Brandi T. Summers, Ph.D.
Principal and Owner, BluSummers
December 30, 2025
2 TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................... 3 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................. 5 STUDY DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................................................................ 5 BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................................... 5 IMPLICATIONS ................................................................................................................................................ 8 DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS METHODS ................................................................................................... 9 METHODS ................................................................................................................................................... 10 DEMOGRAPHICS ........................................................................................................................................... 10 FINDINGS: SURVEY DATA ......................................................................................................................... 11 HOUSING .................................................................................................................................................... 11 EDUCATION ................................................................................................................................................. 12 ECONOMY ................................................................................................................................................... 13 ENVIRONMENT + HEALTH ............................................................................................................................... 15 ARTS + CULTURE .......................................................................................................................................... 16 POLICING + PUBLIC SAFETY ............................................................................................................................ 17 FINDINGS: FOCUS GROUP/INTERVIEW DATA .................................................................................................. 18 HOUSING .................................................................................................................................................... 18 EDUCATION ................................................................................................................................................. 19 ECONOMY ................................................................................................................................................... 20 ENVIRONMENT + HEALTH ............................................................................................................................... 21 ARTS + CULTURE .......................................................................................................................................... 22 POLICING + PUBLIC SAFETY ............................................................................................................................ 23 RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................................................................................. 24 CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................................................................... 43 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................................ 45 APPENDIX A: LITERATURE REVIEW .............................................................................................................. 46 APPENDIX B: INCLUSIVE ENGAGEMENT REPORT ............................................................................................. 71 APPENDIX C: FULL SURVEY ...................................................................................................................... 78 APPENDIX D: FOCUS GROUP SURVEY ....................................................................................................... 112
3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In a 2020 report published by the National Community Reinvestment Coalition (NCRC), San Francisco and Oakland were named the most gentrified cities in the U.S. (Richardson, et al., 2020). The impact of gentrification (e.g., rising rents, prohibitive property values, and new construction) has led to radical changes in Oakland’s constitution. A combination of urban restructuring, racialized disinvestment, technology and financialization booms, and the devastating impact of the Great Recession of 2008, has led Oakland’s formerly prominent Black population to dwindle precipitously, as the city has lost nearly 25% of its Black population since 2010. Aided by finance capital creating conditions that make working-class neighborhoods more vulnerable to the dynamics of gentrification, this rapid transformation coincides with the displacement and dispossession of Black and low- income residents from their neighborhoods to far away regions or on to the street. Racial disparities in Oakland’s rates of homelessness remain particularly stark, with African Americans comprising an astonishing 70 percent of those experiencing homelessness, while making up less than 20 percent of the overall population. Black and Indigenous populations continue to be the only ones whose numbers are diminishing in Oakland, while the total number of Black residents who are homeless continues to grow. The challenges faced by the city comprise racialized urban problems, which are often cast as problems specifically affecting and created by the Black community. Such problems are also characterized as those that need to be solved by the Black community rather than through public policy.
In consideration of these conditions, in May 2022, the District 3 office requested an informational report from the City Administration detailing the impact of financing relationships, housing, zoning, and related municipal policies that led to the construction of the Cypress Freeway, the 7th Street Post Office, the West Oakland BART Station. The District 3 office also requested information about all redlined areas of Council District 3, including an analysis of displacement through eminent domain, lost wealth due to segregation, depreciated property value and gentrification. At June 28, 2022 Community and Economic Development Committee meeting, staff presented a report concluding that Black communities in Oakland experienced displacement and extraction at alarming rates, particularly in West Oakland – the epicenter of these harms – where Black migrants from Southern states first settled. The report further concluded that redlined maps created by Home Owners Loan Corporation in the 1930s designating neighborhoods inhabited by Black people and other racial and ethnic minorities as “high risk,” were used by the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) and private lending institutions to deny mortgage loans, directing more resources to predominantly white neighborhoods. Furthermore, infrastructure projects like the West Oakland BART station, along with other developments, and urban renewal led to the demolition of thousands of homes, displaced residents, and destroyed the cultural and commercial center on 7th Street. The industrial zoning allowed in West Oakland and the expansion of the highway system in the area and the resulting toxic emissions have had a disproportionate impact on the health of the community.
4 This report examines the ongoing effects of public policy decisions and actions on the Black community in Oakland, through an analysis of relevant policy, scholarship, government reports, and input from Black residents. Ultimately, the report provides both quantitative and qualitative data to answer the following questions: 1) What are the ongoing effects of federal, state, and locally-subsidized policies (e.g., redlining, eminent domain, urban renewal, and gentrification) on the Black community in Oakland? 2) How do residents of Oakland perceive the impact of public policy decisions and actions on their community? 3) What policy changes could help mitigate the negative effects of these policies on the Black community in Oakland?
To begin, the report offers a brief history of President Roosevelt’s reformist, social welfare program enacted by New Deal policies, and their relationship to Oakland’s Black population. This description includes an accounting of information on Black life in Oakland organized within six categories: housing, education, economy, environment and health, arts and culture, and policing and public safety. The report then discusses the implications of this work, acknowledging historical surveys on racial inequalities in Oakland.
The report later details the results of both quantitative and qualitative data collection, which ultimately resulting in many of the following observations:
• Clear disparities in economic and technological resources for Black residents • Homeownership does not guarantee wealth and stability in Oakland • Prevailing belief by Black residents that housing is a human right • Existing tensions between Black landlords and Black tenants • Overwhelming support for rent control
• Better infrastructure at OUSD to support teachers
• Need to invest in education and training for students and for job creation • More financial support for Black businesses
• Existence of financial discrimination
• Ongoing negative effects of the federal Crime Bill
• Police accountability needed
• Lack of trust towards law enforcement
• Disproportionate funding for parks/greenspace in flatland neighborhoods • Enable expediated processes for cultural business activities • General satisfaction with arts and cultural resources and diversity in Oakland
The report concludes with a set of eight recommendations, which focus on the following questions and priorities that emerged from the study, all of which prioritize building local capacity through leadership and public engagement:
• How do we make homeownership less expensive and renting more secure? • How do we enhance Oakland’s tax base to provide Oakland’s most marginalized residents with public resources?
5 • Oakland needs a civic culture change, which includes the civic memory of antiblack discrimination.
• Oakland needs to identify and materially support current and ongoing work that prioritizes social justice, equity, and repair.
INTRODUCTION:
STUDY DESCRIPTION
The purpose of the Black New Deal: Racial Impact Analysis is to chart the ongoing effects of public policy decisions and actions on the Black community in Oakland, and to assess ways to redress the harms that have been caused. A racial analysis is one that has race and racism as its central objects of examination. This study investigates how race and racism are embedded within policies and practices, and perceptions of their overall impact on Black residents in Oakland. This study considers the importance of analyzing historical processes and practices to understand present day conditions. More specifically, various forces that shape the racial geography of Oakland. The study asks the following questions: (1) What are the ongoing effects of federal, state, and locally subsidized policies (e.g., redlining, eminent domain, urban renewal, and gentrification) on the Black community in Oakland? (2) How do residents of Oakland perceive the impact of public policy decisions and actions on their community? (3) What policy changes could help mitigate the negative effects of these policies on the Black community in Oakland? (4) What policy changes could help mitigate the negative effects of these policies on the Black community in Oakland?
