Race, Risk, and Workforce Equity in the Coronavirus Economy (copy)

Over a span of less than three months, the COVID-19 pandemic has radically upended the lives and livelihoods of millions of workers and their families. Nearly 39 million workers have filed for unemployment insurance, and economists have estimated that 100,000 small businesses have permanently closed. But while the pain has been widespread, it has not been equally shared: workers of color and immigrant workers, especially women, are being hardest hit by the loss of jobs and income and are disproportionately employed in the lowest-wage, essential jobs that place them at risk of contracting the virus.

By Abbie Langston and Sarah Treuhaft (PolicyLink), Justin Scoggins (USC Program for Environmental and Regional Equity), and Joel Simon and Matthew Walsh (Burning Glass Technologies)*

While national data has shown that people of color are concentrated in essential jobs and that Black and Latinx workers have higher unemployment rates, thus far we have lacked detailed data describing who are the most impacted workers in this crisis — crucial facts needed to inform relief and recovery strategies at the local, state, and national levels. This analysis aims to fill that gap.

Based on data on changes in job openings between March 2 and April 13 from Burning Glass Technologies layered with data on worker demographics and wages from the Census, this report offers the most comprehensive analysis of the economic impacts of the crisis on workers by race, gender, nativity, and occupation to date for the United States as a whole and 10 metropolitan regions: Boston, Chicago, Columbus, Dallas, Detroit, Los Angeles, Miami, Nashville, San Francisco, and Seattle. We examine the labor market impacts for three broad and mutually exclusive occupational groups: health-care jobs; frontline non-healthcare jobs deemed “essential” in the midst of the pandemic; and “non-essential” jobs most likely to be subject to the economic shutdowns that followed declarations of emergency at the federal, state, or local level. See the methodology below for further details and download the data for the US and the 10 regions here.

Our seven key findings:

  • In the wake of the coronavirus outbreak, job opportunities have fallen sharply across the economy, and most deeply among the lowest-paid non-essential jobs.
  • People of color are overrepresented in the non-essential jobs hit first and hardest by the economic downturn.
  • The jobs with higher risk of exposure to coronavirus will likely be among the last to come back, putting Black, Latinx, and Native American workers at heightened risk of long-term unemployment.
  • Essential jobs have been less impacted by slowing growth, but Native Americans and immigrants are more concentrated than other workers in essential jobs where opportunities are declining.
  • Jobs with growing demand in the midst of the downturn could provide lifeboats, and a pathway to economic security, for the unemployed.
  • Healthcare jobs have seen the least overall decline in job postings, but racial and gender wage gaps are more pronounced in health care than in other occupational groups. Black and Latinx women are especially concentrated in lower wage health care occupations.
  • Metros with greater economic diversity and stronger growth prior to the crisis, such as San Francisco and Seattle, have experienced less extreme job-market impacts. Regional economies that rely heavily on tourism, such as Miami or Nashville, have been hit particularly hard by the downturn.

To address the inequities highlighted in this analysis and lay the foundation for an equitable recovery, policymakers must protect workers by ensuring safe conditions and adequate protections and improving the pay and quality of low-wage jobs; supporting dislocated workers through direct supports and targeted job training and placement programs; and plan for a changed economic landscape in the wake of the pandemic downturn.

Background

As the human and financial costs of COVID-19 continue to mount, they follow the nation’s racial fault lines of health inequities and toxic economic inequality. People of color and low-income workers are disproportionately vulnerable to both the health risks and the economic risks presented by the coronavirus pandemic. Inequitable access to material resources, chronic stresses caused by systemic racism, and other “upstream forces” contribute to racial disparities in the underlying health conditions that make people more vulnerable to COVID-19. Recent data shows that Black Americans are dying from coronavirus at 2.4 times the rate of Whites, revealing the deadly impact of these inequities.

Racial economic inequities are similarly exacerbated. In April, with an overall rate of 14.7 percent, unemployment hit 16.7 percent for Black workers and 18.9 percent for Latinx workers. Women are also overrepresented among the workers dislocated by the coronavirus: while women comprise 49 percent of the US workforce overall, they accounted for 55 percent of those who lost their jobs in April. Unemployment for Latinas rose to 20.2 percent — the highest rate of any group. Single mothers in particular — whose households are more likely than any other type to be economically insecure — may be forced out of work either by actual job cuts or by lack of access to childcare in the face of school closures and social-distancing measures.

At the same time that women and people of color bear a disproportionate share of COVID-related job losses, they are also overrepresented among the essential workers buoying the economy and performing work vital to the functioning and well-being of the nation: the frontline farm, factory, warehouse, grocery and delivery workers shepherding the supply of food, medicine, and essential goods; the nursing assistants, home health aides, health care technicians and other health care support workers caring for people with illnesses or disabilities; the transit and delivery drivers who keep communities connected; and the janitors and cleaners whose work is critical to protecting public health and stemming the spread of the virus. While workers in many of these essential jobs are shielded somewhat from the threat of unemployment, they are more likely to be exposed to coronavirus by virtue of their proximity to others and contact with the public. Many of these essential workers earn low wages with few benefits and worker protections, and their economic situations give them little choice but to work despite the health risks.

FINDING 1: In the wake of the coronavirus outbreak, job opportunities have fallen sharply across the economy, and most deeply among the lowest-paid non-essential jobs.

Between March and April, weekly job postings declined for all but a few occupations including health-care jobs (such as physicians, respiratory therapists, pharmacy technicians) and essential service jobs (such as packers and packagers, stockers and order fillers, and cashiers). Demand for non-essential service and care workers fell precipitously: postings for waiters and waitresses shrank by 77 percent; childcare worker postings decreased 60 percent; and customer service representative postings declined 57 percent. Frontline and essential occupations have been better insulated from the demand shock, but there has still been a significant decline in weekly job openings for most occupations. Truck driving and driver/sales work are considered essential occupations with only a moderate health risk, for example, but still saw a 35 percent decrease in weekly job postings.

As states and counties begin to ease restrictions on business operations, jobs with lower COVID-19 risk — those that require less physical proximity to others — are likely to be among the first to recover, while jobs with higher COVID-19 risk will be slower to return. Workers displaced from higher risk, non-essential jobs are more likely to experience long-term unemployment, while the businesses that employ them may face increased pressure to automate operations in light of the ongoing pandemic, both to mitigate human interaction and to achieve longer term cost savings.

