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]

New index reveals significant racial inequities even in the most prosperous cities and metros; provides data to help leaders develop targeted strategies for inclusive prosperity

By Sarah Treuhaft, Abbie Langston, Justin Scoggins, Joanna Lee, and Manuel Pastor

Racial equity is the defining issue of our time. The brutal murder of George Floyd — amidst a pandemic disproportionately harming the health and livelihoods of Black, Latinx, and Indigenous people — put dismantling structural racism at the center of our national policy debate.

Against this long overdue nationwide reckoning, community leaders are searching for policy solutions that can transform systems and structures and make meaningful progress toward racial equity. Disaggregated data at the local level is crucial to this endeavor: achieving equity requires targeted solutions that address structural and institutional racism, eliminate the barriers that prevent people from thriving, and provide the resources and opportunities that people need to reach their full potential. And data that reveals which groups are being excluded, by how much, and in what policy areas is an essential ingredient to develop effective strategies that match the scale of the challenge.

The Racial Equity Index is the nation’s first-ever tool designed to support communities in advancing equity solutions by measuring the state of equity in the 100 largest U.S. cities, the 150 largest metros, and all 50 states on key indicators of prosperity and inclusion by race. The Index is an integrated and holistic measure to compare the state of equity across different places, developed in response to the demand for a more comprehensive, summary picture of how communities were doing on our equity metrics. It provides a snapshot of how well a given place is performing on racial equity compared to its peers — comparing cities to cities, regions to regions, and states to states. Because equity means both closing racial gaps and ensuring that everyone is doing well, the Racial Equity Index is based on two components: an inclusion score that indicates the extent of racial gaps in outcomes for a series of nine equity indicators (wages, unemployment, poverty, educational attainment, disconnected youth, school poverty, air pollution, commute time, and housing burden) and a prosperity score that indicates how well the population is doing overall on those same indicators.

This analysis shares insights from our analysis of the Index for cities and metros. Please see Introducing the Racial Equity Index to learn more about the Index and how to use it and explore the data for your community with the Index data tool.   

Key findings from the Racial Equity Index include:

1. Every community is hindered by systematic racial inequities. Even in the best-performing places on the Index, there are significant and preventable racial inequities.

2. Inclusive prosperity remains elusive among America’s metros and cities. It is very rare for communities to have high levels of prosperity, in terms of overall performance on the indicators, and high levels of inclusion, in terms of low racial disparities. 

3. Robust economic growth alone does not bring about racial equity and inclusion. While some of the regions with the most dynamic economies perform well on the Index, overall there is a weak relationship between traditional measures of economic development such as job growth, and racial equity and inclusion.

4. Achieving racial equity requires improving conditions in the population centers where most people of color live. Few of the cities with the largest Black and Latinx populations perform well overall on the Index or on Black or Latinx prosperity.

5. Racial equity is not a zero-sum proposition. Most of the cities and regions with the best outcomes for communities of color also have good outcomes for their White residents, and vice versa.

Each of these is further described below.
 

1. Every community is hindered by systematic racial inequities.

The Index reveals just how far all cities and metros have to go to correct systems that are perpetuating racial inequities. Because it is a relative Index, even places that are the top performers have significant racial inequities. 

Take the region of San Jose, California. The tech epicenter has the highest score on the Racial Equity Index because of its strong overall performance in terms of wages, poverty, educational attainment, and school poverty and relatively lower racial disparities on indicators of air pollution, commute time, educational attainment, and unemployment. 

Yet, there are large racial inequities in San Jose. For example, even with the highest share of Black college graduates of any region (37 percent), there is a 23 percentage point Black-White disparity in terms of educational attainment, and the White-Latinx disparity is 44 percentage points (60 and 16 percent, respectively). And among college graduates, Black and Latinx workers earn $12-$17 less per hour than White and Asian or Pacific Islander workers. Note that while the regional median wage for the Asian or Pacific Islander population as a whole is $43, median wages vary significantly within that group

 

2. Inclusive prosperity remains elusive among America’s metros and cities. 

Equitable communities both have strong overall performance on indicators of well-being and low racial disparities, which is why the Racial Equity Index combines a prosperity score and an inclusion score. But what we see is that very few places are both doing well on prosperity and inclusion. 

The metros that have the best overall performance on the indicators are not the most inclusive and tend to have wide racial disparities. Among top 25 regions on the prosperity score, none are also in the top 25 on the inclusion score, and only seven even make the top 100 on inclusion. Eighteen of them are in the bottom 50 on inclusion, including the Minneapolis-St. Paul region, which has the sixth highest prosperity score, but is second from the bottom in terms of its inclusion score.

 

3. Robust economic growth alone does not bring about racial equity and inclusion.

Over the past decade coming out of the Great Recession, growth in jobs and economic output has been concentrated in a small number of large metros, and within those places economic gains have largely gone to investors, corporations, and a small number of highly-educated knowledge economy workers.

A look at post-recession job growth in regions in relation to the Racial Equity Index underscores the weak relationship between job growth and racial equity. While there is some correlation between job growth and racial equity performance, with some high-growth metros like Austin, Denver, Raleigh, and San Jose performing well on the Index, the connection is not strong. Similarly, strong job growth does not drive positive outcomes for Black and Latinx residents. Of the 25 metros with the highest post-recession job growth, only seven of them were among the top 25 regions on prosperity for Black residents (Austin, Denver, Dallas, Fayetteville, Raleigh, San Jose, and San Antonio). And only three of them were among the top 25 regions on prosperity for Latinx residents (San Francisco, Austin, and Provo).