BACKGROUND
In the aftermath of the devastating Great Depression, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s administration enacted several measures determined to restore economic stability to the nation, while at the same time, discouraging radical political and economic alternatives. Roosevelt’s “New Deal” was a sweeping reformation of the American economy that created the foundations for the contemporary American social welfare state. Through programs like the Works Progress Administration (WPA), the federal government allocated several billion dollars (about $14B) to various states to be used as wages for work on public projects and as direct payments to unemployed people, which also funded nationwide work relief projects for artists, musicians, and writers. The Social Security Act of 1935 begat long-term programs for elder pensions, and state and local administration of unemployment insurance and welfare policy. The programs introduced by Roosevelt’s administration effectively redistributed wealth but did so unevenly along the lines of race. In particular, the Roosevelt’s New Deal was essentially unsuccessful, arguably, due to the fraught compromises that required an abandonment of racial equality pursuits. So, the progressivism of the New Deal era was marked by staunch white supremacy and the logics of Jim Crow racism.1
1 Ira Katznelson. 2013. Fear Itself: The New Deal and the Origins of Our Time. New York: Liveright. 6 As a result, contemporary practice of homeownership in the US came out of the government programs adopted during the New Deal, like the Home Owners Loan Corporation (HOLC), and later the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) and the GI Bill.
These agencies and programs expanded home buying opportunities for white families, fueling white suburbanization, while limiting opportunities for Black families and intensifying Black ghettoization – laying the foundation for an expansive and enduring racial wealth gap. HOLC’s “Residential Security Maps,” used maps to classify the riskiness of lending to neighborhoods based on housing age, occupancy, and price, as well as racial and ethnic makeup. These maps eventually contributed to institutionalized racism in the development of different neighborhoods and lending practices among banks and other financial institutions. Because the lowest rated neighborhoods typically housed Black residents, and were shaded with red ink, the maps are popularly associated with the practice of “redlining” - when borrowers were denied access to credit based on the racial composition of their community. Redlining started before the 1930s, but it became codified into law and federally sanctioned during the New Deal.
There were several factors that contributed to HOLC’s grading standards, including the condition and type of housing stock. Most alarming was the inclusion of racial and ethnic demographics, identifying Black, Asian, and “foreign-born” immigrants as “infiltration.” The City of Oakland Building Inspector’s Office created the description documents, or NS FORM-8s, which shows the race/ethnicity of building inhabitants, occupation(s) of residents, building types, projected desirability of the building over the next 10-15 years, and summary notes. According to the map, neighborhoods west of Grove Street (which is now Martin Luther King, Jr Way) were all red (D grade). East 14th Street (now International Blvd) acted as the east/west redline in East Oakland. These designations effectively ghettoized North, West, and parts of East Oakland through the 1950s, limiting Black residents to areas adjacent to industrial zones and fallow business corridors.
The Area Description forms provide a sense of the geographic terrain by offering commentary about environmental, economic, architectural, and cultural factors that seemingly contributed to the neighborhood’s intrinsic value. For example, D-8, one of the two sections identifying West Oakland on the HOLC map, would comprise parts of the Lower Bottoms, South Prescott, Acorn, Oak Center, Ralph Bunche, McClymonds, and Clawson today. The form describes not only the “infiltration” of “Orientals and Negro” residents in the area, but also industrial landscape that occupied West Oakland and served as a primary source of work for its inhabitants. This portion of West Oakland was littered with dilapidated residential structures, and the air polluted by “odors from bay flats; smoke and time from railroad shops and local industry,” but it was the “heterogeneous mixture of all races” that established the neighborhood of low value.
By giving federal backing to the idea that proximity to Black people and other people of color necessarily leads to property value decline, these locally enacted policies created a powerful financial incentive for white people to segregate themselves. In other words, while the tenets of the New Deal were promising for Black Americans, the federal government failed to enforce policies at the local level, and discrimination was allowed to 7 operate widely. Nevertheless,
we acknowledge that while
the New Deal era of the 1930s
and 1940s resembled an “old
deal” in disguise, it was also a
period of exceptional Black
resistance to white
supremacy as many Black
workers around the country
used unions to address
inequalities and injustices,
setting a strong precedent for the later Civil Rights Movement.
In Oakland, government-funded capital improvement projects through the 1960s and 1970s as part of President Johnson’s “Great Society” (e.g., urban renewal programs, freeway, and BART construction), irreparably hindered residents of North and West Oakland, prioritizing the interests of homeowners at the expense of renters, and neglecting residential public improvement needs. In large part, due to the designation of Black spaces in Oakland as inferior and lacking economic value, the city was able to focus on urban renewal primarily targeting housing and slum clearance to make way for transportation infrastructure and downtown economic expansion.
The effects of this historical policies and practices have yielded devastating results as it relates to the material and cultural well-being of Black residents of Oakland. According to the 2023 American Community Survey (ACS), 22.6% of Black Oaklanders live below the poverty line, while Oakland’s overall poverty rate is 16.7%. Black women experience poverty at the highest level overall.2
More specifically, 35.1% of Black residents in Oakland have a household income that is 0- 30% of the Area Median Income (AMI), compared to 9.59% of white Oakland residents. The effects of poverty extend far beyond limited financial resources and directly impact access to adequate housing, food security, access to healthcare, employment challenges, restricted social mobility, mental health challenges, and discrimination.
Consistent with national data trends, Black Oakland residents are arrested and incarcerated at significantly higher rates than any other racial group. According to the City of Oakland, Black residents in Oakland are arrested for felony charges at a rate of 8,269.1 per 100,000 people (compared to 2006.3 and 638.3 for Hispanic/Latinx and white residents, respectively).
2 U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Department of Commerce, "Poverty Status in the Past 12 Months," American Community Survey, ACS 1-Year Estimates Subject Tables, Table S1701, accessed on June 19, 2025,
https://data.census.gov/table/ACSST1Y2023.S1701?q=poverty+in+oakland+city+california+in+2023.
Source: Data USA
8 In Oakland, approximately 60%
of police stops were Black
residents, with Black men being
more likely to be searched and
arrested during these
encounters.3 According to the
2018 Oakland Equity Indicators
report, Black residents in
Oakland are incarcerated in jails
and prisons at higher rates than
any other racial group. Black
residents experience jail
incarceration at a rate of 974.6
per 100,000 people, and prison incarceration at a rate of 1,856.8 per 100,000, making them 20 times more likely than white residents to be imprisoned.