The chart above shows both labor-market impact and COVID-19 risk by occupation. The X-axis indicates change in weekly job postings between the weeks of March 2 and April 13: the further left on the axis, the greater decline in job opportunities. The Y-axis shows the COVID-19 risk faced by workers based on O*NET data indicating the physical proximity to others required by each occupation, with scores ranging from 0 to 5. The higher the number, the higher the risk: for example, dental hygienists and physical therapists are at the top of the scale, while loggers, sculptors, and painters are at the bottom.

Employment opportunities have declined most dramatically in non-essential occupations at the bottom of the income distribution. Weekly job postings have fallen by more than 50 percent for non-essential occupations in which workers (both full- and part-time) earn less than $35,000 per year, with the deepest declines for those in which workers earn less than $10,000 per year.

Many of these occupations are held by tipped workers earning sub-minimum wages in food service and other service industries. Because they rely on discretionary (and not compulsory) spending and customer behavior and require close proximity to other people, these jobs will likely take longer to recover than non-essential jobs that can be done in accordance with social-distancing guidelines.

For individuals newly unemployed from these jobs, this steep decline in demand underscores their precarious economic outlook: workers in low-wage service occupations are especially vulnerable to prolonged joblessness because their work requires close physical proximity to others. Many of them may also be ineligible for unemployment benefits because they do not meet minimum income thresholds, are classified as self-employed, or are paid “under the table.”

Certain groups of workers — food service workers, bartenders, most “gig” workers, many agricultural workers, seasonal employees, domestic workers, and people with disabilities — can be paid sub-minimum wages due to legal exemptions to labor standards. Among these lower paid occupations, the vast majority of nannies and housekeepers are women, and most of them are people of color. Almost 25 percent of food-delivery gig workers are Black (twice their share of all workers). People of color account for about 40 percent of all tipped workers, and are more likely to experience poverty than their White counterparts.

FINDING 2: People of color are overrepresented in the non-essential jobs hit first and hardest by the economic downturn.

Overall, the US workforce is 63 percent White, and 37 percent people of color, including 11 percent Black, 17 percent Latinx, 6 percent Asian, and 1 percent Native American.

The steepest declines in job postings were for the non-essential jobs disproportionately held by workers of color (represented in orange in the above chart). These include jobs with higher risk of exposure to coronavirus, like dining room and cafeteria attendants (54 percent people of color) and manicurists and pedicurists (79 percent people of color), as well as jobs with slightly lower health risks, such as interpreters and translators (56 percent people of color). White workers are overrepresented in just four of the 15 occupations that experienced the greatest demand shock: bartenders (74 percent White), tax preparers (65 percent White), meeting, convention, and event planners (73 percent White), and other entertainment attendants and related workers (65 percent White). FINDING 3: The jobs with higher risk of exposure to coronavirus will likely be among the last to come back, putting Black, Latinx and Native American workers at heightened risk of long-term unemployment.

Assuming that higher risk non-essential jobs will experience a longer duration of disruption due to COVID-19, workers of color will be disproportionately impacted. Among those found in these roles, 43 percent of White workers and 38 percent of Asian workers are in higher risk roles. By contrast, slightly more than half of Black, Pacific Islander, and Native American workers in non-essential occupations are in higher risk jobs, along with 57 percent of Latinx workers — the highest rate of any racial/ethnic group.

 

The non-essential jobs with the highest COVID-19 risk will likely be the slowest to rebound — and many of them may not return at all. People of color are overrepresented in the largest of these occupations, and those that pay the lowest wages.

The federal Paycheck Protection Program has provided more than $650 million in forgivable loans, primarily to businesses with fewer than 500 employees, to help cover payroll and other costs for struggling businesses. The program expires on June 30; without additional funding, job losses in these occupations may spike again if businesses cannot yet safely resume operations or, if despite modified operations, their customers are reluctant to return. Workers in high-risk, non-essential jobs — hairdressers and barbers, manicurists, teaching assistants, restaurant workers and bartenders, maintenance and landscaping workers, among others — are at increased risk for long-term unemployment. In the first six weeks of the economic crisis, demand declined for most of these jobs by more than 50 percent. FINDING 4: Essential jobs have been less impacted by slowing growth, but Native Americans and immigrants are more concentrated than other workers in the essential jobs where opportunities are declining.

While essential occupations have been relatively insulated from the demand shock of the 2020 economic downturn, growth has slowed considerably. Within all racial/ethnic groups, immigrant workers are most likely to be negatively impacted by these labor market dynamics, and Native Americans are more likely than other US-born workers to be negatively impacted. Overall, immigrants find themselves in occupations that have experienced far greater declines in employment opportunities, with an average decline in new weekly job postings of 31 percent compared with 23 percent for US-born workers. Latinx, Black, and Pacific Islander immigrants have seen the steepest drops in employment opportunities (30 percent or higher), while US-born Asian and Latinx workers have experienced the least job market disruption (22 percent or less). FINDING 5: Jobs with growing demand in the midst of the downturn could provide lifeboats, and a pathway to economic security, for the unemployed.

Nationally, demand has grown in a handful of (mostly essential) occupations. Some of these roles offer high-quality jobs, but carry skills and educational requirements that make them unsuitable for rapid training and placement of dislocated workers. For example, respiratory therapist positions are experiencing increasing demand but can take up to two years to prepare for. But other roles, such as stockers and order fillers, can be lifeboats for the unemployed — offering near-term employment that does not require extensive retraining, and providing a skills pathway into higher quality jobs, like postal service clerks. FINDING 6: Health care jobs have seen the least overall decline in job postings, but racial and gender wage gaps are more pronounced than in other jobs. Black and Latinx women are especially concentrated in lower wage health care occupations.

Across all occupational groups – health care, essential, and non-essential jobs — people of color are clustered at the bottom end of the wage distribution, whiåle White workers are overrepresented in higher wage jobs. Workers of color are significantly overrepresented in low-wage non-essential jobs like dishwashers ($10 median wage) and skincare specialists ($12 median wage), as well as low-wage essential jobs like personal care aides ($11 median wage) and hand-packers and packagers ($11 median wage).

Among Black, Latinx, and Native American women in essential jobs, half earn less than $12 per hour — far short of the average living wage in the United States ($16.54 per hour) and just $0.57 for every dollar earned by White men in essential jobs at the median. Looking at each occupational group separately, racial and gender wage gaps persist, with men earning more than women within each racial/ethnic group and White workers’ pay outpacing all workers of color except for Asians. These gaps are most pronounced among health care workers, where Black and Latinx women are more concentrated in lower wage occupations than any other group.

FINDING 7: Metros with greater economic diversity and stronger growth prior to the crisis, such as San Francisco and Seattle, have experienced less extreme job-market impacts. Regional economies that rely heavily on tourism, such as Miami or Nashville, have been hit particularly hard by the downturn.

