In a multiracial democracy, the diversity of the region’s population should be reflected in its elected officials. Yet, an analysis of top elected officials in the Bay Area reveals that Whites (especially men) are overrepresented and Latinx and Asian or Pacific Islander communities are underrepresented.

By Jamila Henderson, Michelle Huang, Justin Scoggins, and Sarah Treuhaft

Building the political voice, leadership, and influence of the communities most impacted by inequities is central to countering inequality and creating a thriving, inclusive Bay Area. One important arena for shifting power is local electoral politics. City and county mayors and councilmembers/supervisors make crucial decisions about what policies are prioritized and how resources are allocated. Who holds those seats – and the interests they represent – can make a big difference when it comes to whether equity solutions are considered and championed.

While race/ethnicity and gender alone do not determine whether an elected official will support equity solutions, leaders who come from communities that experience racism and discrimination bring important firsthand experience and knowledge about residents’ needs and concerns. Such leaders can be important advocates and champions for substantive policies that dismantle barriers and improve conditions for marginalized communities. And when these communities gain representation in the halls of power, they may feel less alienated and neglected and gain a stronger sense of belonging.

To examine how well the Bay Area’s top elected officials represent the diversity of the region’s population, we analyze the unique Diversity of Electeds indicator included in the Bay Area Equity Atlas. This dataset tracks the race/ethnicity and gender of the mayors and councilmembers of the region’s 101 municipalities, and the supervisors and district attorneys for the region’s nine counties as of May 2018 (before the last election).1 To assess representativeness, we calculate the difference between the share of that group among top elected officials and the share of that group in the total population. For example, if 60 percent of a city’s population is Latinx but only 20 percent of electeds are Latinx, the Latinx population is underrepresented by 40 percentage points (20 percent minus 60 percent = -40 percentage points).

In the maps that follow, we sort municipalities into five categories of representation based on this percentage-point difference calculated for the four largest broad racial/ethnic groups: Severely over/underrepresented (more than +20/less than -20 percentage points); Moderately over/underrepresented (+5 to +20/-5 to -20); and Represented (- 5 to +5). Because county officials also represent the residents of a municipality, county electeds are included in the tally for each city/town. 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). To avoid highlighting over/underrepresentation when the population base is very small, we exclude municipalities from the maps and rankings for a particular racial/ethnic group if that group comprises less than 3 percent of the overall population in the municipality. Finally, we do not report any analysis of representation for those of Native American or mixed/other race due their very small shares of both top electeds and overall population across municipalities in the region.

Regionwide, White Men are Overrepresented in Top Elected Positions

In one of the most diverse regions in the country, top political leaders remain overwhelmingly White and male. While the region is majority people of color and 40 percent of residents are White, about three-quarters of top elected leaders were White (74 percent). Among those White electeds, most were male (60 percent). Overall, 260 of the region’s 588 top city and county officials are White men (44 percent).

Although half the region’s residents are either Asian or Pacific Islander (API) or Latinx – and these populations are growing – they are highly underrepresented among top elected officials. Only 9 percent of electeds were API, and only 10 percent were Latinx. These electeds were predominantly male, and Latinas were particularly underrepresented: Of the region’s 53 Latinx electeds, only 15 of them were women (28 percent). Men represented 55 percent of the Asian or Pacific Islander electeds.

Black people make up about 6 percent of the region’s population (down from 9 percent in 1990), and accounted for the same proportion of top elected officials. Black elected officials are the only group of electeds in which women outnumbered men: 18 of the region’s 33 Black elected officials were women.

About 4 percent of the region’s population identifies themselves as multiracial or “some other race,” but only 1 percent of electeds were in this category, and all of them were male. And there were no Native American elected officials at the time of our assessment.2

White Electeds: Overrepresented Almost Everywhere

Looking across the region’s cities and towns, Whites were overrepresented among the top elected officials nearly everywhere. Whites were severely overrepresented among electeds in 66 municipalities and moderately overrepresented in 29. There were only six municipalities where the share of Whites in the population was about the same as or more than the share of Whites among top electeds.