In Alameda County, Black residents experiencing poverty have the highest death rates of any other racial group. These residents also experience the worst infant mortality rate, according to the Alameda County Health Care Services Agency, Health Committee Special Series on Community Health.4 Life expectancy rates in Alameda County reflect a similar trend with Black men and women having the lowest life expectancy rates of any other racial group (68.19 years and 77.47 years, respectively).5
Asthma rates reflect similar health inequities in Oakland, with Black residents disproportionately living in formerly redlined areas, which continue to be subject to air, water, and noise pollution.
IMPLICATIONS
The implications of this study are manyfold; especially in the work of recognizing social, political, and economic inequalities and their impact on African Americans in Oakland.
Highlights how race, blackness in particular, shapes the experiences, opportunities, and outcomes of people’s lives across multiple domains, including housing, economics, environment, arts & culture, public safety, and education. This study offers a way to understand the key mechanisms through which race, and racial disparities operate. By identifying areas and experiences of racial inequality, this racial analysis informs policies and practices aimed at promoting social justice, equity, and repair. Furthermore, it raises
3 Hetey, R. C., Monin, B., Maitreyi, A., & Eberhardt, J. L. (2016). Data for change: A statistical analysis of police stops, searches, handcuffings, and arrests in Oakland, Calif., 2013-2014. Stanford University, SPARQ: Social Psychological Answers to Real-World Questions.
4 https://www.acgov.org/board/bos_calendar/documents/DocsAgendaReg_10_23_23/HEALTH%20CARE%20 SERVICES/Regular%20Calendar/Item_2_Health_stat_Afr_Amer_in_AC.pdf 5 California Community Burden of Disease Engine (CCB), California Department of Public Health, https://skylab.cdph.ca.gov/communityBurden/?tab=lifeexpectancy Source: Alameda County Health Care Services Agency
9 awareness of the ubiquity of racism, even in environments that are recognized as culturally diverse and politically progressive.
Nevertheless, history is a prelude to the future. In other words, we cannot think about the present or the future without acknowledging what has taken place in the past. In a 1965 study of Oakland that was based on 328 interviews with residents and businesspeople, researchers learned that sixty percent of white Oakland residents, “harbor feelings of prejudice; the greatest degree against Negroes, the next against Spanish name persons, and the least against [Asians].” The study also found that over thirty percent of white Oakland residents “would act upon his prejudice in a discriminatory manner.” The study also found discriminatory attitudes among real estate professionals. Nearly half of the respondents, who were real estate professionals, offered evidence of discriminatory practices related to keeping properties white-occupied. This included refusing to open listings to Black brokers, blockbusting, the refusal to sell or rent to racial minorities, discouraging clients from wanting to buy or rent, soliciting neighborhood opinions on race, charging higher interest rates, higher prices, and giving shorter loan terms.6 In other words, it became clear that Black residents of Oakland were subject to explicit housing discrimination that impacted their potential to achieve long-term wealth accumulation and economic transcendence. Discrimination became possible and prevalent because of the close relationship between banks and real estate brokers. More recently, there was an increase in the size of the Black middle class between 1980-2000 (due to affirmative action on the national scale, and the availability of city contracts), however the Black working- class residents of Oakland and those experiencing poverty did not have a similar economic base and were forced to compete for jobs against Asian and Latinx immigrants.7 Nevertheless, according to studies like the 2021 East Oakland Neighborhood Initiatives (EONI) community plan, “Better Neighborhoods, Same Neighbors,” Oakland residents remain interested in affordable housing, youth development, safer neighborhoods, and job and business creation, while concerned about limited economic opportunities and environmental hazards that disproportionately affect Black neighborhoods.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS METHODS
The Black New Deal (BND) - City of Oakland Community Survey is a wide-ranging tool aimed at gathering feedback from Black residents on how historic and current public policies have impacted their lives. As part of a Racial Impact Analysis project, the survey explores six core areas: housing, education, economics, public safety, arts and culture, and the environment. Beginning with informed consent, the survey emphasizes the voluntary nature of participation and privacy protections. Respondents provide demographic information—such as age, gender, income, education, and employment status—before answering targeted questions about housing stability, neighborhood conditions, and their perspectives on affordability, displacement, and city-led policy
6 Edward C. Hayes. 1972. Power Structure and Urban Policy: Who Rules in Oakland?. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, p. 62
7 Frédérick Douzet. 2012. The color of power: Racial coalitions and political power in Oakland. University of Virginia Press, p. 78.
10 efforts. The survey also delves into personal and community experiences across other areas. In education, it assesses school quality, teacher shortages, and access inequities.
Economic questions touch on employment, financial wellbeing post-2008 and COVID-19, business ownership, and reliance on government benefits. Participants evaluate public transit and local amenities like parks, libraries, and grocery stores. Views on policing include levels of police contact, perceived fairness, and trust in law enforcement. Finally, the survey explores cultural participation, environmental health, and support for policy measures like rent control and equitable public spending. Overall, the instrument seeks to capture a holistic picture of Black life in Oakland to inform more just and responsive policymaking.
Methods
Sampling. Based on a population of 63,833 African
Americans ages 18 and older in the targeted districts, with a confidence level of 95% and a Margin of Error of 10%, 96 surveys (~100 surveys) were needed. Ninety-one (91)
surveys, or a response rate of 95% of the intended
number of surveys, were collected. Data collection. A
training, created by CAMI Consulting, provided
instructions for interviewers involved in the Black New Deal (BND) data collection efforts. The guide outlined how to use Communication and CBO Logs to track outreach
and recruitment activity, emphasizing the importance of logging all engagement using SurveyMonkey. It explained that all data collection tools (surveys, forms, and logs) were stored in a central Dropbox folder.
For semi-structured interviews and focus groups,
interviewers were responsible for scheduling interviews (in-person, phone, or Zoom), logging contact, sending reminders, conducting the interview, and uploading the recording for transcription. Participants were asked a subset of 15 questions from the Community Survey and encouraged to expand their reasoning for answer selection.
For community field surveys, interviewers created outreach plans, conducted in-person interviews in assigned neighborhoods, and maintained logs of their outreach.
Demographics
The Black New Deal (BND) - City of Oakland, CA Community Survey gathered demographic and socioeconomic data from 88 respondents. The average age was 49.8 years old with participants’ ages ranging from 26 to 78. Results showed a highly educated and predominantly Black respondent base. Most participants (29) held a bachelor’s degree, followed by those with a high school diploma or equivalent (13), and master’s degrees (10).
An overwhelming majority (72 out of 81) identified as Black or African American. Gender representation was nearly even, with 43 respondents identifying as female and 37 as male,
11 both in terms of sex assigned at birth and current gender identity. Sixty-six (66) respondents provided the district in which they lived, with most reporting that they lived in Districts 6 or 7; other Districts included:
District 1 = 3 District 2 = 1 District 3 = 15
District 4 = 2 District 5 = 8 District 6 = 18
District 7 = 19 Unknown = 1
Income and employment data show a relatively stable economic profile: the largest income group (37 respondents) reported earning over $100,000 annually, while 19 reported earning between $50,000 and $74,999. The majority (51) were employed full-time, with additional representation from self-employed individuals (18), part-time workers (10), students (9), and retirees (13). These figures suggest a survey population that is largely professional, economically active, and engaged in the community.