For all 10 of the metropolitan regions included in this analysis, the sharpest drops in demand have been among non-essential occupations, ranging from a 46 percent decline in Columbus to a 60 percent decline in Miami. But at the occupational-group level, these regional economies have experienced sometimes dramatically different outcomes.

Across the three broad occupational categories described here, the overall composition of the workforce in these regions is quite similar, with health care occupations accounting for 7-9 percent of all jobs, essential jobs accounting for 25-29 percent, and non-essential occupations accounting for 63-66 percent. Yet the decline in weekly postings across these categories varies widely from place to place.

One factor contributing to these differences may be the overall strength of each region’s economy going into the COVID-driven downturn: In 2018, the San Francisco region saw 4.3 percent annual growth in Gross Metropolitan Product (GMP) — the highest rate of any region included in this study. The Detroit and Los Angeles regions saw the lowest rate of GMP growth, at 1.8 percent.

Another factor is the industrial composition and occupational mix in a given region. Capital cities (with higher levels of government employment) and places with substantial anchor institutions (like large universities) may be somewhat more sheltered, and economic diversity and complexity have also been shown to stabilize overall growth and provide some insulation against economic shocks. The more diverse a region’s economy is, the less its prosperity depends on a single industry or market sector. Jobs in advanced industries have an outsized multiplier effect in supporting diverse regional economies by driving and sustaining a range of service sector jobs, and may have buffered some of the economic impacts of the pandemic in “innovation economy” hubs like San Francisco, Seattle, and Boston. But in economies that rely heavily on tourism, such as Miami or Nashville — which has developed as a nexus for tourism in the southeast — the large accommodation and food services sectors were hit particularly hard by the economic shutdowns.

Contrasts in public policy responses likely also play a role, as local and state leaders issued emergency declarations and shelter-in-place orders at different times and to different degrees.

Overall, the demand shock was most severe in Miami, with a 55 percent decline in new employment opportunities; Nashville and Detroit followed with a 49 percent decline. Columbus saw the lowest rate of overall decline, with a 38 percent decrease in weekly job postings. The average decline for all job postings across these regions was 44.5 percent.

 

Nationally, health care occupations have fared better than other jobs in terms of the economic impact of COVID-19, and seem to be relatively more insulated given the health implications of the pandemic and greater need for some medical specialties. At the regional level, however, health care job opportunities declined more than essential jobs in four of the 10 metros we evaluated: Boston, Chicago, Columbus, and Nashville. As elective procedures have been postponed or canceled and many people have delayed or avoided regular hospital, clinic and medical/dental office visits in order to mitigate the risk of contracting or spreading the virus, staffing needs fell in these health care service operations. The decline in health care job postings was greatest in Nashville (44 percent), and lowest in San Francisco (11 percent) and Seattle (15 percent).

 

Among essential occupations, the range of labor-market impacts was even greater. The Boston region showed strong growth in essential logistics jobs like stockers, order fillers, and freight material handlers, for an overall decline of just 8 percent in essential job postings. (The retail trade sector in the Boston metropolitan area experienced an increase in weekly postings year-on-year due to hiring by Amazon warehouses in the exurbs.) In Chicago, essential job postings declined by 12 percent, far less than the national average, buoyed by new job postings for driver/sales workers and truck drivers, stockers and order fillers, and food preparation supervisors.

 

Policy Recommendations

To lay the foundation for a sustainable and equitable recovery, policymakers and business leaders should target resources and supports to the populations who need them most. Among both frontline essential workers and dislocated workers, as this analysis shows, people of color and low-income workers are facing outsized economic challenges due to COVID-19.

As state and local governments move toward reopening regional economies across the country, much uncertainty remains. The labor market decline appears to be slowing — at least temporarily — as the number of new unemployment claims dips each week. Yet with new infections on the rise in 17 states, the lingering threat of a viral resurgence in the fall remains.

Most federal relief efforts are set to expire during the summer, and given the regional diversity in economic impacts, local interventions will depend on the occupational and industry mix of a region. In metros where anchor employers are continuing to hire in large numbers, governments should engage with these organizations to ensure that working conditions are safe and satisfactory. In regions where demand in key sectors is cratering, public and private stakeholders will need to develop collaborative approaches to support the growth of good jobs. In both cases, equitable recovery plans must anticipate and plan for a changed jobs and economic landscape while advancing the twin priorities of protecting essential workers and supporting dislocated workers.

Protect essential workers

  • Ensure adequate protections and safe conditions for all workers. As millions of people in the United States rapidly transitioned to working from home throughout March, essential workers like nursing aides, grocery clerks, warehouse workers, drivers, and sanitation workers have continued reporting to work in frontline occupations — often without the supplies and procedures they need to stay safe. Employers must safeguard the health and well-being of all workers, including independent contractors and subcontractors, by providing adequate personal protective equipment, ensuring appropriate cleaning and safety precautions in the workplace, and instituting social- distancing practices between workers, and between workers and customers to limit unnecessary exposure. Businesses operating during the pandemic should be accountable for prioritizing worker safety — and when they do not, workers who speak out should be protected from retaliation.

  • Provide resources to safeguard the health and economic security of workers and families. Unlike nearly all other developed countries, the United States provides neither universal health care nor guaranteed paid sick leave. Among the lowest-paid workers — many of whom are concentrated in essential jobs — just 30 percent have access to paid sick days. Meanwhile, tens of millions of workers have found themselves newly unemployed in the last two months; for many of them the loss of employment and wages has been compounded by the loss of employer-provided health insurance. These devastating effects of the coronavirus pandemic underscore the urgency of policy changes that guarantee paid sick leave for every worker and high-quality, affordable health care for every resident. The federal Families First Coronavirus Response Act requires certain employers to provide paid sick leave and family and medical leave, but exempts those with more than 500 employees and expires at the end of 2020. Now is the time for policymakers to permanently expand paid leave for all workers.

  • Improve the quality of essential jobs. The first months of the coronavirus pandemic have revealed a fundamental mismatch between the necessity of “essential” occupations and the job quality they provide for working people. Essential workers putting their health on the line to keep the economy afloat — disproportionately people of color, women, and immigrants — are often paid low wages, exposed to unsafe working conditions, denied basic benefits, and locked out of high-quality career pathways. Among Black, Latinx, and Native American women in essential jobs, half earn less than $12 per hour — far short of the average living wage in the United States ($16.54 per hour). Some large employers like Kroger, Target, and Amazon introduced “hazard pay” policies that temporarily raised the wages of essential workers by $2 per hour, but have now rescinded those pay increases as shelter-in-place orders are lifted (even where infection rates continue to climb). COVID-19 has made clear the value of essential jobs — in farming, transportation, care work, sanitation, and other critical sectors. Frontline workers should be paid living wages now and beyond the pandemic, and guaranteed basic rights and protections as outlined in the Essential Workers Bill of Rights.