Nearly all of the municipalities with the highest overrepresentation of Whites among electeds are located in the South Bay. South San Francisco, where Whites are just 19 percent of the population and 80 percent of elected officials, has the most overrepresentation, followed closely by the cities of Santa Clara, Brisbane, and Millbrae.3

Latinx Electeds: Underrepresented Almost Everywhere

The Latinx population was underrepresented among top elected officials in most Bay Area cities and towns. As of May 2018, the Latinx population was severely underrepresented in 26 municipalities and moderately underrepresented in 49. The most severe underrepresentation was in the majority-Latinx cities of East Palo Alto and San Pablo, due in part to the fact that there were no Latinx electeds among the county supervisors or district attorneys in Contra Costa or San Mateo counties (there are also no Latinx supervisors or district attorneys in Alameda, Marin, or Sonoma counties). In four Bay Area cities (Antioch, Healdsburg, Oakley, and South San Francisco), Latinx people make up at least a third of the population, but there were no Latinx elected officials.

Asian or Pacific Islander Electeds: Also Underrrepresented Almost Everywhere

Asian or Pacific Islander residents are also underrepresented in most Bay Area cities and towns. In 26 municipalities, the API community was severely underrepresented among top elected officials. The worst gaps were in the cities of Foster City, San Ramon, and Santa Clara, where at least four in 10 residents are API but there are no API elected officials.4 Across Santa Clara county, 35 percent of residents are API but there are no APIs among top county electeds. 

Black Elected Officials: Overrepresented in Some Cities, Underrepresented in Others

While regionwide, the share of Black elected officials equals the share of Black residents, this pattern varies across cities and towns. Among the 44 Bay Area municipalities where Black residents make up more than 3 percent of the population, Blacks are overrepresented among electeds in 24 of them (mostly moderately so), represented in 14 of them, and underrepresented in six of them. The municipality with the most Black representation among top electeds was Pittsburg, where Blacks make up 16 percent of the population and 45 percent of electeds. In Union City and Brentwood, Blacks made up 27 percent of electeds but about five and six percent of the population, respectively. Vallejo, which is 20 percent Black but had no Black electeds, was the municipality with the least Black political representation, followed by Vacaville and Suisun City. All five of the cities with an underrepresentation of Black residents are located in Solano County, where there were no Black elected officials.

​​Toward A More Representative Bay Area Politics

The Bay Area is famed for its diversity, yet our examination of the data reveals that top elected leaders in the region are not reflective of this diversity. Whites are overrepresented in almost every Bay Area city and town (as well as all counties), while the Latinx and Asian or Pacific Islander community are underrepresented in the vast majority of cities and towns (as well as most counties). Women are also underrepresented among top electeds and this holds true across all major racial/ethnic groups, with the exception of the Black community.

The data paint a troubling picture of skewed political power in our region. The lack of Latinx and API representation among top electeds signals a potential gap between community needs and policy priorities. This is concerning for vulnerable and excluded communities of color, but also for the cultural and economic vitality of cities and our region as a whole. Demographers project that between 2015 and 2050 the Bay Area’s Latinx and API communities will increase from 49 to 55 percent of the region’s total population. It is crucial that these communities can fully participate in and contribute to political and economic life.

To address this gap in representation, Bay Area leaders should invest in strategies that result in more candidates from underrepresented communities getting elected to city and county elected offices, especially in places where communities are severely underrepresented. Such strategies can include structural and institutional reforms such as switching from at-large to district-based elections, which can make it easier to elect candidates from communities of color, or establishing public campaign financing which addresses funding barriers. There has been some adoption of these strategies in the region: More than half-dozen Bay Area cities including Concord, Fremont, Menlo Park, Martinez, Redwood City, Santa Clara, and Sunnyvale have recently moved to district-based elections, and San Francisco and Berkeley have public campaign financing (Oakland has some limited public funding available).

Funders and business leaders should also support targeted efforts to encourage and support leaders from communities of color in running for office, as well as efforts to provide support to new elected officials once they are in office. Expanding leadership development programs that prepare people from low-income communities and communities of color to effectively engage in public policy, such as Urban Habitat’s Boards and Commission’s Leadership Institute, can also provide a stepping stone into elected office. Lastly, investing in voting reform and civic engagement efforts that increase voting among underrepresented communities is crucial to ensuring equitable political representation.