FINDINGS: SURVEY DATA
Housing
The Housing section of the Black New Deal
(BND) Community Survey revealed significant
patterns in residency, housing security, and
community connection. Most respondents
(49 out of 80 (61%)) do not live in the
communities they grew up in, although nearly
60% have resided in their current
neighborhoods for over a decade (see Figure
1). Most describe their neighborhoods as
racially mixed (42% of respondents), and over
half had not moved in the past five years.
Despite residential stability, a large
percentage (55 out of 79 (70%)) reported taking in relatives needing housing, indicating a strong culture of familial support. Most respondents rent their homes (42), while 34 own, and a few live with family or under other arrangements. When asked about housing costs, several respondents reported
spending between 21% and 35% of
their income on housing, although
some exceeded 50% (see Figure 2).
Sentiments around housing stability
and future outlooks were generally
positive. A combined 60 respondents
(75%) said they felt very or fairly stable
and secure in their current housing,
and 64 (80%) expressed optimism
Figure 1.
Figure 2.
12 about the next five years for themselves and their families. When asked about local government’s priorities, 53 (66%) emphasized the equal importance of both affordable rental housing and homeownership policies. Displacement was identified as the leading challenge to fair housing in Oakland (42 responses), followed by community opposition to development. Many respondents were aware of city actions to address housing inequities, citing initiatives such as support for affordable housing near transit and anti-displacement programs. Additionally, strong majority of respondents (53 out of 80 (66%)) believed the local government should prioritize both housing access and anti-displacement policies equally, rather than focusing on one over the other (see Figure 3).
Finally, policy views revealed a
desire for stronger protections and
accountability by the City of
Oakland. Rent control and
mediation were widely recognized
(52 (65%) and 34 (43%) responses,
respectively) as tools used by the
city to reduce displacement.
Additionally, 59 respondents (74%)
disapproved of California’s Prop 13
property tax reassessment method.
A large majority agreed that wealthy
Californians should pay more in taxes (69 out of 79), and 71 participants believed the quality of life in the state is declining due to underfunded services. These responses indicate a clear call for deeper public investment, equity-focused policy reform, and continued efforts to support housing access and economic fairness.
Education
Figure 3.
13 The Education-focused section of the Black New Deal (BND) Community Survey highlighted mixed perceptions and concerns among Oakland residents regarding the city’s K–12 public schools. When asked
about their satisfaction with schools
in their neighborhoods, 44 out of 77
respondents (57%) expressed some
degree of dissatisfaction, while only 9
reported being satisfied. A majority of
participants (69 out of 80 (86%))
indicated they had not attended an
Oakland Unified School District
(OUSD) school in the past 15 years.
Among those who had, all (11
respondents) confirmed the presence
of school safety officers at their
schools. When asked to identify the
most pressing issue in local public
schools, the top concern was a lack
of funding (30 responses, 37%), followed by concerns around the quality of education, teacher shortages, and racial inequities (see Figure 4).
Residents also shared their views on the trajectory of educational quality in Oakland.
Nearly half of the respondents (49 out of 80 (61%)) believed that the quality of education had worsened in recent years, while only 11 individuals thought it had improved. A sizable number—55 respondents, 69%—expressed deep concern about the disparity in teacher quality between schools in low-income areas and those in wealthier neighborhoods. These concerns reflect broader systemic issues that affect educational outcomes and equity across the city.
When asked to assign a letter grade to their local public schools, the most common responses were C (29) and D (29), with very few assigning grades of A or B. Only 2 respondents gave an A grade, while 7 rated their schools as failing (F). These ratings point to widespread dissatisfaction and a strong desire for reforms, especially in funding, staffing, and the overall quality of education in Oakland’s public school system.
Economy
Figure 4.
14 The Economy section of the Black New Deal (BND) Community Survey revealed that a significant number of respondents have entrepreneurial experience, with 42 out of 78 (54%) indicating that they or
a family member has owned
a business. Of those, 29
(37%) still maintain
ownership. In terms of
financial well-being, the
community members
reported facing setbacks
following major economic
events: 22 (28%)
respondents reported a
decrease or dramatic
decrease in their financial well-being after the 2008 recession, while 14 (18%) reported worsening conditions post-COVID-19. Yet, resilience is evident— many participants reported stable or improved financial standing in both periods. Most respondents (64 out of 80 (80%)) are currently working for pay, with employment spread across sectors like government, healthcare, professional services, and construction (see Figure 5). Among 74 respondents reporting receiving benefits, Social Security Disability benefits were the most received (19 (26%)), followed by Medicaid (15 (20%)) and local government assistance (14 (19%)), while very few reported receiving unemployment insurance (1 (1%)).
Despite broad workforce participation, systemic barriers persist. Notably, 18 (23%) respondents reported being denied a job due to their race, while 34 (43%) indicated they rely on additional income sources beyond their primary jobs. Transit access is another critical concern—40 out of 80 participants (50%) perceive moderate to severe issues with public transportation availability, and most do not ride AC Transit regularly. Satisfaction with transportation services is mixed; although 31 expressed some level of satisfaction with bus and BART services, 37 were dissatisfied or somewhat dissatisfied, highlighting room for improvement in mobility infrastructure.
Figure 5.
15 The survey also gathered
insights into neighborhood
resources and public
services. Respondents
reported decent access to
key facilities, such as public
schools (72), transit (71),
libraries (60), and grocery
stores (37), yet satisfaction
remains tempered. Only 6
respondents (8%) said they
were fully satisfied with local
facilities, while a combined
34 (46%) expressed
dissatisfaction. The most
frequently cited neighborhood challenges were crime (32) and poverty/homelessness (28), followed by drug use and pollution, indicating broader socioeconomic struggles that impact residents’ quality of life.
When asked about the future, respondents shared cautious optimism. While 36 (45%) believed their personal financial situations would improve somewhat in the next year (see Figure 6), only 3 (10%) felt the same about Oakland's broader economy. Nearly half (43 or 54%) thought the regional economy would get somewhat worse, and 25 (32%) anticipated it would worsen significantly. These responses reflect uncertainty about the city’s economic trajectory, paired with an underlying hope that personal circumstances may improve through work and community resilience.
Environment and Health
The Environment and Health section of the Black New Deal (BND) Community Survey provided important insights into community perceptions of public recreational spaces and the health of individuals and
households. Most respondents
rated the overall quality of public
recreational areas, such as parks,
trails, and playgrounds, as either
“Good” or “Very Good” (58%) (see
Figure 7). However, satisfaction
with the physical condition and
safety of these spaces was more
divided. Only a small portion of
respondents (8%) reported being
fully satisfied with park conditions,
while nearly half (46%) expressed
dissatisfaction to varying degrees. Similarly, while 59% of participants considered parks and greenspaces at least “Somewhat safe,” over one-third (36%) characterized them as Figure 6.
Figure 7.