Support dislocated workers

  • Increase economic security for all families. More than 36 million US workers have been dislocated from employment since mid-March. The federal Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act temporarily expanded unemployment insurance eligibility to include gig workers, part-time workers, and self-employed individuals and adds up to 13 weeks of eligibility beyond state-level duration limits (through the end of 2020). Yet many low-wage service workers, disproportionately people of color, may still be ineligible for benefits because they do not meet the minimum income threshold. Permanent expansion of unemployment benefits and eligibility is a key strategy to increase economic security and enable consumer spending that will speed economic recovery. In the short term, additional cash transfers like the one-time $1,200 payments included in the CARES Act could provide a lifeline to low-wage and unemployed workers, and must include immigrants as well as US citizens. Other income supports in the form of childcare, food, and housing subsidies should be bolstered to ensure that all families and households can meet their basic needs.

  • Protect jobs and tenure as opportunities return. As the economy begins to recover from the COVID-19 crisis, policymakers and business leaders should implement protections to ensure that dislocated workers are able to return to their former jobs with no loss of wages, tenure, or other benefits. Los Angeles recently passed two such laws: the Right of Recall Ordinance and the Worker Retention Ordinance. The Right of Recall Ordinance requires covered employers to offer any positions that become available to qualified or trainable non-managerial workers laid off since March 4. In the event of a change in business ownership or control within two years of the March declaration of emergency, the Worker Retention Ordinance requires covered employers to provide seniority preferences to employees of the incumbent owner. Federal legislation to expand payroll support beyond the Paycheck Protection Act would be another solution to support dislocated workers and to stem job and business losses. Keeping workers on their employers’ payrolls would help stabilize incomes as well as employer-provided benefits like health insurance and retirement savings accounts, and could help businesses resume operations more quickly.

  • Expand access to stable career pathways for people of color and low-income workers. Workers of color are underrepresented in many higher wage occupations that require less physical proximity and are therefore more likely to recover more quickly than non-essential jobs with higher COVID-19 risk. Policymakers and business leaders should invest in workforce development strategies to create equitable career pathways to connect people of color to opportunities in these occupations by expanding access to higher education and other training programs — including upskilling and reskilling opportunities, non-degree certifications, apprenticeships, and pre-apprenticeships — while also taking steps to reduce barriers for groups facing high unemployment, such as individuals with criminal records and people with disabilities. Many high-quality jobs that are suitable for socially distanced or remote-working arrangements are still in demand. As these jobs bounce back, workers formerly employed in these occupations will be the first hires. There will still be vacancies, however, so bolstering training and placement pipelines for these roles should be an early priority for workforce systems providers. White workers are overrepresented in 13 of the 15 largest occupations in this category, so talent development approaches should include explicit racial equity targets and strategies to support people of color entering these roles.

  • Invest in creating jobs that will support a safe and equitable economic recovery. Reopening the US economy in the wake of the pandemic will require a tremendous coordinated public health effort including massive testing, contact tracing, community health outreach, modified worker and customer behavior, and vigilant cleaning and sanitation. Public health experts estimate that the United States may need to ramp up testing capacity up to 25 to 35 million tests per day. This will require a large and diverse workforce to manufacture testing kits and supplies, collect samples, and perform intensive community outreach and education. Effective contact tracing alone would require between 300,000 and 500,000 new or redeployed workers across the country. Additionally, as businesses continue to reopen and public transit and other spaces are being shared, frequent cleaning and disinfecting of trains, buses, and buildings will be essential to slow the spread of the virus. This presents another opportunity to create a significant number of jobs while promoting public health and the economic recovery. These public health jobs and other critical community-serving roles could be created and deployed through a federal job guarantee, as part of a green stimulus to lay the foundation for an equitable post-pandemic economy.

Anticipate and plan for a changed jobs and economic landscape

  • Confront automation risk. Following recessions, employers often accelerate shifts to automation and digitization. As these shifts disproportionately impact lower wage workers and people of color, workers need guidance in how to move into roles at lower risk of automation, and develop skills that will enable them to work alongside digital and robotic innovations, rather than be displaced by them.

  • Institutionalize continued learning and skills development. Rapid job placement is critical to mitigating the impacts of the downturn, but many of the near-term employment opportunities are in lower-wage occupations. To ensure that short-term mitigation of unemployment does not calcify into long-term underemployment, frontline workers in currently available jobs need to reskill and upskill for better opportunities that will come online in the coming months and years. Training funds need to apply to working individuals as well as the unemployed to ensure longer-term viability of their careers and of our broader economy.

  • Train for new realities. While the core function of many stable and returning jobs will remain the same, new requirements may permeate and therefore job readiness and skills training programs need to be prepared to address these new requirements. Use of digital communications tools may become more ubiquitous in order to service customers at a safe distance. Use of personal protective equipment and implementation of health and safety protocols may become required of new employees, and thus may need to be addressed in workforce training programs.

*This report was produced as part of a multiyear, data-driven effort to identify high-impact workforce solutions to advance racial equity at scale, led by the National Fund for Workforce Solutions and the National Equity Atlas research partnership between PolicyLink and the USC Program for Environmental and Regional Equity (PERE), in collaboration with Burning Glass Technologies. We are working with local leaders in 10 US regions to leverage deeply disaggregated data on current and future labor market trends to develop strategies to build equitable career pathways, remove barriers to opportunity, and grow good jobs that increase economic security for excluded and low-wage workers. This work is generously supported by JPMorgan Chase & Co. The views expressed in this report are those of PolicyLink, PERE, and Burning Glass Technologies, and do not reflect the views and/or opinions of, or represent endorsement by, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. or its affiliates.

Methodology

The analysis presented here relies on a unique occupation-level dataset assembled from a variety of sources. Burning Glass Technologies combined proprietary data on new weekly job postings, expressed at the six-digit Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) level, with data from O*NET on physical proximity to other people to define two key indicators — impact on employment opportunities and health risk due to COVID-19, respectively. Burning Glass builds a database of job postings by collecting data from close to 50,000 online job boards, newspapers, and employer sites daily. Burning Glass then de-duplicates postings for the same job, whether it is posted multiple times on the same site or across multiple sites. Finally, Burning Glass applies detailed text analytics to code the specific jobs, skills, and credentials requested by employers.