4. Achieving racial equity requires improving conditions in the population centers where most people of color live.

About 29 percent of Black people in the United States live in just 50 cities, underscoring the importance of integrating place-based and people-focused solutions to advance racial equity. The concentration of different racial/ethnic groups in certain regions, cities, and neighborhoods is in large part a consequence of systems and policies that produced and reinforced racial segregation — and the persistence of inequities in those places follows from a long history of disinvestment and deprivation. Some of the highest scoring cities on the Racial Equity Index have the smallest Black populations: In seven out of the top 10 performers, the Black population is significantly underrepresented compared to the national share (Albuquerque, Chandler, Henderson, Honolulu, Irvine, Reno, San Jose). Similarly, the Latinx population is underrepresented in six of the top 10 cities on the Index (Chesapeake, Henderson, Honolulu, Irvine, Virginia Beach, St. Petersburg).

Of the 12.9 million Black people living in the largest 100 cities, about 80 percent of them live in the 33 cities with at least 100,000 Black residents. Only two of these cities are among the top 20 performers on the Racial Equity Index (Nashville and Norfolk), and 10 are among the bottom 20 performers (Atlanta, Baton Rouge, Birmingham, Cleveland, Dallas, Detroit, Houston, Memphis, Newark, and New York). Only two — Durham and Raleigh, which are in the same region — are among the top 20 performers for Black prosperity, and wide racial gaps in prosperity are evident in these places:

Similar trends hold for Latinx people. Among the 41 cities with at least 100,000 Latinx residents, only two (Albuquerque and San Francisco) rank in the top 20 prosperity scores for the Latinx population, while 12 (Charlotte, Dallas, Fresno, Hialeah, Los Angeles, Milwaukee, Oklahoma City, Philadelphia, Phoenix, San Bernardino, Santa Ana, and Newark) are in the bottom 20.

The cities with the best outcomes for Latinx residents tend to have relatively small Latinx populations: among the top 20 performers on Latinx prosperity, nine were among the 20 cities with the smallest Latinx populations and only five have Latinx populations at 50,000. The same dynamics are found at the regional level.

In the 25 regions with the largest Latinx populations, only two ranked in the top 25 for regional prosperity scores on the Racial Equity Index (Boston and San Jose), and just three were among the top 25 performers for Latinx prosperity (Austin, San Francisco, and Washington DC). Even among those best performers, Latinx residents still face significant racial inequities on key indicators of prosperity.

5. Racial equity is not a zero-sum proposition.

Looking at the prosperity scores across racial/ethnic groups, we find that most of the cities and regions with the best outcomes for communities of color also have above-average outcomes for their White residents, and vice versa. Of the top 20 cities for prosperity for people of color, for example, all but two of them are in the top 40 for White prosperity, all but one are in the top 40 for Black prosperity (among the 16 with large enough Black populations to generate Black prosperity scores), and all but one are in the top 40 for Latinx prosperity.

And of the top 20 cities for White prosperity, six — Anchorage, Austin, Denver, Durham, Plano, and Raleigh — are also in the top 20 for Black prosperity (among the 16 with large enough Black populations to generate Black prosperity scores) and six are in the top 20 for Latinx prosperity (Anchorage, District of Columbia, Irvine, Plano, San Francisco, and Scottsdale). Only one — Dallas — falls in the bottom 20 for both Black and Latinx prosperity.
 

Making Progress on Racial Equity Will Require Tailored and Bold Solutions

Our analysis of the Racial Equity Index for cities and metros reveals that even the best performing places exhibit significant racial disparities, and even the places with the most economic success post-recession fall short on equity. At a time when Black, Latinx, Native American, and Pacific Islander communities are the hardest hit by another recession, it is imperative that leaders at all levels recognize that targeted, race-conscious strategies are necessary to bring about an inclusive recovery. Doing so will create tremendous benefits that cascade up and out to the advantage of an entire community. Equity is the path to prosperity: By developing solutions that are informed by and effectively reach the people most impacted by structural racism and economic inequality, we can build an equitable, prosperous future economy.

Our analysis finds that 14,000 renter households are at imminent risk of eviction if the county’s eviction moratorium expires, with more waves of evictions close behind.

By Jamila Henderson, Sarah Treuhaft, Justin Scoggins, and Alex Werth (East Bay Housing Organizations)* 

In the Bay Area, as elsewhere, the coronavirus and its economic fallout have disproportionately impacted the very same people that were on the economic margins before the pandemic, including Black, Latinx, and immigrant communities (especially undocumented workers), and low-wage workers. And they are about to face an additional threat: the risk of being evicted when they can’t pay rent because they’ve lost jobs and income because of the pandemic. 

Recognizing the immense harm posed by mass eviction amidst a global health and economic crisis, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors passed a moratorium on evictions and rent increases in April 2020, which it extended in May 2020. 

Since then, the pandemic has not abated. In fact, the county is now slowing down reopening plans amid escalating infection rates. Yet Contra Costa’s county-wide eviction moratorium is set to expire July 15, placing scores of renters who’ve suffered economic losses during the pandemic at risk of losing their homes. 

This analysis, produced in partnership with the Raise the Roof Coalition,** sheds light on the magnitude of this risk by estimating the number of renter households that could face eviction if the moratorium is allowed to expire. See the accompanying fact sheet.

Tens of Thousands of Households at Risk from Coming Waves of Evictions

Our analysis shows that lifting the moratorium at this moment would be disastrous, potentially unleashing a wave of evictions that would devastate workers, families, and their communities. We estimate that 14,000 Contra Costa County households are at imminent risk of eviction if the moratorium is allowed to expire because they include one or more workers who’ve lost their jobs and have no replacement income. Approximately 12,100 children living in these households would also face eviction.

These imminently at-risk households include workers who were either not eligible for unemployment insurance, such as the county’s undocumented immigrant workers and informal workers, or believed they weren’t eligible or faced language and technology barriers and other challenges in filing for benefits. About 65,000 Contra Costa County residents are undocumented immigrants. This is a conservative estimate of those most at-risk: many other households could face eviction if unprotected by the moratorium.