16 either “Somewhat unsafe” or “Very unsafe,” indicating significant concerns regarding maintenance and public safety (see Figure 8).
In terms of access, most
respondents (90%) reported
having between one and five
parks in their neighborhood,
suggesting moderate
geographic availability of
recreational infrastructure.
Despite this, health related
disparities were evident.
Approximately 40% of
respondents indicated that
someone in their household
suffers from asthma, and
16% reported forgoing medical care within the past year due to cost. While 75% rated their health as “Good” or better, these figures point to persistent challenges related to environmental health and healthcare affordability.
Arts + Culture
Findings from the Arts and Culture section of the Black New Deal (BND) Community Survey suggest that the community was actively involved in both cultural activities and civic life. A significant proportion of respondents (63%) reported attending arts and cultural events in Oakland three or more times within the past year, suggesting sustained engagement with local cultural offerings. Furthermore, perceptions of the quality of these opportunities were overwhelmingly positive, with 89% of participants rating them as "Good," "Very Good," or "Excellent," and the majority selecting "Very Good" (see Figure 9). Civic involvement is also evident, with 36 of respondents (45%) indicating participation in neighborhood protests (see Figure 10). Collectively, these findings highlight a community that not only values and actively engages with cultural institutions but also demonstrates a strong commitment to social and civic activism.
Figure 8.
Figure 9.
Figure 10.
17 Policing + Public Safety
Analysis of data from the Policing and Public Safety section of the Black New Deal (BND) Community Survey found the community's experiences and perceptions related to law enforcement presence and interactions as
challenging. Most respondents (53 out of 78
(68%)) rated the level of police presence in
their neighborhoods as relatively high.
Notably, 55 out of 80 respondents (69%)
reported having been stopped or questioned
by the Oakland Police Department (OPD)
(see Figure 11), with nearly half of those
individuals indicating they experienced such
encounters three or more times. The most
common setting for these stops was in a vehicle (32 respondents), followed by on the street (15 respondents), which suggests that police interactions are frequently traffic- related (see Figure 12). Additionally, 25 individuals (31%) reported being patted down or frisked by police officers, with a substantial proportion indicating multiple occurrences, thereby reflecting a pattern of repeated physical encounters with law enforcement among some community members.
The data also highlighted experiences of deeper involvement with the criminal justice system. Eighteen respondents
indicated they had been taken into
police custody at some point in
their lives, and three respondents
reported having spent time in jail,
prison, or juvenile detention within
the past 12 months. Among those
recently incarcerated, durations
ranged from less than one year to
up to five years. Furthermore, when
asked whether they had ever felt unsafe or
threatened in the presence of local police,
respondents were evenly divided, with 50% (40
respondents) answering affirmatively (see Figure
13). This split in perceived safety highlights a
broader tension in community-police relations,
underscoring the need for targeted interventions
to foster trust, ensure accountability, and
enhance the overall quality of interactions
between law enforcement and community
members.
Figure 11.
Figure 13.
18 FINDINGS: FOCUS GROUP/INTERVIEW DATA
Housing
While it is commonly understood that owning property improves the economic conditions for low- and moderate-income families, the high cost of housing in the San Francisco Bay Area complicates this narrative, especially for Black residents. Since Black Oaklanders represent a disproportionate number of extremely low-income and very low-income households, they also experience a significant degree of cost burden, whether they own their home or rent. In fact, nearly 67% of Oakland homeowners in extremely low-income households are severely cost burdened (paying more than 50% of their household income on housing costs), while 60% of renters in extremely low-income households are severely cost burdened. What this signals is that property ownership does not necessarily lead to increased wealth accumulation, especially if you experience poverty. Since Black residents in Oakland represent the largest proportion of extremely and very low-income residents, they are the most likely to experience economic precarity.
These trends are also reflected in the data on Black residents in the region who experience homelessness, both first time and repeat instances of housing instability. In Alameda County, 65% of those Black residents who have previously been homeless are due to become homeless again (compared to 22% of white residents and 15% of Hispanic/Latinx residents).
Reviewing the qualitative data collected from semi-structured interviews and focus groups, five themes emerged as representative of respondents’ perspectives on housing in Oakland:
Clear disparities in economic and technological resources for Black residents.
Respondents expressed concern and frustration about disparities that exist between Black residents and migrant Latinx populations, in particular. Respondents suggested that Latinx residents receive additional financial incentives and access to technology compared to Black residents. Respondents said that Latinx residents receive more access to jobs and job training.
19 Homeownership does not guarantee wealth and stability in Oakland. Homeowners and renters alike discussed an affordability crisis in
Oakland that negatively impacts their cost of living.
Homeowners lamented their inability to take advantage
of financial benefits that are promised with
homeownership.
“Housing is a human right.” Several respondents
discussed the prevalence of homelessness in Oakland, particularly among Black residents. Most respondents shared their knowledge of family members, friends, or acquaintances whose housing conditions are precarious. Respondents expressed their belief that housing should be a human right, and the City should be instrumental in housing advocacy for the benefit of its residents.
Tensions between Black landlords
and Black tenants. Participants who
were landlords and others who were
tenants each expressed the prevalence
of tensions between Black landlords and
their Black tenants. Black tenants
discussed discriminatory behavior
lodged against them from Black
landlords, especially in the wake of the
COVID-19 pandemic. Black landlords
criticized the length of the eviction
moratorium, explaining that they were
put in precarious economic conditions
without the ability to hold their tenants
accountable.
Overwhelming support for rent
control. Participants expressed clear support for rent control, regardless of whether they were a homeowner, landlord, or tenant. Participants spoke of the housing crisis and related affordability crisis as creating
conditions that require rent control for the
most vulnerable populations (namely poor
Black residents). Participants shared that
much of Black displacement in Oakland
occurs because of the exorbitant cost of
housing in Oakland.
Education
The City of Oakland has long been the site of
crisis according to federal and nonprofit
agencies that sought to improve various methods and modes of public education. Over the “It's like, they'll say, okay, all of our affordable housing is going to District 7, right? Or district whatever West Oakland is. And every single project that we have, like affordable housing has 4, your District 3s of the world, your District 6s of the world, to have middle to high wage earners in those districts without worrying about them. I think you know, government can do a better job of just saying, ‘Hey, we're going to spread lower income housing throughout all communities, right? No longer concentrated in one area, but concentrated in or mix it about all areas.’ Make sure it's mixed, so that, like a community can better take care of its own people, right? There's not going to that Montclair has it's which you know that one comes. Where would they put it? Where is it ally with their affordable housing? You know? Yeah. And also, I mean, I know they tried which they said was a failure. But I think when you look at just affordable housing spread across the whole city versus
concentrating certain areas like it's probably a more palatable “We either got to sell the house or become landlords.