Burning Glass calculated two labor market indicators for this report: the change in weekly job postings pre- and post-widespread economic shutdowns and available jobs during April. The change in weekly job postings before and after widespread economic shutdowns (comparing the weeks of March 2, 2020 and April 13, 2020) represents a decline in economic opportunity for workers employed in those positions and individuals seeking employment in them. The number of jobs that were available during the month of April, which includes jobs newly listed online during that period as well as listings from before April that had yet to be taken down, represents the full employment potential of different occupations.

Burning Glass paired data aggregated from online job postings with data from the Occupational Information Network, or O*NET. O*NET is a comprehensive database of occupational characteristics and worker attributes. Data is collected through surveys of workers and employers, with input from technical and scientific experts and under the leadership of the US Department of Labor. O*NET collects data for more than 1,000 granular occupations, which are many-to-one with SOC occupations. Survey responses are transformed to SOC occupations using proportional mapping of historical job postings. This report uses O*NET occupation-level scores for the extent to which a job requires the worker to perform job tasks in close physical proximity to other people. This proximity metric is used to proxy for COVID-19 infection risk, since the pathogen is transmitted through the air, on surfaces, and via bodily contact.

Essential occupations were identified by starting with the list of Essential Critical Infrastructure Workers according to the federal standards, and then paring down to get closer to “frontline workers” by comparing to separate state-level lists for California, New York, and Florida. The resulting list included 211 6-digit SOC codes, with total 2018 employment of about 61 million (37 percent of total US employment) based on data from the May 2018 Occupational Employment Statistics from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Despite tagging essential workers by relatively detailed 4-digit North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) industry codes (rather than occupation codes as we do) the national employment total in “essential occupations” we find is very similar to the some 63 million essential workers identified in a recent analysis by the Brookings Institution.

To understand the differential impacts of COVID-19 on groups of workers defined by demographic characteristics such as race/ethnicity, gender, educational attainment, and income levels, we merged the underlying occupation-level dataset with the 2018 5-year American Community Survey (ACS) microdata file from IPUMS USA. Unfortunately, the level of occupational detail available in the ACS microdata is somewhat broader than the 6-digit SOC level, and the codes are based on the 2018 census occupational classification system rather than the SOC system, which made matching a challenge. We created a carefully constructed crosswalk between the 6-digit SOC codes found in our underlying dataset and occupations in the ACS microdata based on a comparison of the occupational descriptions and employment levels. In many cases there was a one-to-one match; in many other cases, two or more SOC occupations were assigned to a single ACS occupation; and in a handful of cases, two or more ACS microdata occupations were assigned to a single SOC occupation.

With the crosswalk in place, we were able to merge the data on new weekly job postings and physical proximity scores to individuals in the ACS microdata based on their occupation. We then aggregated the data, along with the various demographic characteristics we report on, to the ACS occupation level to construct the final dataset used for the analysis. In doing so, we were careful to construct a consistent measure of new weekly job openings by summing up the number of openings across all SOC occupations in any given ACS occupation before calculating the percent change in new weekly job openings between the two reference weeks, and we only report the data if at least half of available jobs during April 2020 in the underlying SOC-level data had valid data on weekly job openings. Similarly, we identified ACS occupations as essential only if at least half of May 2018 employment in the underlying SOC-level data was in occupations that were tagged as essential. To estimate the physical proximity score, we took a weighted average of the underlying SOC-level scores in a given ACS occupation using 2018 employment as weight.

The demographic characteristics of workers reported in our analysis reflect the employed civilian noninstitutional population age 16 or older in the ACS microdata, including agricultural and self-employed workers. This differs from the OES data on total 2018 employment, which reflects non-farm wage and salary employment. For this reason, the number of workers found in any given occupation can vary quite drastically. It is our view, however, that the impact of COVID-19 on employment opportunities (as gauged by the change in new weekly job openings) and occupational health risk (as gauged by the O*NET physical proximity index) is just as relevant for the self-employed as for wage and salary workers in a given occupation, and the inclusion of the self-employed in our estimates provides a more complete picture of differential impacts by the various demographic characteristics examined. Only ACS occupations with valid data on the change in new weekly job openings (requiring at least 100 job postings for national data or at least 10 job postings for the regional data for the week of 3/2/2020) are included in our analysis, covering about 93 percent of the employed civilian noninstitutional population age 16 or older, nationally. Additionally, no data is reported for occupations with fewer than 100 (unweighted) civilian noninstitutional workers age 16 or older in the ACS microdata. As a result, the set of occupations for which we report regional data is far more limited than those for which we report national data.

In assembling the data for the 10 metropolitan regions included in our analysis, the same approach was taken but regionally specific SOC-level data on new weekly job postings and total available jobs during April 2020 was utilized; data on the physical proximity index for each SOC occupation does not vary by region. Finally, while all the underlying SOC-level new weekly job postings data, available jobs during April 2020, and May 2018 employment from the OES reflect the official definitions of metropolitan statistical areas from the Office of Management and Budget, data on the workers from the ACS microdata reflect slightly different regional definitions for three regions: the San Francisco Bay Area, Dallas, and Chicago. This is to accommodate the desired regional geographies for a larger project that the analysis reported here is a part of.

A Profile of Frontline Workers in Santa Clara County

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.

Sonoma County Latinx Workers are Overrepresented in Frontline Positions


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.

Congress Must Act Now to Protect the Most Vulnerable from the Coronavirus


As our communities deal with the spread of the coronavirus, federal leaders must take bold steps to ensure the safety of the public, particularly the most vulnerable among us. While this virus will hit communities regardless of race, income, or zip code, this pandemic will cause both health and economic disruptions that exacerbate the existing disparities for low-income people and communities of color that have long harmed our nation.      

CALL YOUR SENATOR

Please call your senators and ask them to pass the emergency House bill to help us navigate this public health and economic crisis. 

Early Saturday morning, the House passed an emergency bill that would allocate billions of dollars for paid sick leave, unemployment insurance, free testing, and other measures to help those impacted by this crisis. This is a necessary starting point that the Senate must pass now.

Unfortunately, these measures are narrow in scope, leaving 80 percent of workers unprotected. While some large employers are doing the right thing and giving employees sick leave, a national policy is the most effective measure in this time of unprecedented national crisis. We need comprehensive legislation to follow this initial bill to protect all people, especially those with the greatest health and economic risks. 

