Data on unemployment filings in California reveals how the Black working class has been hardest hit by the Covid recession, underscoring the need for targeted, race-conscious recovery strategies. 

By Eliza McCullough

While the economic crisis has affected a startling number of workers, workers of color and low-wage workers have been hit the hardest. In California, 8.7 million workers (nearly 45 percent of the labor force) have filed for unemployment insurance (UI) since the start of the pandemic in March 2020. But job displacement has varied dramatically by race and education, as illustrated by the  California Policy Lab’s recent analysis of UI claims data. This post highlights how California’s Black workers are experiencing disproportionate unemployment in the Covid recession due to structural racism embedded in the labor market, and describes policy priorities to ensure an equitable recovery.

About 85 percent of California’s Black workforce has filed for unemployment at some point since March 15th, which is more than double the rate for White, Latinx, and Asian or Pacific Islander workers. This includes workers who filed for either regular UI or Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA), a program created by the CARES Act to extend benefits to workers not usually eligible for regular UI.* 

This unemployment crisis for Black workers in a time of economic contraction threatens to increase already-wide racial inequities in employment. Structural racism embedded in the US labor market has created barriers to employment for Black workers that predate the current recession, ranging from employer bias and discrimination to residential segregation and mass incarceration. Black workers are typically the group hardest hit by economic downturns and are often the last to recover, as evidenced during the Great Recession when Black workers disproportionately suffered from long-term unemployment. The current economic crisis has most negatively impacted the hospitality, retail, and tourism sectors, industries in which Black workers are concentrated due in large part to discriminatory public policies that restricted Black workers’ access to better-paying jobs in other industries (a phenomenon known as “occupational segregation”). As these service sectors have gone through massive lay-offs, Black employees have been subject to the “last hired, first fired” phenomenon in which low-wage positions are the first to be eliminated.

Further disaggregating the data by race and educational attainment, we see that racial inequities are particularly extreme among workers without four-year degrees. Workers of all races with lower education levels have been hardest hit by the Covid recession: More than half of California workers with a high school degree or less (who account for 38 percent of all workers in the state) have filed for unemployment since March 2020 compared to 13 percent of workers with a Bachelor’s degree or higher. But unemployment filings are particularly high for Black workers without post-secondary education: virtually all Black workers with a high school degree or less (99 percent) have filed for unemployment, along with 75 percent of Asian or Pacific Islander workers with this level of education, compared with 52 percent of White workers and 33 percent of Latinx workers.

Black workers are overrepresented in lower education groups due to deep-seated structures of racial exclusion which have created significant barriers to accessing higher education. Residential segregation, perpetuated by exclusionary zoning, has led to the concentration of low-income Black children in schools with inadequate resources, which researchers have found is the key driver of the educational achievement gap. Along with the rising costs of college, these barriers prevent many Black students from accessing post-secondary education. As middle-wage jobs have shrunk in recent decades, Black workers with no higher education have been pushed into low-wage, ‘flexible’ positions with minimal protections. These jobs have been most impacted by wage cuts, diminished hours, and layoffs during the current economic crisis. 

Toward an Equitable Economic Recovery

Black workers and other workers of color are in dire need of increased supports in California and nationwide. Policymakers and business leaders must take action to address immediate economic needs as we enter the eleventh month of the pandemic. At the same time, they must launch forward-thinking, race-conscious strategies that lay the foundation for an equitable recovery and future economy. We recommend the following:

1. Continue expanded UI benefits and provide direct cash support. Additional UI payments under the Federal Pandemic Unemployment Compensation program should be increased back to $600/week (as provided from March to July). Additional and ongoing direct payments, such as the one-time $1,200 payments included in the CARES Act, could also provide a lifeline to unemployed workers and Black workers who are less likely to have adequate savings to fall back on.

2. Prevent evictions and foreclosures and provide debt relief to Covid-impacted households. As unemployed workers are more likely to be behind on rent and California’s Black renters are already paying unaffordable rent, policymakers must extend eviction moratoriums and provide rent debt relief. Limited rental assistance funds should be targeted to the hardest-hit households, particularly those in predominantly Black neighborhoods and neighborhoods of color, to prevent displacement and homelessness.  

3. Protect existing jobs. Multiple cities have passed legislation to ensure that laid-off workers in low-wage sectors can return to their former jobs. For example, Oakland’s Right to Recall policy requires employers in hospitality and travel to give laid-off workers priority when operations resume. Similar policies that protect jobs across sectors should also be implemented at the state and federal levels to ensure low-wage workers do not suffer from long-term joblessness or decreases in income and benefits. 