And this will just be the beginning. A second wave of evictions will occur when the Federal Pandemic Unemployment Compensation – which provides a $600 weekly supplement to all workers receiving unemployment benefits – expires on July 31, 2020. Without these additional benefits, about half of workers on UI will have replacement incomes below the federal poverty level, according to the California Policy Lab. This would place an additional 8,700 Contra Costa households at potential risk of eviction due to substantial income loss.   

These waves of evictions would come at a time when Contra Costa County is struggling with rising Covid-19 infections and unprecedented job losses. Contra Costa has seen a 65 percent weekly increase in infections as of July 7, one of the worst surges among the six Bay Area counties coordinating to fight Covid-19 (Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara). The county was recently added to the California Department of Public Health’s watch list of high-risk counties because of its high case rates and hospitalizations. Contra Costa County is also one of the hardest hit by the recession: 13.6 percent of workers (72,500) were officially unemployed as of May 2020. An additional 26,700 workers have dropped out of the labor force since January and aren’t even included in the official unemployment numbers.

Contra Costa County also has weaker emergency tenant protections than the other counties, except Marin, which is considerably more affluent. After the moratorium ends, Contra Costa renters will have just four months to repay the backlog of rent – potentially thousands of dollars on top of their regular rent – leaving tenants who face eviction with little recourse. In contrast, Alameda, San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara counties have repayment terms ranging from six to 12 months, with evictions for non-payment of rent due to Covid-19 banned altogether in Alameda and San Francisco. 

 

Mass Eviction Would Devastate Families and the Community, Contributing to Rising Homelessness

Eviction is financially and emotionally devastating to families. It can cause serious harm to mental and physical health, including depression, and negatively affect children’s education. Given that the families imminently at risk of eviction have no income coming in, and most have little to no savings, many could become unhoused. Examining eviction risk in Los Angeles County, UCLA professor Gary Blasi estimated that 10 percent of those evicted due to Covid-19 would become homeless. In 2018, Contra Costa County provided services to 5,846 individuals and families experiencing homelessness; if 10 percent of the currently at-risk households became homeless, that would lead to a 21 percent increase in homelessness. This would cause immeasurable despair and disruption for families. And it would exacerbate the county’s racial inequities: already, Black people represent 34 percent of the county’s unhoused population though they comprise just 8 percent of county residents.

This steep rise in homelessness would also strain community resources, staff, and infrastructure. The county currently spends a minimum of $20,075 per year to shelter one individual. This expense would significantly increase with the potential rise in homeless individuals and families, and only represents a portion of the full costs of homelessness. Cities, nonprofits, housing agencies, and hospitals also provide many homeless services and would also need to allocate more resources to serve a larger number of people experiencing homelessness. Although not insignificant, monetary expenses understate the true costs and long-lasting repercussions of homelessness for individuals and families. 

Exacerbating the Housing Crisis for Black, Latinx, and Immigrant Renters

One in three Contra Costa households rent their homes, and this share has been on the rise. Even before the pandemic, the majority of renters in Contra Costa County were already being squeezed by stagnant wages and rising rents, with 53 percent of them rent-burdened, defined as spending more than 30 percent of their income on rent and utilities. 

Black, Latinx, and immigrant residents in Contra Costa County are not only more likely to rent versus own their homes, but also more likely to pay too much for their housing. Black and Latinx renters, especially women, face greater risks of eviction and homelessness, as they are more likely to be economically insecure and rent-burdened: 64 percent of renter households headed by Black women and 56 percent of those headed by Latina renters are economically insecure and rent-burdened. As a comparison, only 37 percent of renter households headed by White women and 38 percent of those headed by men of all races/ethnicities experience these conditions.

Renters in Contra Costa continue to face rising economic and housing insecurity, which this crisis has underscored and exacerbated. To make matters worse, nationwide, rent-burdened households have an average savings of just $10, which is grossly insufficient to cover emergency expenses and contributes to the imminent risk of mass eviction. 

A Preventable Crisis

Without an effective eviction moratorium and tenant protections, vulnerable renters are at risk of losing their homes. Contra Costa County can only thrive if its renters thrive, and community leaders and policymakers must take every step possible to prevent this potential humanitarian crisis from occurring. 

The county can protect renters with these key strategies:

1. Extend the eviction moratorium until 90 days after the state of emergency ends. 

2. Ban evictions for non-payment due to Covid-19, converting missed rent to consumer debt. 

3. Increase rental assistance, tenant counseling, and legal services for low-income renters. 

4. Pass just cause eviction protections and rent control to address gaps in state law. 

5. Enact rent and eviction registries to evaluate current policies and ensure equity.

For additional data, and to learn more about how to protect renters in this crisis, read the fact sheet. See the methodology for our data sources and methods of calculating these estimates.

Last updated October 2, 2020.

* Alex Werth, Policy Associate at East Bay Housing Organizations, serves on the Equity Campaign Leaders Advisory Committee of the Bay Area Equity Atlas. East Bay Housing Organizations is a member of the Raise the Roof coalition which produced this analysis in partnership with the Bay Area Equity Atlas. 

** Raise the Roof is a coalition of community, labor, and faith groups working to bring good jobs, immigrant protections, and affordable housing to the City of Concord and Contra Costa County. Members include ACCE, California Nurses Association, Central Labor Council Contra Costa County-AFL-CIO, East Bay Alliance for a Sustainable Economy, East Bay Housing Organizations, Ensuring Opportunity, First Five/Central County Regional Group, Lift Up Contra Costa, Monument Impact, and Tenants Together. www.facebook.com/raisetheroofconcord.

Our analysis of police use-of-force incidents in the Bay Area reveals that police violence affects wealthy suburbs as well as core cities.