 

1 Using the most recent list of elected officials collected by GovBuddy (current for May 2018), we identified the race and gender of the elected officials via web-based research. We then sent the information to the elected officials via email and mail, providing them with multiple opportunities to correct the data. Note that this methodology enabled the collection of broad racial/ethnic and gender categories, but not detailed ones (e.g. specific Asian or Pacific Islander subgroups, non-binary gender identification). See our full methodology here. 

2 San Francisco District 5 supervisor Vallie Brown, who was appointed to succeed supervisor London Breed after she became mayor on July 16, 2018 (after the close of data collection for this project), identifies as part Native American.

3 Santa Clara recently shifted to district elections after a civil rights lawsuit, and Indian immigrant and Sikh community member Raj Chahal was elected to office in November 2018 (after our assessment).

4 See note 3.

“Successful parks are markers of healthy communities: children play; families spend time together; people of all ages exercise and relax; and the environment adds to the beauty, security, and economic value of the neighborhood. On the other hand, neglected, dangerous, poorly maintained, or badly designed parks and recreation facilities have the opposite effect: families and young children stay away, illicit activities proliferate, and the property becomes a threatening or discouraging eyesore. To remain community assets, parks and recreation facilities need adequate budgets, good management, and a strong connection with residents.”

Since PolicyLink wrote those words in 2006, parks equity has become more widely understood as a core component of good city-building policies and practices. During 2019 Infrastructure Week, we should celebrate that awareness but double down on our commitment to achieve more tangible results. The case for community parks and trails as drivers of economic growth and rising property values has been repeatedly and effectively made and signature projects such as the Atlanta Beltline and the New York High Line have shown how places can be revitalized through the smart activation of green space. But with the growth bonuses from parks have come sharp questions about who gets to live near them and enjoy their benefits, as gentrification and displacement concerns have become more urgent in many cities. The essential role of parks in creating conditions that advance health and well-being has similarly been well documented.  Children, youth, and adults of all ages need easy access to places to exercise, play, gather as a community and seek respite from the stress of daily life. Here too, though the equity challenges remain, as parks not favored by wealthy donors are often chronically underfunded, which undercuts operations and maintenance as well as acquisitions.

Progress towards parks equity can be found in the arena of public policies, as local governments have explored new models for financing, from new twists on familiar taxes, bonds and fees, to new guidance for conservancies and public-private partnerships, to more innovative methods for capturing the value of adjacent development or establishing land trusts. Each of these mechanisms can be assessed with respect to who bears the financial burden, who benefits, and who makes the decisions. Cities should adopt the more equitable paths to new funding and allocation of resources, and states and the federal government should encourage and incentivize the right choices with their bond and grant program. [The Urban Institute is exploring strategies for investing in equitable parks for City Parks Alliance, and a report will be released later in 2019].

The most exciting frontier for parks equity might be at the level of individual projects where local organizations have built or revitalized parks in low-income communities by incorporating arts and cultural strategies into their approach. For example, Zuni Pueblo, New Mexico, is a place of powerful cultural and spiritual resilience. The Zuni nation has survived hundreds of years of systematic oppression and disempowerment while maintaining cultural and linguistic integrity. In the past few years, the Zuni Youth Enrichment Project (ZYEP) has worked with partners to offer youth programs that emphasize the importance of Zuni language acquisition, traditional agriculture practices, Pueblo art forms, traditional songs and dances, culturally significant sites, oral storytelling, and connection to the elders. These culturally enriching activities are designed to promote physical activity, improve nutrition, and provide a safe space where Zuni youth can connect to positive role models. Recently, ZYEP used philanthropic resources from ArtPlace America to build a new park and community center. They were advised by a committee of six Zuni artists who were partners through every phase of the park’s development. The artists acted as mediators, organizers (introducing staff to new community partners), designers who worked with the architects, and even builders who constructed parts of the park. Because of the artists’ cultural and creative lens, the park has wrapped the resilience of Zuni cultural traditions around present and future Zuni generations.