4. Build worker power. Unions have been shown to reduce racial inequality and provide economic security for Black workers. California policymakers must repeal Prop 22, which misclassifies app-based drivers as independent contractors and prevents their access to basic labor protections. Legislation that empowers workers, such as AB3075 which holds employers more accountable for wage theft, should be strengthened and expanded to ensure that recessions are less catastrophic for low-wage workers. Finally, California must increase funding for enforcement of labor and employment laws while also making state financial support for businesses conditional based on compliance with those laws.

5. Create high-quality public jobs accessible to unemployed workers. A Federal Job Guarantee would ensure everyone has access to living-wage jobs while meeting the physical and care infrastructure needs of disinvested communities. Policymakers should take immediate steps to support unemployed workers through direct job creation in crucial sectors, like the Public Health Jobs Corp program proposed by President-elect Biden. 

6. Expand access to upskilling opportunities and stable career pathways. Policymakers should proactively connect unemployed workers to good jobs by investing in workforce development, including higher education and training programs that reach Black workers, and enacting community workforce agreements on state-funded projects. Programs such as California’s Breaking Barriers to Employment Initiative, which funds workforce development programs for those with barriers to employment, should be strengthened and expanded while business leaders should commit to advancing equitable employment practices and offering good job opportunities to workers hard-hit by the pandemic.
   

    

*The California Employment Development Department defines workforce as all individuals residing in California who worked at least one hour per month for a wage or salary, were self-employed, or worked at least 15 unpaid hours per month in a family business. Those who were on vacation or on other kinds of leave were also included. 

Our analysis finds that the expiration of unemployment benefits on December 26th will place tens of thousands of families at risk of eviction.

Amidst record rates of Covid-19 infections and hospitalizations triggering a regionwide stay-at-home order, the lifeline benefits sustaining about 141,700 unemployed Bay Area workers hang in the balance while Congress debates another stimulus package. 

On December 26, 2020, two of the CARES Act programs – Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA) and Pandemic Emergency Unemployment Compensation (PEUC) – are scheduled to expire. The PUA program expanded unemployment benefits to cover gig workers and self-employed workers, and the PEUC program extended the regular 26-week unemployment insurance benefits by an additional 13 weeks. Although California will offer extended unemployment benefits beyond December 26th, many workers currently receiving PEUC will not qualify for them because they had lower prior earnings or seasonal work histories (including many agricultural workers).

With no replacement income and a bleak job market, these workers will face grave risks to their health and livelihoods. We estimate that 60,500 of these workers are renters, and if they do not find work immediately, they will be at imminent risk of eviction when the statewide eviction moratorium expires on January 31.* This includes about 14,900 renters in Alameda County, 11,300 in Santa Clara, 10,500 in San Francisco, 9,800 in Contra Costa, 4,100 in San Mateo, 3,900 in Solano, 3,400 in Sonoma, 2,100 in Marin, and 400 in Napa. This only represents a subset of Bay Area renters at risk of eviction: renters who lost jobs and income during the recession and received no unemployment benefits are also at risk of eviction (as we've estimated in our eviction risk analyses).

The same groups of workers hardest hit by the pandemic recession – Latinx workers, Black workers, young workers, and low-wage service sector workers – are disproportionately at risk of losing their unemployment benefits the day after Christmas, according to the California Policy Lab’s analysis of worker demographics. 

Extending these critical worker protection is crucial for equitable recovery in the Bay Area. With Covid cases spiking throughout the region, mass eviction would be a public health catastrophe. A recent study found elevated Covid infection rates and deaths in the states that have allowed evictions to continue through the pandemic. Beyond these Covid impacts, eviction drives people into poverty, displaces people from their communities, scars credit records, disrupts children’s education, leads to homelessness, and negatively affects mental and physical health. Starving workers of essential income would also have a chilling effect on the recovery.

 

*To calculate the number of renters at risk of eviction as a result of the December 26th benefits cliff, we used estimates of the number of workers exhausting benefits from PUA or regular UI from California Policy Lab's December 14th report. These numbers are then adjusted to account for the different rates of rentership for PUA and regular UI recipients. Those rentership rates were derived from the 2018 5-year American Community Survey (ACS) microdata from IPUMS USA, based on a universe of workers who are more likely to have experienced unemployment during the pandemic. Specifically, we restricted to the civilian noninstitutionalized population age 18 or older with earnings of greater than zero but less than the 66th percentile statewide ($52,899), employed in the top five industries with high UI claims in each county based on an assessment data from the California Policy Lab (May 21st and July 2nd reports), and estimated to have lawful immigration based on data from the USC Equity Research Institute. Among this universe, Rentership rates for self-employed workers were applied PUA exhaustees while rates for wage and salary workers were applied to regular UI exhaustees, based on the California Policy Lab’s finding that 89 percent of initial PUA claims were from workers who were previously self-employed, while rentership rates for wage and salary workers were applied to regular UI exhaustees.

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.

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.