We have witnessed repeatedly the disproportionate and unjust killing of Black men and women at the hands of police, and in nearly every case the police are neither arrested nor charged, and many remain on the force. The callous killing of George Floyd, a Black man, at the hands of a White police officer in Minneapolis has sparked protest across the country and the world, and has shifted public consciousness and given rise to policy changes few could have imagined possible just a few weeks ago. Public institutions in Minneapolis have cut ties with the police department and the city council has voted to take steps to disband the police, vowing to replace it with a new model of public safety and redirect funds to community-based strategies. Several Bay Area officials have also pushed for change, including San Francisco Mayor London Breed who called for funds to be diverted from police to Black communities, and the Oakland school board which voted to eliminate the Oakland Schools Police Department, an effort led by local advocates. 

In California last year, as a result of organizing and activism by families who lost loved ones to police violence, the state passed the California Act to Save Lives aimed at addressing the very issue of excessive police use of force. But much more is needed as shown by this month's unjust and fatal shootings of Sean Monterrosa by a Vallejo police officer and Erik Salgado by California Highway Patrol in Oakland, which has increased existing outrage.

This analysis takes a closer look at police violence against Black people in the Bay Area by looking at data provided by the police use-of-force indicator in the Bay Area Equity Atlas for the region’s 101 cities. This data, which originates from the Open Justice Data Portal from the California Department of Justice, describes the number and rate (per 100,000 people) of civilians involved in incidents with law enforcement (e.g., police and sheriff’s departments, state police) in which they sustained serious bodily injury or death, or in which law enforcement discharged a firearm at them, for the two-year period of 2016 and 2017 combined. Examining the rate allows for meaningful comparison across cities with differing population sizes. It is important to note that while this is the best data available for police use of force at the local level, it is not perfect: some use of force incidents in the Bay Area may not be included due to agency underreporting, particularly in the first year (2016) and the exclusion of records missing geographic or demographic information. 

Black Residents Make Up 6 Percent of the Region’s Population, but Account for 20 Percent of Use-of-Force Incidents 

In 2016 and 2017 combined, law enforcement agencies in 51 of the 101 Bay Area cities and towns reported use-of-force incidents. Within these 51 municipalities, 15 reported use-of-force incidents involved Black people. Black residents account for 6 percent of the population in the nine-county Bay Area, yet they are disproportionately the targets of police violence: One-fifth of the nearly 200 use-of-force incidents in the Bay Area involve Black people.

The Affluent, Suburban Communities of Pleasant Hill, Redwood City, and Dublin have the Highest Rates of Police Use-of-Force Incidents Involving Black People

Examining the 15 Bay Area police departments that reported use-of-force incidents involving Black residents, we see the highest rates in Pleasant Hill, Redwood City, and Dublin: affluent, suburban communities with relatively small Black populations (each 5 percent or less). There was one reported use-of-force incident involving a Black resident in Pleasant Hill, a rate of 169 per 100,000 given the small Black population there (2 percent). The Redwood City police department reported two use-of-force incidents involving Black people, which is a rate of 118 incidents per 100,000 people in a city with such a small Black population. In Dublin, there were three use-of-force incidents involving Black residents, a rate of 115 use-of-force incidents per 100,000 residents. All three cities had significant racial inequities in police use-of-force incidents, with very low rates of use of force involving White residents.

 

Benicia, Emeryville, San Ramon, Richmond, and Fremont also have a relatively high number of use-of-force incidents involving Black people, with each police department reporting one use-of-force incident involving a Black person, except for Richmond, which reported nine incidents and Fremont which reported two. In contrast, there were zero use-of-force incidents involving White people in Benicia, Emeryville, and San Ramon. These suburban and urban communities are fairly diverse and largely wealthy except for Richmond. 

The cities of San Leandro, Antioch, San Francisco, Vallejo, Vacaville, Pittsburg, and Oakland have lower rates of use-of-force incidents that involve Black residents, but some have higher absolute numbers of incidents. San Francisco, Oakland, and Antioch had the highest reported number of incidents involving Black people—six, five, and four incidents, respectively. Each of these communities (except for San Francisco), have a larger share of Black residents than the region as a whole (6 percent).

It’s a Matter of Life and Death

In the wake of the killing of George Floyd, activists have called for the defunding of the police as well as the removal of police from schools. Now is the time for bold policies that divest from policing and invest in communities. 

As this analysis shows, in the Bay Area, the issue of police violence is a regionwide one that affects wealthy suburbs as well as core cities. Across the Bay Area residents are rising up and calling for change and our political leaders must act to build a stronger and more just region.

What can you do? Take action by supporting these local Black-led, grassroots community organizations that are working to end police violence and build community safety and justice in our region:

• Anti Police-Terror Project

• Black Organizing Project

• Coleman Advocates

• All of Us or None

• Safe Return Project 

Our analysis of the demographics of the essential workforce in Santa Clara County reveals that the workers on the frontlines of the pandemic are disproportionately Latinx, Filipinx, Vietnamese, and women of color, and face economic vulnerabilities.

The coronavirus is disproportionately impacting populations, locally and nationally, including those who are low-income, Black and Latinx, and people with underlying health conditions. In Santa Clara County, Latinx residents account for 27 percent of the population but 38 percent of those who tested positive for the virus, according to county data. A recent study showed that early deaths from COVID-19 hit residents in four East San Jose zip codes, which are largely Latinx, particularly hard. One-third of early COVID-19 deaths in the county occurred in these four zip codes alone. These are the neighborhoods where residents grapple with high poverty and where local leaders have gone on record citing the lack of protective gear, health insurance, and inadequate health care for essential workers.   

Our analysis of the demographics of frontline workforce in Santa Clara County reveals that these workers are more likely to live in or near poverty, pay too much for housing, and lack health insurance. The data in this post draws from our Profile of Frontline Workers in the Bay Area, based on data from the 2014-2018 American Community Survey provided by the Center for Economic and Policy Research. You can access the data for Santa Clara County here.