You're not going to sell you know, to one brother wants to sell it…I don't want to be a landlord. There's too much damn regulation. It's too risky, right, right? Unless you really build up the wealth. And I heard one of our council people say landlords are wealthy. They can afford
elevators. All landlords ain't wealthy, right, right? And then you gotta pay, you gotta pay a tenant to move out
bunch of rents to have that money. Poor landlords can;
“I think we've got political leaders who are
misleading folks about the reason for high
rents. They tell you that new development
drives high rents. I'll tell you that high
rents drives development. You know, we
rents are going to stay high until we build
20 years, the Oakland Unified School District (OUSD) has encountered challenges with high parental dissatisfaction, union rigidity, low standards, and curricular inequities.8 As a result, OUSD schools have experienced high teacher turnover, especially among schools with a majority Black student body. We discussed some of the District’s challenges with respondents and learned how Black Oakland residents view public education in their city.
Reviewing the qualitative data collected from semi-structured interviews and focus groups, three themes emerged as representative of respondents’ perspectives on education in Oakland:
Better infrastructure at OUSD to support teachers. Respondents identified multiple concerns with teacher experiences at OUSD schools. They specifically expressed concerns about teachers’ salaries, the low number of teachers, high turnover of teachers, and a lack of governance at district offices. Respondents also spoke about the high cost of living in Oakland, which contributes to high teacher turnover. Such inconsistencies have a negative effect on students.
Inefficiencies with Oakland public schools. Respondents identified various inefficiencies within Oakland public schools, namely food waste and mismanagement of funds that are to support mental health services for students.
Need to invest in education and training for students and for job creation.
Respondents spoke about the need to “sow seeds” that sprout for years to prepare Oakland’s public school students for a productive and successful life.
Economy
In Oakland, Black-owned businesses have historically faced challenges maintaining access to capital and representation, despite
contributing to the local economy. According
to the 2018 Oakland Equity Indicators report,
White residents are 2.7 times more likely to
own a business than Black residents in
Oakland (3.9% vs. 1.4% respectively).
Furthermore, where Black business owners
receive contracts averaging $89K, white
business owners receive an average of over $1
million per contract. This shows a significant
disparity in the amount of money Black businesses receive in City construction and professional services contracts. Furthermore, Black business owners have the second highest business vacancy rate, behind Asian American business owners.
8 Coburn, K. Gwynne, and Pamela A. Riley. 200. "Failing Grade: Crisis and Reform in the Oakland Unified School District. Briefing."
“There's teachers, educators, civil servants, who are not getting paid tech wages or even Fortune 500 wages, and
they can't afford to live in this city. And it, you know, disheartens me to learn that they're either having
or far places, you know, over an hour and a half just to come to school. So, I think about the quality of life of the folks we need here, the central workers, as they call and they're being displaced and can't live here because 21 Reviewing the qualitative data collected from semi-structured interviews and focus groups, three themes emerged as representative of respondents’ perspectives on Oakland’s economy:
Interest in shared risk models for Black businesses. Respondents spoke about their desire for the local government to share risks that might support Black entrepreneurs, tenants, and employees, especially since Black small business owners face so many economic challenges in Oakland.
More support for Black businesses. Several participants recommended financial support for incubators to provide training and resources for Black businesses.
Existence of financial discrimination. Respondents lamented the uneven distribution of resources for Black businesses compared to those owned by Latinx, Asian, and white residents. This included the lack of banks located in neighborhoods that are inhabited mostly by Black residents and business owners.
Environment + Health
The distribution of health outcomes in Oakland is largely shaped by historical patterns of racial and economic segregation that has been maintained through exclusionary zoning and other mechanisms. Areas of concentrated poverty experienced the most disparate exposure to air pollution, lead poisoning, and hazardous waste sites. Relatedly, the distribution of parks between the flatlands and the hills of Oakland reflects a similar pattern of structural segregation.
Reviewing the qualitative data collected from semi-structured interviews and focus groups, four themes emerged as representative of respondents’ perspectives on environment and health in Oakland:
Strong satisfaction with parks and greenspaces. Overall, respondents shared their satisfaction with parks and found them to be beneficial to their communities. Some respondents reported that they must visit other neighborhoods to experience the best greenspaces. Respondents mentioned the challenges to the new metering systems around Lake Merritt, however. They expressed their discontent over the city’s attempt to push away Black residents from engaging in recreational activities near the Lake.
Disproportionate funding for parks/greenspace in flatland neighborhoods. On a similar note, respondents spoke about the difference in condition and quality of parks and greenspaces in the hills vs. flatland neighborhoods of Oakland. Many spoke about the benefits of greenspace, namely the environmental and recreational benefits, but also spoke about how large greenspaces contribute to cleaner air and cooler climates. Finally, respondents spoke about the relationship between parks/greenspaces and surrounding home values, arguing that the prevalence of well-maintained parks contribute to the increased values of surrounding homes.
22 More grocery stores needed in flatland
neighborhoods. Respondents spoke about the dearth of
grocery stores with access to clean and fresh produce.
Many respondents shared that they must leave their
neighborhood to find a good grocery store and are often forced to shop at a convenience store for their groceries.
Illegal dumping rampant in the flatlands. Respondents discussed the prevalence of illegal dumping in their
neighborhoods and expressed their confusion about
whether it was the responsibility of the city or the state (CALTRANS) to address this ongoing issue. Participants
spoke about the dumping creating unhealthy and unsafe
environments.
Arts + Culture
Oakland has maintained a bustling cultural economy and strong reputation as a site of artistic production and consumption by Black residents. The implementation of various cultural plans has enabled the city to devote resources for art education, visual arts, festivals, and special projects.
Reviewing the qualitative data collected from semi-
structured interviews and focus groups, three themes
emerged as representative of respondents’ perspectives on arts and culture in Oakland:
Additional focus on local artists (financial incentives).
Respondents, many of whom identified themselves as artists, entrepreneurs, or cultural producers, want to see more financial incentives geared towards local artists. Some participants proclaimed their frustration with contracts going to outside artists or firms instead of local Black artists. Some suggested “no strings attached” funding for artists with a proven track record with the City.
General satisfaction with arts and cultural resources and diversity in Oakland.
Respondents generally expressed their support of and satisfaction with the various cultural and artistic events/activities that take place in Oakland. Their primary areas of concern were related to the support of individual artists and opportunities for artists to perform. Several of the respondents were longtime Oakland residents and spoke nostalgically about the popularity of events like the Festival at the Lake and the Art and Soul festival. Such events, they argued, catered to Black residents and business owners.
Enable expediated processes for cultural business activities. Some respondents expressed their dissatisfaction with bureaucracy and the process of gaining permits and other requirements for cultural activities and sales. Respondents also spoke of their desire Cultural Zone that's needed because
the diminishing Black population.
Like, that's that I already hear that
the majority of the local Black
population is in the homeless
camps. That's here that, like, by
“I like the number of festivals that
they're trying to bring back in Oakland. I
think there's huge potential. You know,
anytime I turn around city, like, let's
have an arts and culture festival every
month, right? Like, I think the problem
the city of Oakland support behind it,
right? So, how do you fast track
permitting? How do you fast track
funding? Like, how do you use your visit
Oakland arm, which I think is a
manipulator to city to like, really help
putting on these events feel supported.
