Informational Report on
Oakland’s Sugar Sweetened Beverage T ax
And
Proposed Policy Change to Designate Revenues
Prepared for
Rules and Legislation Committee
July 2024
By: Equity In Advance & Sugar Freedom Project
Measure HH passed in 2016
Measure HH was a 1-cent per ounce SSB
tax on the distribution of Sugary Drinks.
It was projected to bring in $10M/year.
Funds would go into the General Fund
with a Community Advisory Board to
make recommendations on spending of
funds to decrease consumption of sugary
drinks and provide funding to create and
expand health and wellness programs.
Oakland’s Soda Tax
2016 voters passed the Sugar-Sweetened Beverage T ax (Measure HH) as a 1-cent per ounce excise tax on the distributors of sugar-sweetened beverages, passed as a General T ax with revenue deposited into the General Fund Campaign materials consistently messaged to voters that the revenues raised would fund programs to address health disparities
Sponsored by CMs Campbell-Washington, Brooks, and Kaplan – City Council voted unanimously to place it on the ballot
A Community Advisory Board was established to make funding recommendations and track tax impact via yearly report
A community grants program was established
Impacted Communities
Adults with Diabetes
Implementation
In 2018 Fund 1030 was established to track revenue
allocations in the City Budget
In 2018 a Council memo set forth a budget directive
for OPRYD to receive 50% of revenues for new,
on-going programs to address diabetes
Less than 20% has been demonstrated to honor the
campaign promise to voters, vast majority has
supplanted & backfilled the City budget; OPRYD has
supplied no data on adherence to budget directive
The tax has raised over $40 million to date
Impact
In the first 2.5 years of the tax, sales decreased by
26%
Diabetes rates have increased from 7.9% to 10.7%
from 2016 to 2021
- D3: from 14.8% to 16.2%
- D2: from 24.9% to 26.5%
- D6: from 15.2% to 16.9%
Majority of revenue supplants budget in OPRYD, no
expansion of aligned programming
No evaluation of the tax itself & revenue allocation
on the Measure’s goals has been conducted
Grassroots Community Engagement
2017 In-Advance launched Sugar Freedom Project (SFP) with Roots & Oakland Food Policy Council going door-to-door in East Oakland precincts to identify tax investment priorities 2018 T ook community priorities to the newly created CAB, which used it as funding recommendations guide
2018 - onwards SFP facilitates community health and civic education, and grassroots policy-making with East Oakland impacted communities & CBOs 2021 SFP w/ 10+ CBOs ran budget campaign to demand 36% for “Food Cards” & 24% for grants program: Won budget directive for $1 million, City has not yet distributed funds 2022 Began redesigning policy with Community-Based Participatory Action Research 2024 SSB Grantees receive their grant checks very delayed, disrupting programming for residents and even causing closures
Race & Wealth Equity
Low-income households pay a significantly higher percentage of their household income on the soda tax than higher income households and yet the tax revenues balance a budget that systemically under-resources their neighborhoods Black & Latinx people suffer disproportionately from diabetes compared to white people, and Pacific Islanders, South Asians, and Filipinos have the highest diabetes rates among all racial/ethnic groups
SSB corporations profit in low-income communities of color through “designated market areas” where ads are directed at Black and Latinx children & teens twice as much as to their white counterparts
Large grocers have systematically avoided predominantly Black areas with “supermarket redlining”
Structural Policy Issues → Intervention Areas
1. Revenue Allocations
2. Community Advisory Board
3. Funding Recommendations
4. Evaluation
5. T ax Design
Policy Change Development:
Grassroots policymaking
Further Policy Refinement
Workshops
● Community-based
organizations (CBOs) shared
ideas about key policy
elements: revenue use,
oversight, & evaluating impact
Interviews
● One-on-ones with CBOs,
health researchers, public
health department leaders,
legal advocates and City
staff to refine policy
Key Changes
1. Special T ax legally restricts use of revenues to specific purpose
2. Census tract designation for revenue use
3. Planning & Oversight Committee has decision-making authority on allocations
4. Yearly independent evaluation
5. Strategic Investment Plan model
6. Allocation categories
Impact Goals:
1. Decrease Diabetes rates in
neighborhoods with highest
rates
2. Decrease sugary drink
purchases and consumption
Tracked through ongoing
independent evaluation
How?
Planning and Oversight Committee create a 3
Year Strategic Investment Plan to distribute
the revenues across the following funding
strategies:
- Healthy retail
- Health education
- Income supplements
- Expanding access to community spaces
- Meal distribution
- Community agriculture
- Water access
- Policy and advocacy
Where & Who gets the investment?
Policy defines Impacted Communities using the
following guidelines:
Based on an analysis of the health disparities within the context of Food Apartheids, which are shaped by racism and class-based inequalities in food production, distribution, and marketing.
The following indicators together define the Impacted
Communities of the SSB T ax, and who and where all revenues generated shall be allocated:
1. Census tracts with highest Diabetes rates
2. Census tracts with highest poverty levels
3. Census tracts with majority BIPOC populations
Next Steps
for an equitable soda
tax
We are seeking your
commitments to work together in
partnership on the following:
1. Budget Directive pledge for balanced
budget
2. CAB restructuring to focus on intent,
impact, community engagement, and
evaluation