There are 245,500 essential workers in Santa Clara County — one-quarter of all county workers — spread across 11 industries, largely in health care, manufacturing, construction, grocery, and childcare and social services.

Latinx workers account for nearly one quarter of the workforce in Santa Clara County (24 percent) but are overrepresented in frontline industries (36 percent). Latinx workers are heavily concentrated in agriculture (77 percent), building cleaning services and waste management (76 percent), construction (63 percent), and domestic work (58 percent). This trend was similar regionwide, but Latinx overrepresentation in these industries was higher in Santa Clara County.

Although not overrepresented in essential industries overall, Asian or Pacific Islander (API) and Black workers are concentrated in specific frontline industries in the county. API workers account for 37 of all workers in the county but are overrepresented in manufacturing (45 percent) and health care (44 percent). API workers regionwide are similarly concentrated in health care and manufacturing, as well as in the trucking, warehouse, and postal service industry. Black workers account for 3 percent of workers in the county but are concentrated in the public transit (7 percent) and trucking, warehouse, and postal service (6 percent) industries, which is similar to regional trends.

White workers are not concentrated in essential industries overall but in utilities specifically, an industry with higher median earnings and a higher share of college educated workers, compared with other essential industries. This mirrors regional trends.

Immigrants account for about half (48 percent) of the workforce in Santa Clara County and a comparable share of the essential workforce (49 percent). Within specific industries however, including building cleaning services and waste management (67 percent) and domestic work (67 percent), immigrants account for the majority of workers. This is also the case, but to a lesser degree, in the agricultural (55 percent) and construction (55 percent) industries. At the regional level, immigrants account for well below half (37 percent) of the workforce and are concentrated in these and several other essential industries.

Women of color in the county account for a larger share of the essential workforce (37 percent) than the workforce overall (30 percent). This was also the case for the region overall. Specifically, Asian or Pacific Islander women account for 16 percent of all Santa Clara County workers but 31 percent of health-care workers, 26 percent of childcare and social services workers, and 21 percent of workers in select manufacturing industries. Latina workers account for 11 percent of the county’s workforce, but 43 percent of building cleaning and waste management workers, 27 percent of childcare and social services workers, 24 percent of agricultural workers, and 20 percent of workers in the grocery industry. Black or African American women account for only 1 percent of the workforce in Santa Clara County, but triple the share in the childcare and social services (3 percent) and health care (3 percent) industries. 

“I am in greater demand, spread thin, stressed out. I have been working, as an essential worker. My young adult children have not and require financial assistance.” 

– Nurse, Los Gatos, Santa Clara County

 

Latino men, who account for 14 percent of the county’s workforce are also heavily concentrated in frontline industries: 62 percent of construction workers, 52 percent of agricultural workers, 37 percent of trucking, warehouse, and postal service workers, 33 percent of building cleaning services and waste management workers, and 22 percent of workers in the grocery industry. These county trends reflect trends at the regional level. 

As a group, Asian workers in Santa Clara County are underrepresented in frontline industries. This is the case regionally, although to a lesser degree. Within the county’s Asian population, Vietnamese and Filipinx workers are overrepresented in most essential industries. Similar trends exist Bay Area wide for Filipinx workers but not Vietnamese workers. Santa Clara County Vietnamese workers account for 18 percent of Asian workers in the county but are overrepresented among these workers in several essential industries: construction (38 percent); childcare and social services (29 percent); trucking, warehouse, and postal service (26 percent); utilities (26 percent); manufacturing (25 percent); grocery (24 percent); and others. Santa Clara County Filipinx workers account for 15 percent of Asian workers in the county but are overrepresented among Asian workers in nearly every industry except for construction (12 percent). This was generally the case for Filipinx workers regionwide as well.

Chinese workers account for 26 percent of all Asian workers in the county but are underrepresented among Asian workers in essential industries overall. Chinese workers are heavily concentrated among Asian agricultural workers (42 percent), however. At the regional level, Chinese workers are more likely to be concentrated in construction than agriculture. Korean workers are 4 percent of Asian workers in Santa Clara County but are underrepresented among Asian workers in essential industries. Korean workers account for 9 percent of Asian workers in construction, a higher share than regionwide.

Indian workers account for over one-quarter of the Asian workforce in Santa Clara County, but are generally not overrepresented in essential industries (and therefore not included in the chart above).

Santa Clara County essential workers are more economically and socially vulnerable than workers overall. They are more likely to lack college degrees, rent rather than own their home, pay more than they can afford in rent, and work part time. They are also more likely to care for a senior at home, live in or near poverty, and lack English proficiency, health insurance, and internet access. Sixteen percent of all frontline workers live below 200 percent of the poverty level (about $48,000 for a family of four) compared with 12 percent of all workers. Frontline workers also earn less: These workers have median earnings of $55,935 compared with $79,076 across all industries. These figures largely match regional trends. 

Essential workers are more likely to lack health insurance (8 percent) compared with workers overall (6 percent), but even more stark are the uninsured rates within frontline industries. Workers that are particularly vulnerable include those in the agricultural, construction, building cleaning services and waste management, and domestic work industries, where the uninsured rates are as high as 21 percent (agricultural industry). Regionwide, these same industries have the highest uninsured rates. 

For frontline workers to be healthy and economically secure they need proper protective gear and testing, paid sick leave and affordable health care, living wages, childcare and elder care, and secure housing. Santa Clara County is now offering free COVID-19 testing for all residents 18 years of age and older regardless of symptoms, which is a step in the right direction. South Bay representative Assemblymember Ash Kalra and state and local leaders have introduced two proposals to bolster workers’ rights and protect working families:

• AB 3216 would provide emergency paid sick leave, expand access to family leave, and create a right of recall for workers laid off in industries impacted by COVID-19.
• A partial income replacement program for undocumented workers who experienced COVID-19 job losses and were excluded from state and federal unemployment benefits. This proposal is supported by a state coalition of worker and immigrant rights organizations with the Safety Net for All coalition.