In Philadelphia, the Fairmount Park Conservancy believes that parks have the potential to serve as the city’s great connector and equalizer, and as catalysts for positive change. As a champion for the city’s public parks and recreation system, the organization’s mission and work has evolved beyond fundraising to becoming a collaborative leader and partner, focusing more strategically on planning, project management, program development, and community engagement. FPC used support from ArtPlace to utilize the arts to strengthen the organization’s mission and values. By forging new partnerships with artists and cultural producers, they worked with residents of the Strawberry Mansion area to illustrate their neighborhood history and opened up a previously unfamiliar historic house as a welcoming center for community performances and exhibits. The Conservancy became better equipped to tap into critical community voices to ensure that current and future planning and decision-making processes for new park investments are truly collaborative.

These stories from Zuni and Philadelphia are featured in the December 2018 issue of Parks and Recreation, the National Recreation and Park Association magazine.

At PolicyLink, we know that smart, targeted, equitable investments in infrastructure can have a transformative impact on low-income communities and communities of color. That’s why we are excited to join infrastructure advocates throughout the nation, for National Infrastructure Week—a time to collectively garner more public awareness and advocacy to support increased investments in infrastructure.

This week we will be posting a new blog each weekday exploring infrastructure equity. We encourage you to share our blog posts with your network and follow the conversation on Twitter using the hashtag #Build4Equity and  #BuildForTomorrow -- the official infrastruture week hashtag.

Five Recommendations to Create Equitable Infrastructure Investments

Infrastructure can provide transformative benefits to communities, but the story of infrastructure in the United States has often been devastating for Indigenous people, people of color, and low-income communities. From the transcontinental railroads that destroyed native lives and accelerated European occupation, to the demolition of entire communities in the mid-20^th century spurred by urban renewal and freeway expansion, to the ongoing pattern of locating pollution generating infrastructure and industry in neighborhoods that are home to low-income people and people of color, to the persistent lack of investment that has left millions of people in urban and rural communities without safe drinking water, sidewalks, parks, or other critical infrastructure—for too many people, infrastructure has been an oppressive force. A way to consolidate wealth and power for some while reinforcing racial and economic exclusion.

Today, we have an opportunity to change this. Our infrastructure is in serious need of attention. Growing populations, resource-intensive development patterns, new technology requirements of a rapidly changing economy, and several decades of underinvestment have combined to create a huge backlog of infrastructure projects all over the country—in urban, suburban, and rural areas. According to the American Society of Civil Engineers, we have to spend an additional $500 billion a year between now and 2040 in order to close our infrastructure gap. This backlog combined with the clear evidence that our existing infrastructure is not serving the communities who will soon constitute the majority, and the growing impacts of climate change, creates an opportunity for us to step out of our past and radically reimagine how we plan for, build, and maintain our infrastructure systems.

Here are five recommendations that can set us in the right direction:

• Serve underinvested communities without pushing out existing residents. Rectifying decades of disinvestment in communities of color and low-income neighborhoods is critical, but making these investments without protecting residents from displacement will only exacerbate harm. The benefits of infrastructure investments should be targeted to those with the greatest need and should be combined with strategies to ensure that residents can stay in their communities.

• Improve the environmental health and quality of life for residents of disinvested places. Climate change demands transformation in every aspect of our lives. As we tackle the next generation of infrastructure that will allow us to both slowdown climate change and prepare for its impacts, we have an opportunity to substantially improve the health and quality of life for residents of disinvested places. From electrification of our goods movement infrastructure, to redesigning our neighborhoods for multi-modal mobility, our transition to clean energy can provide a host of co-benefits to communities.

• Be equitably owned, financed, and funded. How infrastructure projects are owned, financed, and funded, affects whether they advance or impede equity. Ownership and financing should be structured to put greater power in low-income communities and communities of color and should ensure that project benefits actually make it to them.

• Create good jobs and business opportunities for local residents. While infrastructure investments can facilitate a host of physical improvements in a community, they can also provide workforce development opportunities, jobs, and new business opportunities. Making sure that these economic benefits are accessible to a broad cross section of local residents, including individuals with barriers to employment, will ensure that our infrastructure investments contribute to a future of shared prosperity.

• Include residents in decision-making at every step. Achieving equity requires shared decision-making that is rooted in transparency and a commitment to changing inequitable policies and practices. Bringing communities into all stages of infrastructure planning and implementation allows for community knowledge and priorities to shape decisions and ultimately leads to better projects and outcomes.

Over the next four days we will explore these recommendations further and will join our partners from around the country to reimagine infrastructure so that we can #Build4Equity and #BuildForTomorrow.