We Need Comprehensive Public Health and Economic Supports

Today, 100 million people — one in three people in the US — live in or on the brink of poverty where an illness, job loss, or unexpected expense can be financially insurmountable. At a time when officials are urging the public to stay home when they fall ill, millions of people lack paid sick leave and can’t afford to miss work to care for themselves or a loved one. This puts many people at risk for being the vector of an illness that can prove deadly for the elderly and immunocompromised. And as businesses take precautions or are forced through social-distancing norms to close, the resulting loss of income for workers and owners will cause increased numbers of people to fall behind on bills and risk their housing, health, utility, and food security.

We must plan and act with the most vulnerable in mind to both stop the spread of this virus, and ensure that weeks and months of addressing this public health crisis don’t turn into years of economic hardship.

Specifically, we are calling on federal leaders to champion the following policies:

  • Pass a Paid Leave Policy for All Workers – Low-wage workers who cannot afford to lose a day's wages because of illness are less likely to seek medical care (for themselves and for their families) than workers who do have paid sick leave, and are 1.5 times more likely to go to work with contagious illnesses. This means that lack of paid sick leave is not only a problem for individual workers, but also a public health threat. Building on the House-passed version, a paid sick leave policy that covers all workers is urgently needed to address the new coronavirus outbreak and beyond to help protect the health and safety of the population.
  • Ensure Emergency Income During Work Disruptions – We need to provide guaranteed income to help those facing disruptions to their income due to lost opportunities, funding streams, or customers. This includes small business owners and their employees, community-serving nonprofits, freelancers and artists, and workers in a gig economy who are not eligible for unemployment benefits but still must make their rent or mortgage payments.
  • Place a Moratorium on All Evictions and Foreclosures and Ensure Housing Stability – We are in the midst of a housing crisis where 21 million renters and 17 million homeowners pay more than a third of their income on housing bills, making them extremely vulnerable to income disruptions. We need a moratorium on all evictions and foreclosures to prevent the economic fallout of the virus. We must also provide emergency housing vouchers for all unhoused people, and those facing eviction. And at a minimum, we need to stop displacing homeless encampments, and take measures to increase access to water, hand-washing stations, and sanitation at current encampments to support critical health outcomes.
  • Prevent Utility Shut-Offs and Restore Water Service to All Households – Loss of income for households, workers, and small businesses will cause increased numbers of people to fall behind on bills and face utility services shut-offs. Over a third of US households are already at risk of inability to pay rising water bills. This is particularly concerning as washing our hands is our first line of defense against the virus. All public and private utilities should halt any utility shut-offs during this crisis, restore service to households currently experiencing a shutoff, and provide water delivery to all households with contaminated water systems.
  • Ensure Hospitals and Health-Care Centers Are Safe Places for Immigrants and Anyone Seeking Care – We must eliminate all barriers to people seeking proper medical attention, regardless of insurance or lack thereof. This also includes ensuring no one’s immigration status will be questioned when seeking assistance. Hospitals and health-care facilities must make it clear in all languages that immigration status will not be questioned, and should take steps to ensure immigration enforcement officials are not permitted in buildings.
  • Prevent the Spread of COVID-19 Through the Incarcerated Population – In the US, 2.3 million people are exposed to overcrowded and unsanitary conditions in prisons and jails, which will contribute to the spread of the coronavirus as the incarcerated population interacts with staff and other visitors. At a minimum, we must ensure incarcerated people have access to medical care and personal hygiene products; release elderly people with underlying medical problems to parole supervision; and release those who have an anticipated release date in 2020 and 2021 to parole supervision.

We are heartened by the swift actions that leaders in cities across the country are taking, proving once again that local leaders are national leaders. But we need policymakers at all levels to urgently address the threat of this current pandemic while ensuring we protect all struggling communities beyond this crisis.

CALL YOUR SENATOR

Please call your members to make sure they act without delay and strengthen the policies to help us navigate this public health and economic crisis.

Despite Progress Since 2018, Bay Area Diversity Not Reflected Among Top Local Electeds

By Ángel Mendiola Ross, Sarah Treuhaft, Michelle Huang, Justin Scoggins, and Kimi Lee of Bay Rising*

 

With so much attention focused on the 2020 presidential elections, it is easy to forget the importance of local elections to the everyday lives of Bay Area residents. Local governments are the closest and most responsive to the people. They also make critical decisions around issues like housing, policing, and transportation that can have significant equity implications – for example, the racist and unconstitutional “stop and frisk” policing policies of the recent past.

Given the power instilled in local electeds, it is crucial that these leaders reflect the diversity of the communities they represent. Although race or gender do not alone determine whether an elected official will advance racial or gender justice, and having more people of color and women in office does not automatically translate to more equitable policies – representation matters. Leaders who come from communities that experience discrimination and structural racism firsthand bring that knowledge into governing and can be important advocates for policies that dismantle barriers and improve conditions. And when marginalized communities gain representation in the halls of power, they can feel less neglected, gain trust in government, and have a stronger sense of belonging.

This is why the Bay Area Equity Atlas includes the diversity of electeds as a key metric for tracking equity in the region. To examine how well the Bay Area’s top elected officials represent the diversity of the region’s population, we assembled a unique dataset on the race,  ethnicity, and gender of the mayors and council members of the region’s 101 municipalities, and the county supervisors and district attorneys for the region’s nine counties.(1) Our dataset captures the composition of elected officials at three points in time to cover the results of 2017-2019 elections.

This analysis presents new data from two election cycles: November 2018, when 160 local elected positions were up for grabs, and November 2019, when 10 positions were open. The longitudinal data allows us to update previous data from May 2018 to examine whether we are making progress on this important indicator.

Our key findings include:

  • While the region is 60 percent people of color, whites hold 71 percent of local elected offices.
     
  • There are dozens of cities without any Black, Latinx, or Asian and Pacific Islander (API) representatives at all: among the 101 municipalities within the Bay Area region, 80 have zero Black elected officials, 42 have zero Latinx or API elected officials, and 33 have all White elected officials.
     
  • The share of women holding office in top municipal and county level positions is now 44 percent — up from 40 percent in May 2018; however among Latinx electeds only 40 percent are women.
     
  • APIs and Latinx people continue to be sorely underrepresented among local electeds, especially at the county level. Latinx and APIs make up half of the region’s population but are just 13 percent of top county-level elected officials. Most strikingly, Santa Clara County has the largest share of API residents of all the nine counties that make up the Bay Area (35 percent), but there are no API electeds in top county positions. Similarly, in Sonoma County, which is 26 percent Latinx, there are no Latinx in top county elected positions.
     