Learn more about actions that employers and state and local government should take to support frontline workers and provide for the common good.

Our analysis of the demographics of the frontline workforce in Sonoma County reveals that Latinx workers are disproportionately concentrated in frontline occupations.

Last Tuesday, Sonoma County’s public health department released new data revealing that the county’s Latinx residents are four and half times more likely to contract the coronavirus than White residents. Latinx residents represent about 27 percent of the population but 59 percent of those who’ve tested positive for the virus, according to the county data. In response, the county has ramped up testing for Latinx residents and pledged to investigate the cause of the disparity. Local leaders cite several possible causes, including the higher share of Latinx workers in low-wage jobs which lack health insurance or workplace protections, and the prevalence of multiple family households because of high housing costs.

Our analysis of the demographics of the frontline workforce in Sonoma County reveals that Latinx workers are disproportionately concentrated in frontline occupations where workers are more likely to live in or near poverty, lack US citizenship and health insurance, and have limited English proficiency. While Latinx workers are 26 percent of all workers, they are 33 percent of essential workers. The data in this post draws from our Profile of Frontline Workers in the Bay Area, based on data from the 2014-2018 American Community Survey provided by the Center for Economic and Policy Research. You can access the data for Sonoma County here.

There are 86,700 essential workers in Sonoma County — 34 percent of all county workers — spread across 11 industries, largely in health care, construction, manufacturing, and the grocery industry.

Latinx workers are overrepresented in the following frontline industries: agriculture (64 percent), building cleaning services and waste management (59 percent), domestic work (41 percent), construction (38 percent), and manufacturing (35 percent).

Latinx workers in Sonoma County account for the majority of workers in agriculture as well as building cleaning services and waste management. Although these industries are relatively small, compared with workers across all industries, these workers are more likely to rent rather than own their home, live in or near poverty, lack US citizenship and health insurance, have limited English proficiency, lack a high school diploma, care for children at home, and lack internet access.

Men of color are most likely to be concentrated in essential industries (24 percent share of essential industries versus 20 percent share of industries overall). Women of color are also slightly more likely to work in essential industries (18 percent share in essential industries versus 16 percent of industries overall). Men of color are concentrated in the following essential industries: agriculture (53 percent), construction (42 percent), trucking, warehouse, and postal service (37 percent), and building cleaning services and waste management (30 percent), among others. Women of color disproportionately work in the following essential industries: domestic work (50 percent), childcare and social services (33 percent), building cleaning services and waste management (31 percent), and health care (27 percent).

Latino men only make up 15 percent of Sonoma County workers but are the majority of workers in the county’s agricultural industry (52 percent), and a disproportionate share of construction workers (38 percent) and workers in the building cleaning services and waste management industries (29 percent). Latino men also account for about one quarter of workers in the trucking, warehouse, and postal service industry (25 percent) and manufacturing industry (24 percent).

Latina workers in Sonoma County account for about one out of every 10 workers (11 percent), but 4 in 10 domestic workers, 3 in 10 workers in building cleaning services and waste management (31 percent), and one-quarter of workers in childcare and social services.

For frontline workers to be healthy and economically secure they need proper protective gear and testing, paid sick leave and affordable health care, living wages, childcare and elder care, and secure housing. Learn more about actions that employers and state and local government should take to support frontline workers and provide for the common good.

Our analysis of the Bay Area's essential workforce reveals how the workers on the frontlines of the pandemic are disproportionately low-income, Latinx, Black, Filipinx, women of color, and immigrants and face economic and social vulnerabilities.

By Jamila Henderson, Eliza McCullough, and Sarah Treuhaft

The COVID-19 crisis is shining a spotlight on inequities throughout our society and economy, including the divide between knowledge economy workers who can safely shelter in place and work-from-home and frontline “essential” workers, predominantly people of color, whose work interacting with the public puts them at greater risk of contracting the virus. This divide is particularly gaping in the Bay Area, with our stark inequality and tech-driven economy. Grocery store clerks, bus drivers, janitors, and other frontline workers perform work that we depend on for our daily lives, yet they often are paid low wages, lack sick days and health insurance, and lack full workers’ rights. On May 1, workers at Instacart, Whole Foods, McDonalds, and other companies went on strike demanding proper protective equipment and fair wages.

A new study based on extensive community testing in the Mission District, which has the most coronavirus cases among all San Francisco neighborhoods, provides data underscoring the very real risks faced by essential workers: 90 percent of residents who tested positive for the virus cannot work from home, 95 percent are Latinx, and 82 percent said they have been financially affected by the pandemic. Early data from Santa Clara County also shows that Latinx and Black residents are dying from the virus at higher rates than other groups. The virus is exploiting and deepening existing inequities by race, class, and geography that were produced through explicitly and implicitly racist policies and business practices – ultimately exacerbating regional inequality.

Knowing who is vulnerable is crucial for developing solutions. This analysis, based on data from the 2014-2018 American Community Survey provided by the Center for Economic and Policy Research, describes the characteristics of essential workers in the nine-county Bay Area and describes actions that employers and policymakers can take to ensure their health and economic security. Find our full methodology below and download the data tables for the analysis – including data for each of the nine Bay Area counties – here. Read our county level analyses, including our posts for Sonoma County and Santa Clara County, and stay tuned for future Bay Area county analyses.

There are 1.1 million essential workers in the region — about 28 percent of all workers — spread across 11 industries. These workers include doctors and nurses on the frontlines of the health crisis as well as the workers taking care of their children. They also include the farm and factory workers who produce our food and other household goods, and the cashiers, postal workers, and warehouse workers who ensure we can get them. Other essential workers are the janitors, housekeepers, and waste management workers that keep our facilities, residences, and communities clean, and the bus drivers that allow other essential workers to reach their jobs.

