In 2018, the median family income was roughly $108,000 in the Oakland-Fremont Metro and $121,000 in the San Francisco Metro for a family of four.

Very low-income families are defined as those with incomes that are less than 50 percent of the area median income, so for a family of four, that is less than $54,000 in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties and less than $60,600 in Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties.[1] Using these thresholds, one in three Bay Area residents – 1,524,600 people – is very low income.[2]

Low-income families are defined as those with incomes that are between 50 percent and 80 percent of the area median income. Again, using a family of four as our benchmark, this is between $54,000 and $86,300 in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties and between $60,600 and $97,000 in Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties. About 16 percent of Bay Area residents (716,800 people) are in this low-income category.

According to these income classifications, about half of all of residents in the region are very low income or low income. Most strikingly, 68 percent of Black residents and 72 percent of Latinos fall within these categories compared with just 35 percent of White residents.

Black and Latino residents are overrepresented among very low income and low-income families.

Due to discrimination, racism, and historic and current policies, racial gaps in income remain wide and persistent in the Bay Area despite the region's robust economic growth. Because of this income disparity, Black and Latino residents are overrepresented among the region’s very low income and low-income families. Black and Latino residents make up 46 percent of very-low income families but just 13 percent of high-income families. White residents, on the other hand, comprise just a quarter of very low-income families but 54 percent of high-income families, even though they make up 40 percent of the region’s overall population.

Looking at how residents of major racial/ethnic groups are spread across income categories, we find that the majority of the Black and Latino residents live in very low-income families, compared with just 21 percent of White residents. Forty-four percent of Native American and Alaska Native people are part of very low-income families.

The distribution of the Asian or Pacific Islander population underscores the socioeconomic heterogeneity that activists and scholars have documented for many years: while over a third (36 percent) of API residents in the Bay are in high-income families, nearly a third (31 percent) are part of families considered very low income.

Racial inequities in income are most pronounced at the lower and upper ends of the economic spectrum. Black, Latino, and Native people are more than twice as likely as Whites to be in very low-income families and half as likely to be in high-income families. More than two-thirds (68 percent) of Black residents are in families considered low or very low income as are nearly three-quarters (72 percent) of Latinos. Interestingly, the “low” and “mid” income categories show the greatest racial parity: The range across race/ethnic groups is just four percentage points for low-income families (14 percent of Whites and people of mixed/other races compared with 18 percent of Black and Latino residents) and seven percentage points among mid-income families.

The majority of Black and Latino residents are in very low-income families regionwide, but the share varies by up to 20 percentage points across counties.

Further exploring the data by county reveals how the racial/ethnic makeup of very low-income families fluctuate across each of the five counties. There is very little variation, for example, among the White population: 19 percent of White residents are in very low-income families in Marin and San Mateo Counties while 22 percent of Whites are in very low-income families in Alameda County. White people are also the least likely to be in very low-income families across all counties.

The share of Black residents in very low-income families, on the other hand, varies from 38 percent in San Mateo to 59 percent in San Francisco. Put differently, Black people in San Mateo County are 20 percentage points less likely to be in very low-income families compared with Black people just north in San Francisco. There are more Black families in San Francisco than in San Mateo, but the median Black family income is roughly $40,000 higher in San Mateo than in San Francisco.

San Francisco is also an outlier when it comes to the Asian or Pacific Islander population. If we exclude San Francisco, the share of API residents in very low-income families only ranges from 25 percent in Marin County to 28 percent in Alameda County. But in San Francisco, 42 percent of API residents live in very low-income families. Similar to the Black population, median API family incomes are roughly $40,000 higher in San Mateo than in San Francisco. Ancestry data from the Bay Area Equity Atlas show that Chinese Americans comprise the single largest API subgroup in San Francisco (though this is true across all counties except for Contra Costa, where Filipinos make up the largest API subgroup).

The majority of Latinos are in very low-income families across all of the five Bay Area counties. But in contrast to the Black and API populations, Latinos in San Francisco are the least likely to be in very low-income families: 53 percent of Latinos are in very low-income families in San Francisco compared with 60 percent of Latinos in Marin. The median Latino family income was actually lowest in Marin County compared to the four other counties, whereas the median Black and API family income was one of the highest in Marin.

Income-targetted policies can help advance racial equity in housing, but additional race-conscious and anti-discrimination policies are also necessary.

These data reveal the extent to which policies that are targeted based on income thresholds can – if well designed – serve to advance racial equity because families of color are disproportionately low income or very low income. It is important that racial equity is a consideration throughout an income-targeted policy, from the process to develop it to the outreach and implementation, to ensure that it effectively serves people of color. And it is also important to keep in mind that income-targeting is insufficient to address racial inequities in housing (and many other policy areas). Recent studies illustrate continued discrimination in the housing market, with Black renters shown fewer apartments and offered fewer concessions than their White counterparts and Black homebuyers shown half as many listings as White homebuyers as well as steered into racially-segregated neighborhoods.

 

 

[1] Note: These limits will not exactly match HUD's income limits, which are adjusted based on various factors (including national median income).

[2] It is important to note that the very low-income category we’ve examined here includes extremely low-income households, which are defined as having incomes at less than 30 percent of the area median income. These households have the greatest housing needs and have very few if any options in the private housing market.

Pages