  • The most substantial changes in representation since the 2018 elections were at the city level, including several shifts in the rankings of the cities with the largest White overrepresentation and Latinx, API, and Black underrepresentation. Five cities that were formerly represented by all-White city councils elected at least one person of color in 2018: Benicia, Brisbane, Cloverdale, San Ramon, and Santa Clara.

Despite notable wins for candidates of color in the last couple years, the region continues to underperform on this equity metric. Campaign finance and election reforms and investments in programs that support people of color in running for elected office as well as increased voter engagement efforts are all needed to ensure that the region’s diversity is truly reflected in local elected offices.

Regionwide, Whites Remain Overrepresented with Some Progress After 2018 Elections

In early 2018, 74 percent of elected officials were White. But by 2020, the share of White elected officials in the region decreased to 71 percent. Whites are still overrepresented among local elected officials as just 40 percent of the region’s population is White, but the 2018 and 2019 elections made some progress toward reducing this overrepresentation. The slight uptick among people of color was due to increases in Latinx, Black, and multiracial elected officials.

Despite comprising 26 percent of the region’s population, only 10 percent of local elected officials identify as API. Similarly, 24 percent of residents are Latinx, but only 10 percent of local elected officials. As of early 2020, there is still not a single top city or county elected official in the Bay Area who identifies only as Native American. Across the region, there are 65 cities that do not have a single Latinx councilmember and 63 cities without any API representation.

Number of Women in Local Elected Office Increased by 31, But White Men Still Overrepresented

Reports of a record-breaking number of women running for office in 2018 led many to dub it the “Year of the Woman.” White men are particularly overrepresented among local elected officials, but there were significant changes in gender disparities after the November 2018 elections. In the Bay Area, the number of women in top local elected positions increased by 31 from 236 to 267. In early 2018, 60 percent of White electeds were male. But that share declined to 56 percent after the 2018 elections.

But not all racial/ethnic groups saw progress toward greater gender representativeness. The most gender parity is among API electeds, 49 percent of whom are women. The gender disparity remains largest among the Latinx population: just 40 percent of the region’s Latinx elected officials are women. And whereas Black elected officials were previously the only group of electeds in which women outnumbered men, that changed with the 2018 election. Before the election, 18 of the region’s 33 Black elected officials were women (55 percent). Today, just 17 of the region’s 39 Black elected officials are women (44 percent).

By 2020, four Bay Area cities were represented entirely by men: Woodside, Dixon, Corte Madera, and Richmond. The councils of Woodside and Corte Madera are the only ones made up entirely of White men. Los Altos, on the other hand, is the only city in the region represented by an all-female city council.

Underrepresentation of Asian and Latinx Residents Especially Pronounced at the County Level

Underrepresentation of API and Latinx residents is especially pronounced among county-level officials: just four of the region’s 60 county-level officials are API and four are Latinx. Put another way, Latinxs and APIs together make up half of the region’s population but are only 13 percent of top county-level elected officials. Among the region’s nine district attorneys (DAs), all except for one are White, and none are API or Latinx.

Most strikingly, Santa Clara County, which has the largest share of API residents among the nine Bay Area counties (35 percent of residents are API), has no API electeds in top county positions. Alameda County has one API supervisor (out of five) but 30 percent of the county’s population is API. The San Francisco Board of Supervisors has three API members, but APIs are still underrepresented as these three electeds make up just a quarter of top elected officials in a county that is 34 percent API.

Only Napa, Santa Clara, and Solano Counties have any Latinx supervisors. Latinxs in Napa County are most evenly represented: the county has two Latinx supervisors (making up 33 percent of top county elected officials) in a county that is 34 percent Latinx. Santa Clara and Solano counties each have one Latinx county supervisor (out of five) even though Latinxs make up just over a quarter of the population of both counties. In Sonoma County, which is also a quarter Latinx, there are no Latinxs in top county elected positions.

Whites, on the other hand, are severely overrepresented in county-level elected positions. In three counties (San Mateo, Sonoma, and Marin), the entire Board of Supervisors (plus the DA) are White even though White people make up 40 percent of San Mateo County, 64 percent of Sonoma County, and 71 percent of Marin County. In Santa Clara and Solano counties, where more than 60 percent of the population are people of color, all but one of the top county officials are White. The only non-White DA in the whole region is Diana Becton in Contra Costa County.

Despite Notable Victories for Candidates of Color, Whites Still Overrepresented in City Councils

The most substantial changes in political representation were at the city level, including several shifts in the cities with the largest White overrepresentation and the greatest Latinx, API, and Black underrepresentation.

As of February 2020, 33 Bay Area cities are represented by all-White city councils — down from 36 before the 2018 elections. Five cities that were formerly represented by all-White city councils elected at least one person of color in 2018 or 2019: Benicia, Brisbane, Cloverdale, San Ramon, and Santa Clara. But three city councils turned all White, losing one elected of color: Moraga, Rohnert Park, and Larkspur. This means that, in a region of 7.8 million people, nearly 330,000 people of color live in cities or towns that lack elected officials of color to represent their interests. Most notably, Albany is one of those 33 cities even though its population is majority people of color. Campbell, Napa, Pacifica, Pleasanton, and Vacaville are also less than 55 percent White, but as of this year, are represented by all-White city councils.

The cities most overrepresented by White electeds are largely the same group of South Bay cities from before the 2018 elections. Notably, the cities of Santa Clara and Sunnyvale each elected one API council member in the 2018 election. Santa Clara elected a South Asian (immigrant) city council member (Raj Chahal in District 2) and Sunnyvale elected a Chinese American city council member (Mason Fong in Seat 3 who is believed to be the youngest person ever elected to the council at 27 years old), but Whites are still severely overrepresented on both councils (accounting for six out of seven members) in cities that are only 33 percent White. Across the Bay, the city of San Ramon also elected a woman of color to the council in 2018. The city is only 39 percent White, but four out of five city council members are White. Only three cities in the entire region (East Palo Alto, Milpitas, and Pittsburg) do not have any White representation on their city councils.

The city of Fremont made progress on increasing political representation for its API population. In 2018, the Fremont City Council expanded from five to seven members and had their first ever district elections. The number of API city council members doubled from two to four, including two men and two women. In fact, Fremont now has the most API council members of any Bay Area city and is evenly represented as APIs make up 58 percent of Fremont’s population.

As API representation among elected officials did not shift considerably regionwide, a few cities remain severely underrepresented. In Western Contra Costa, for example, the city of Hercules is nearly majority (48 percent) API but only the mayor is API. Similarly, the city of Pinole is 25 percent API but not a single city council member is API.