Workers of color are overrepresented in frontline industries overall, representing 58 percent of all workers but 66 percent of essential workers. Latinx workers represent 22 percent of workers in all industries but 31 percent of frontline workers. Latinx workers are particularly overrepresented in building cleaning/waste management and agriculture, accounting for about two-thirds of workers in each industry. Latinx workers are similarly overrepresented among domestic workers and construction occupations, accounting for half of all workers in these industries.

Black workers, who account for just 5 percent of all workers in the region, are also concentrated in specific frontline industries including public transit (23 percent); trucking, warehouse, and postal services (11 percent); childcare and social services (10 percent); and health care (8 percent).

Although not overrepresented among frontline industries as a whole, Asian and Pacific Islander (API) workers, who account for more than a quarter (27 percent) of workers overall, are overrepresented in frontline industries including health care (36 percent); manufacturing (32 percent); and trucking, warehouse, and postal service industries (32 percent). Immigrant workers also make up a disproportionate share of essential workers (43 percent) compared with 37 percent across all industries.

Women of color are most likely to be concentrated in essential industries (33 percent share of essential industries versus 27 percent share of industries overall). Men of color are also slightly more likely to work in essential industries (33 percent share in essential industries versus 31 percent of industries overall). Women of color disproportionately work in the following essential industries: domestic work (66 percent); childcare (54 percent); health care (47 percent); and building cleaning services/waste management (42 percent). Latina workers make up one- tenth of the labor force, but nearly half of all domestic workers (47 percent), 37 percent of building cleaning services/waste management workers, and 23 percent of childcare and social services workers. API women account for 13 percent of the labor force, but one-quarter of workers in the health-care industry and about one-fifth in the childcare and social services industry (21 percent). Black women, who make up 3 percent of all workers, are overrepresented in the public transit (11 percent), childcare and social services (8 percent), and health care (6 percent) industries. Among male workers, Latinos, who make up 13 percent of all workers, are overrepresented in essential industries of construction (52 percent); agriculture (49 percent); building cleaning services/waste management (30 percent); and trucking, warehouse, and postal service (26 percent).

Chinese workers make up the largest share of Asian workers (33 percent), and although they are not overrepresented across all frontline industries, they account for over half (53 percent) of Asian workers in construction and are also overrepresented in utilities, childcare and social services, agriculture, and building cleaning/waste management. Filipinx workers account for 22 percent of all Asian workers, 35 percent of all Asian workers in frontline industries, and 47 percent of Asian health-care workers. Many Filipinx nurses trained in American nursing programs in the Philippines, a relic of US colonial rule in the country, and filled a growing need for nurses in the United States following WWII.

Other Asian workers are not overrepresented in frontline industries overall, but are concentrated within specific industries. Vietnamese workers, for example, make up one-tenth of all Asian workers yet 15 percent of Asian construction workers and 13 percent of Asian manufacturing workers. Japanese workers account for 4 percent of all Asian workers, but 15 percent of Asian workers in the agricultural industry. Indian workers make up one-fifth of all Asian workers but are not concentrated in frontline industries (and therefore are not included in the chart above).

Frontline workers have more economic and social vulnerabilities than workers overall. They are more likely to live in poverty, rent rather than own their homes, pay too much for housing, have limited English, lack US citizenship, be caring for children and/or seniors at home, and lack internet access. Nearly 17 percent of all frontline workers live below 200 percent of the poverty level (about $48,000 for a family of four) compared to 13 percent of all workers. Frontline workers earn less (median earnings of $57,989 versus $70,917 for all industries) and are less likely to hold a college degree, and more likely to lack health insurance.

Frontline workers are more likely to lack health insurance (8 percent) compared with workers overall (6 percent), but even more stark are the uninsured rates within particular frontline industries. Workers that are particularly vulnerable include those in the agriculture; domestic worker; construction; and building cleaning services/waste management industries, where the uninsured rates surpass 15 percent. Frontline industry workers face other challenges that also put their health at risk, including a lack of sick days and the inability to advocate for their rights as workers without retribution.

Frontline Workers Need Our Support

Essential workers put their health on the line every shift to provide for our community’s basic needs — and we must do everything possible to minimize their health risks and ensure their financial stability and long-term success. For frontline workers to be healthy and economically secure they need proper protective gear and testing, paid sick leave and affordable health care, living wages, childcare and elder care, and secure housing.

Employers and the federal government should be doing much more to provide these essentials, but given insufficient action, Bay Area cities have implemented multiple policies to improve conditions, including free coronavirus testing sites, free and reduced-price childcare, and expanded mental health services. While these policies provide a good starting point, we must dramatically expand protections for frontline workers at the municipal, state, and federal level to ensure that they are healthy and safe throughout the duration of this crisis and beyond.

Employers and state and local government should take the following actions to support frontline workers and provide for the common good.

Employers must ensure safe working conditions, paid sick leave, living wages, and a voice at work. Employers should take all possible steps to prevent employee exposure to COVID-19, including provision of masks and gloves, frequent hand-washing breaks, and routine surface cleaning. Employers should also offer paid sick leave for all workers, including contractors. (Businesses with more than 500 employees are not required to provide paid sick leave under the federal Emergency Paid Sick Leave Act.) Small and mid-sized businesses must allow employees to stay home if exposed to COVID-19 or if they or a loved one is sick. Employers should provide hazard pay to account for the danger involved in working during this pandemic, and should be paying frontline workers a living wage at all times. The Insight Center’s Family Budget Calculator shows that in Alameda county, a family of four with an infant and a child in elementary school needs about $105,000 to cover basic household expenses: a $24.74 hourly wage for both working parents. Lastly, workers should be able to voice their concerns about working conditions and negotiate for better pay, benefits, and conditions without retribution.