So again, it's a matter of folks found
even are taking on all the risks right in
the city of Oakland, just giving them
even a harder time and making a
bureaucratic process for them to get
23 to see more opportunities for investment and investing in local artistry and cultural businesses.
Policing + Public Safety
The Oakland Police Department has been popularly characterized as a site of corruption and violence toward populations of color, especially since being under federal scrutiny and court monitoring since 2003. Relatedly, policing and public safety received the lowest score in the 2018 Equity indicators report, which identified exorbitantly high felony arrest, and jail and prison incarceration rates among Black Oakland residents – surpassing the national average.
Participants in the Black New Deal student expressed
concerns about OPD’s slow response times to residents’ calls, and more. Reviewing the qualitative data collected from semi-structured interviews and focus groups, four themes emerged as representative of respondents’ perspectives on policing and public safety in Oakland:
Ongoing negative effects of the federal Crime Bill. Several respondents discussed the impact of the 1994 Crime Bill (Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994), which led to the arrest and incarceration of Black Oakland residents at a disproportionate rate. Respondents spoke about the continuing effects of the Crime Bill and California’s “3- Strikes and You’re Out” law, of which Black Californians and Oaklanders are overrepresented.
More attention needed for sex-trafficking. Participants spoke about the growing significance of sex-trafficking in Oakland, especially affecting young Black women and men. Participants largely expressed their discontent with police officers who did not expend enough time or energy on an important safety concern in Oakland.
Police accountability needed. Respondents spoke about the enduring presence of police officers in Black neighborhoods but shared their frustrations about OPD not arriving at Black homes when they are called. Several respondents shared that they were not interested in “defunding” the OPD but wanted them to be more accountable and responsive. They are not interested in growing the police budget nor numbers of police officers in Oakland.
Lack of trust towards law enforcement. Respondents, overall, do not view OPD as enhancing public safety. They argued that OPD impartially enforces the law. Residents do not trust OPD, especially considering the public controversies the department has faced over the past 25 years.
don't think they should be. You should
expect to investigate themselves, and
we gotta take that Internal Affairs
investigating police away from the
police, because they've proven they
24 RECOMMENDATIONS
Reviewing the survey and interview/focus group data alongside relevant scholarship and reports about the experiences of Oakland’s Black residents, the following key questions and priorities that emerged:
• How do we make homeownership less expensive and renting more secure? • How do we enhance Oakland’s tax base to provide Oakland’s most marginalized residents with public resources?
• Oakland needs a civic culture change, which includes the civic memory of antiblack discrimination.
• Oakland needs to identify and materially support current and ongoing work that prioritizes social justice, equity, and repair.
Below are related propositions to address the questions and priorities, while maintaining that the six areas of study (housing, education, economy, environment + health, arts + culture, and policing + public safety) are inextricably linked, therefore recommendations are not separated individually. The following recommendations are not segregated by short-term and long-term policy proposals, rather we provided both short-term (<1 year) and long-term (>5 years) options, if applicable.
Recommendation #1
Invest in distressed, segregated neighborhoods. One of the biggest challenges to buying and keeping a home is the cost of maintenance. We recommend the City of Oakland provide tax incentives to rehabilitate homes in neighborhoods with houses that have lower value; provide property tax relief for low-income homeowners and renters; implement rent control provisions that accompany 5- and 10-year tax abatements for landlords to be passed on to tenants. Following a model developed by Baltimore-based, Black Women Build, prospective home buyers can participate in training programs to help them maintain their homes instead of relying on cost-prohibitive contracting work. Overall, this program can help stabilize distressed, segregated neighborhoods without accelerating gentrification; reduce housing cost burdens for low-income homeowners and renters, align tax incentives with rent control and tenant protections, build long-term affordability through resident maintenance skill building, and prevent displacement while preserving community wealth. Strategic reinvestment in distressed neighborhoods can strengthen Oakland’s housing stock while protecting affordability and community stability. By combining direct rehabilitation assistance, tax relief tied to rent control, and homeowner education, this initiative ensures public dollars deliver lasting, equitable outcomes.
Proposed cost: The proposed cost of this investment would be approximately $3.2 million for a two-year pilot program.
Summary Budget
25 Category Amount
Home Rehabilitation Grants (Low-Value Neighborhoods) $1,500,000 Property Tax Relief & Rent Stabilization Support $600,000 Homeowner & Buyer Training Program (Maintenance Education) $350,000 Personnel & Program Administration $420,000
Consultants & Technical Assistance $150,000
Community Outreach & Engagement $80,000
Program Evaluation & Data Systems $60,000
Administrative / Indirect Costs (≈1.25%) $40,000
Total $3,200,000
Budget Justification
Home Rehabilitation Grants – $1,500,000
This category funds direct grants for the rehabilitation of owner-occupied homes in distressed, segregated neighborhoods with lower property values. Funds may be used for critical repairs that stabilize housing and prevent displacement, including roofing, plumbing, electrical systems, accessibility upgrades, and climate resilience improvements.
• Estimated 60–75 homes receiving grants of $20,000–$25,000 • Prioritizes low-income homeowners, seniors on fixed incomes, and long-term residents
• Designed to preserve affordability and prevent speculative displacement
By reducing deferred maintenance, this investment supports neighborhood stability without relying on predatory lending or cost-prohibitive contracting.
Property Tax Relief & Rent Stabilization Support – $600,000 Supports the implementation of 5- and 10-year property tax abatements tied to affordability and rent control requirements.
Funds cover:
• Revenue offsets for tax abatements in targeted neighborhoods • Administrative costs associated with ensuring landlords pass savings on to tenants • Compliance monitoring related to rent stabilization provisions
This approach aligns tax incentives with tenant protections, ensuring public benefits are not captured by speculative investors.
Homeowner & Buyer Training Program (Maintenance Education) – $350,000 26 Modeled on the Black Women Build framework; this program provides hands-on home maintenance and repair training for prospective homebuyers and existing homeowners.
Costs include:
• Curriculum development and instructional staff
• Training materials and tools
• Small stipends for participants
• Partnerships with community-based housing organizations
By equipping residents with maintenance skills, the program reduces long-term housing costs and builds household-level resilience, particularly for first-generation homeowners.
Personnel & Program Administration – $420,000
Personnel ensure program coordination, compliance, and equitable implementation across neighborhoods:
• Program Director (1.0 FTE): $160,000
Oversees all program components, city coordination, and reporting. • Housing Program Manager (1.0 FTE): $140,000
Manages rehabilitation grants, tax relief programs, and landlord compliance. • Community Outreach Coordinator (1.0 FTE): $120,000
Conducts neighborhood-based outreach, supports homeowner enrollment, and ensures accessibility for residents with language or mobility barriers.
Consultants & Technical Assistance – $150,000
Supports specialized expertise necessary for implementation, including:
• Housing policy and tax law consultants
• Fair housing and rent stabilization experts
• Construction and rehabilitation advisors
These services ensure compliance with local, state, and federal housing regulations while maintaining equity safeguards.