The North Bay city of Cloverdale improved its representativeness for its Latinx population, which is 31 percent of the total city population, by electing a Latinx to the city council in 2018. In fact, Council Member Marta Cruz cited the fact that Cloverdale had no Latinx representation on the city council or school board as a reason for her running.

In 2020, there were still six cities across four counties (Oakley, South San Francisco, Healdsburg, Antioch, Concord, and San Rafael) with populations between 30 to 35 percent Latinx without a single Latinx local elected official (at either the city or county level).

Of all 101 cities in the Bay Area, just 21 have at least one Black city council member or mayor (up from 19 cities before the 2018 elections). The Eastern Contra Costa County city of Pittsburg has more Black representation than any other Bay Area city. Four out of the five council members are Black, two of whom are Black women. Richmond also has four Black city council members (out of 7 overall), all of whom are Black men.

Richmond contrasts with the city of Vallejo. Both cities are 20 percent Black, but before 2018, there were no Black city councilors in Vallejo. During the 2018 election, Hakeem Brown received the most votes out of any of the five candidates in the race. But with just one Black member out of seven total seats, Black residents in Vallejo remain underrepresented.

Eighty cities and towns across the Bay Area do not have a single Black city council member, including Emeryville (which is 15 percent Black), San Pablo, and San Leandro. Notably, both San Pablo and San Leandro each lost a Black city council member after the 2018 elections.

Looking Forward: Toward A More Inclusive Bay Area Politics

Despite notable improvement since 2018, the Bay Area still lags behind when it comes to political representation – hindering the inclusive, multiracial, community-driven political coalition needed to solve our region’s challenges. As the Bay Area continues to grow in diversity and APIs and Latinxs comprise a growing majority of the population, greater inclusion in local government is critical to responsive and democratic governance. Continuing to cultivate the region’s Black leadership at the city and county levels will also be essential to realizing a more just region – including as a strategy to counter the trend of Black displacement.

Improving on this measure will require addressing the multitude of barriers that prevent more people of color from running for office. With so few people of color in elected positions, young people of color have little legacy of electoral leadership, or elders teaching them why it matters and how to do it. For some immigrants who came to this country after living in military dictatorships and other oppressive government regimes, there is trauma associated with elections and rampant corruption. Language access continues to present a barrier, and many immigrant families are focusing intensively on work and education, leaving little time for political involvement. Working class people in the region are already stretched to make rent, find affordable childcare, and secure living-wage jobs.

Myriad institutional barriers hinder people of color from getting involved in government elections. Over the last few years, wealthy donors have invested hundreds of thousands of dollars into local races, making it very difficult for someone without private wealth to successfully run a campaign. Lack of adequate translation or interpretation for non-English speakers makes it difficult to fully comprehend what is on the ballot or what is being proposed. Black and Brown people have been the target of the criminal justice system, with over policing and high rates of incarceration, which also pushes their communities away from political engagement. The displacement crisis in the region also deters involvement: people who are housing insecure or who are new to an area are not inclined to run for office. Lack of access to childcare makes it harder for mothers to find time to run. Childcare as a campaign expense is a new concept and was just recently approved as an allowable expense. In addition, lifelong politicians and political parties serve as gatekeepers and often choose their successors rather than supporting grassroots leaders connected to community organizations.

Bay Area funders and policymakers must address these barriers and advance policy changes and programs that result in more candidates from underrepresented communities getting elected to city and county elected offices, especially in communities where people of color are severely underrepresented. The Bay Area Equity Atlas and Bay Rising offer the following recommendations:

  • Local city and county governments should pass structural reforms including public campaign financing and campaign finance reform to curtail corporate contributions, secret Super PACs, and “pay-to-play” politics — and should consider shifting from at-large to district-based elections. There has been some adoption of these strategies in the region: San Francisco, Richmond, and Berkeley have public campaign financing, and Oakland has some limited public funding available, but more localities need to adopt public financing and make reforms to ensure that the resources these programs offer are enough to make a difference. San Jose is considering a 2020 ballot measure to increase disclosures of large campaign donations and limit contributions from people and companies with land-use decisions before the city, and San Francisco passed such a measure in 2019. Additionally, more than a half-dozen Bay Area cities have recently moved to district-based elections. This shift may support the election of people from underrepresented backgrounds, as the case of Fremont shows, but more time is needed to determine their effectiveness.
     
  • Local and national philanthropies and corporations should fund equity-oriented leadership development programs that prepare people from underrepresented communities of color to effectively engage in public policy. Urban Habitat’s Boards and Commissions Leadership Institute — which has been replicated in several cities — and Bay Rising’s leadership trainings exemplify the type of programs that funders should support.
     
  • Funders, political leaders, and donors should invest in training and support systems for candidates from underrepresented communities to run electoral campaigns as well as community-based programs that support new elected officials from underrepresented communities once they are in office. People active in conventional political parties should work in partnership with community organizations to recruit, train, and support candidates from underrepresented communities to run successfully at all levels of government.
     
  • Policymakers and funders should support voting reforms and civic engagement efforts that increase voter registration and turnout among underrepresented communities, especially in local elections. Reforms, including efforts to increase language access, allow noncitizens to vote in local elections, and lower the voting age to 16, are gaining attention in the Bay Area. San Francisco now allows non-citizen parents to vote in school board elections, and in November 2020, voters in the city will also have the chance to decide whether to lower the voting age to 16 for local elections. What’s more, San Jose is considering a move to align their mayoral elections to presidential election years to increase turnout, especially among underrepresented communities.

 

* Kimi Lee, director of Bay Rising, serves on the Equity Campaign Leaders Advisory Committee of the Bay Area Equity Atlas. Bay Rising is the only regional civic engagement organization that organizes with working-class people and people of color as voters in the Bay Area year-round. Bay Rising is the umbrella network for San Francisco Rising, Oakland Rising, and Silicon Valley Rising, and represents over thirty grassroots organizations in the Bay Area.

1 We use “city” interchangeably with “municipality” for brevity. In this analysis, “city” also includes towns. Using the May 2018 list of elected officials provided by GovBuddy, 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. We updated this list using aJuly 2019 GovBuddy list and elected officials after the November 2019 elections were identified based on the last month and year of the elected position’s term. This methodology enables 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). 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). Note that in this analysis we focus on notable shifts for city-elected positions, while on the Atlas the data for cities includes both city council and county elected officials (supervisors and DAs) because county elected officials also represent the residents of the municipalities in those respective counties. See our full methodology here

Pages