Local governments should expand paid sick leave, increase access to free testing and affordable treatment, and cancel rent, mortgage, and utility payments. First, they should require paid sick leave for employers of all sizes. Berkeley, Emeryville, and San Francisco had paid sick leave policies prior to the outbreak, and San Jose passed an emergency paid leave ordinance covering large employers and gig workers that are not covered by the federal Emergency Paid Sick Leave Act, including gig workers in early April. San Francisco extended its ordinance to allow employees to care for sick relatives and cover gig workers. Oakland City Councilwoman Sheng Thao has also called for an expanded emergency paid sick leave ordinance. Local governments should also provide free testing and ensure access to affordable treatment for those infected with COVID-19. Finally, local governments should ensure everyone, including frontline workers, has access to safe housing. Although more than a dozen Bay Area cities have passed emergency tenant protections, such as suspending evictions and late fees for those affected by COVID-19, and several San Francisco supervisors have proposed rent cancellation, no jurisdiction has canceled rent, mortgage, or utilities payments. The San Francisco Board of Supervisors also recently announced that the city will secure 8,250 hotel rooms for frontline workers, those experiencing homelessness, and other vulnerable groups. Bay Area cities should replicate and expand upon these actions to ensure everyone has housing.

The state has a key role to play in protecting workers in the Bay Area and beyond by expanding access to paid sick leave, testing and treatment, and housing; and suspending rent and mortgage payments for workers impacted by COVID-19. First, California must expand access to Medi-Cal as multiple news reports have found that coronavirus testing and treatment can cost as much as $35,000 for uninsured patients. In March, the state waived all cost-sharing for COVID-19 testing and facilitated Medi-Cal enrollment for those seeking testing and treatment. California should allow all undocumented residents to access comprehensive Medi-Cal coverage. Next, the governor should expand Executive Order N-51-20, which requires food sector employers with 500 or more employees to provide paid sick leave, to cover employers of all sizes and include other frontline industries such as transportation. California must also strengthen tenant protection policies and fund housing initiatives to ensure all frontline workers have a home. While the state enacted a statewide moratorium on evicting renters impacted by COVID-19, rent and mortgage payments should also be suspended. Governor Newsom recently announced a program that will provide frontline health-care workers with hotel rooms close to hospitals. This program should be expanded to provide housing for all frontline workers who need housing. Finally, California should enact the Essential Workers’ Bill of Rights put forward by the California Labor Federation, which includes demands such as protecting and expanding the right to form a union and ending ICE raids, deportations, and other attacks against our immigrant communities.

Methodology

The data for this analysis was provided by the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) which produced an analysis of frontline workers at the national and state level. We use a similar methodology described below.

This analysis of frontline workers (16 years and older) in the Bay Area includes 11 frontline industry categories, but no workers in frontline occupations that are outside of these 11 categories. As a result, estimates exclude some workers in occupations (but not industries) that are clearly on the frontlines, while also including some workers who are not in frontline occupations, even though they are in frontline industries. For example, a police officer is a frontline occupation, but this occupation does not fall within the 11 frontline industries.  A school bus driver on the other hand, is not a frontline occupation given school closures, but it falls within a frontline industry (public transit). Still, most workers in the 11 frontline industry categories are frontline workers.

The Bay Area analysis includes the six industries included in CEPR’s analysis (health care; grocery, convenience, and drug stores; childcare and social services; building cleaning services; trucking, warehouse, and postal service; and public transit) plus the following industries prioritized by our Equity Campaign Leaders Advisory Committee and the Equity Working Group of ReWork the Bay: waste management; agriculture, forestry and fishing; select manufacturing sub industries; utilities; domestic workers (excluding health care); and occupations within the construction industry. The specific industries or occupations within each industry group include:

1. Health Care: Offices of physicians; outpatient care centers; home health-care services; other health-care services; general medical and surgical hospitals, and specialty (except psychiatric and substance abuse) hospitals; psychiatric and substance abuse hospitals; nursing care facilities (skilled nursing facilities); residential care facilities, except skilled nursing facilities.
2. Construction: Occupations within the construction industry, including construction trades (e.g., electricians, painters) and laborers.
3. Manufacturing: Food and agricultural manufacturing; medical supply manufacturing; other critical manufacturing (e.g., commercial and service industry machinery).
4. Grocery, Convenience, and Drug Stores: Grocery and related product merchant wholesalers; supermarkets and other grocery stores; convenience stores; pharmacies and drug stores; and general merchandise stores, including warehouse clubs and supercenters.
5. Childcare and Social Services: Individual and family services; community food and housing, and emergency services; and child day care services.
6. Building Cleaning Services and Waste Management: Cleaning services to buildings and dwellings (except for construction); and waste management and remediation services.
7. Trucking, Warehouse, and Postal Service: Truck transportation; warehousing and storage; and postal service.
8. Domestic Workers (not including health care): Private households.
9. Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing: Crop production; animal production and aquaculture; forestry except logging; logging; fishing, hunting and trapping; support activities for agriculture and forestry.
10. Utilities: Electric power generation, transmission, and distribution; natural gas distribution; electric and gas, and other combinations; water, steam, air conditioning, and irrigation systems; sewage treatment facilities; not specified utilities.
11. Public Transit: Rail transportation; and bus service and urban transit.

Racial/ethnic categories include Hispanic/Latino of any race; the following non-Hispanic, single race categories: White; Black/African American; and Asian American or Pacific Islander. The “Other” category includes populations too small to report individually (i.e., Native American or Alaska Native; two or more races; and those who identify as another single race not included above). Because the Asian American and Pacific Islander population in the Bay Area is very diverse, we include disaggregated data for the largest Asian American and Pacific Islander  ancestries in the Bay Area (which are all “Asian” ancestries; Pacific Islanders, a small share, are excluded from the disaggregated Asian ancestry analysis).