Community Outreach & Engagement – $80,000
Funds targeted outreach in historically disinvested neighborhoods, including:
• Community meetings and workshops
• Translation and interpretation services
• Printed and digital informational materials
This ensures residents most at risk of displacement are aware of and able to access program benefits.
Program Evaluation & Data Systems – $60,000
Supports data collection and evaluation related to:
• Housing retention and displacement prevention
27 • Property condition improvements
• Participant outcomes from maintenance training
Evaluation findings will inform program scaling and long-term housing policy decisions.
Administrative / Indirect Costs – $40,000
Represents minimal overhead (approximately 1.25%) to support fiscal management, audits, and reporting, maximizing direct investment in housing stabilization.
Recommendation #2
Propose a Long-Term Residents (LTR) Bill. Similar to the Servicemen’s Act of 1944 (later known as the GI Bill), which was not afforded to Black veterans at the same rate as white veterans, we recommend that the bill provide loans for education, purchasing businesses, and financing homeownership for long-term Black residents of Oakland, especially those who are experiencing poverty and homelessness. Funded primarily by tax dollars as a benefit, not a grant, the legislation would allocate direct payment to schools, training centers, etc. Oakland faces compounding crises of displacement, homelessness, and unequal access to wealth-building opportunities. A benefits-based approach, structured like an entitlement program. creates a durable pathway to economic stability while ensuring public dollars are spent accountably through direct institutional payments.
Proposed cost: The proposed cost of this investment would be approximately $25 million for a direct-payment, three-year pilot program administered by Housing & Community Development (HCD), Workforce Development, and Human Services.
Pilot Summary Budget (3 Years)
Category Amount
Education & Training Benefits $9,000,000
Homeownership Benefits $7,500,000
Small Business & Cooperative Development $5,500,000
Program Administration & Eligibility Verification $1,600,000 Financial Counseling & Case Management $900,000
Evaluation, Compliance & Annual Reporting $500,000
Total $25,000,000
Budget Justification
Education & Training Benefits — $9,000,000
Provides direct payments to accredited schools, unions, and training providers on behalf of eligible long-term Black Oakland residents, prioritizing participants experiencing poverty, housing instability, or homelessness.
28 Eligible uses:
• Tuition and required fees (community college, university, trade programs) • Apprenticeships, pre-apprenticeships, workforce certifications • Licensing exams and required instructional materials
Pilot reach (estimate): 700–1,000 participants
Typical benefit: $7,500–$12,500 per participant
Payment mechanism: City pays institutions directly upon enrollment/attendance milestones.
Homeownership Benefits — $7,500,000
Expands homeownership access and housing stability through direct payments to escrow, lenders, CLTs, or shared-equity administrators.
Eligible uses:
• Down payment and closing cost assistance
• Interest rate buydowns (targeted to lower monthly payment) • CLT/shared-equity purchase support for permanent affordability
Pilot reach (estimate): 150–200 households
Typical benefit: $35,000–$50,000 per household
Affordability targeting: prioritize 30–60% AMI and residents exiting homelessness where feasible.
Small Business & Cooperative Development — $5,500,000
Provides low-interest loans and forgivable financing for business ownership and community wealth-building, with priority for enterprises that employ Oakland residents and/or deliver neighborhood-serving goods and services.
Eligible uses:
• Start-up/expansion capital; equipment; inventory
• Commercial lease stabilization and buildout
• Cooperative formation and worker-ownership transitions
Pilot reach (estimate): 130–180 businesses/co-ops
Typical benefit: $25,000–$50,000 per award
Structure: mix of low-interest loans and forgivable components tied to job creation, retention, or anti-displacement outcomes.
Program Administration & Eligibility Verification — $1,600,000 Supports a lean but accountable benefits-administration infrastructure, including:
• Eligibility verification (long-term residency, income/need prioritization) • Benefit authorizations and payment processing
29 • Fraud prevention, appeals, and compliance
• Coordination across departments and providers
This is scaled to keep administrative costs low while ensuring the program operates as a reliable public benefit.
Financial Counseling & Case Management — $900,000
Funds navigation and counseling to increase successful outcomes and reduce exposure to predatory debt.
Includes:
• Housing counseling and homebuyer education
• Credit repair and financial coaching
• Small business coaching and technical assistance
• Case management supports for unhoused participants (documentation, enrollment support)
Evaluation, Compliance & Annual Reporting — $500,000
Supports independent evaluation and annual public reporting to City Council, including:
• Uptake and completion rates (education/training)
• Home purchase outcomes and retention risk indicators
• Business survival and job outcomes
• Equity metrics (geography, income, housing status)
• Program audits and compliance checks
Pilot Program recommendations:
• Direct-payment only: payments go to schools, training centers, lenders/escrow, CLTs, or verified vendors—not unrestricted cash.
• Prioritization tiers: long-term Black residents with poverty, housing instability, or homelessness prioritized for early cohorts.
• Annual Council report-back: spending, outcomes, and recommended scale- up/adjustments each year.
• Consumer protections: required counseling before major homeownership or business financing benefits are released.
Recommendation #3
Engage in participatory budgeting. By providing Oakland’s residents with transparency and accountability in budget development, the City of Oakland can earn the trust and collective engagement with traditionally excluded communities. Derived from the Participatory Budgeting Project, this recommendation prioritizes inclusiveness and robust participation in the city’s funding decisions. Any serious engagement with multiple communities must recognize diverse expressions of class and conflicts within Black politics that may not conform to liberal anti-racist positions. In other words, a participatory 30 budgeting process must not only represent the interests of Black middle-class residents over those experiencing poverty.
This program would strengthen transparency, accountability, and public trust in budget development, particularly among communities that have been historically excluded from municipal decision-making. Building on best practices advanced by the Participatory Budgeting Project, the City of Oakland should create an inclusive process that enables residents to directly propose, deliberate, and vote on a defined portion of public spending.
To be effective and equitable, Oakland’s participatory budgeting program must be intentionally designed to reflect the full diversity of the city, including differences in class, neighborhood conditions, and political priorities within and across communities. The City should ensure that the process does not disproportionately elevate the perspectives of more resourced residents over those experiencing poverty, housing insecurity, or homelessness. This includes targeted outreach, accessible meeting formats, language access, and compensation or supports (e.g., childcare and transportation) that remove barriers to participation.
Implementation elements should include: (1) a clear annual cycle tied to the City’s budget calendar; (2) a defined funding allocation and eligible spending categories; (3) outreach and facilitation strategies that prioritize participation from low-income and historically excluded residents; (4) transparent reporting on proposals, selection criteria, and funded outcomes; and (5) evaluation metrics to assess participation equity and community impact.
Recommendation #4
Civilian Conservation Corps. In 1933, President Franklin D. Roosevelt established the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), which focused on single men between the ages of 18- 25 to participate in work programs to improve public parks, forests, and other lands. The CCC was a cornerstone of FDR’s New Deal. We recommend a contemporary version of the program for residents who have been previously incarcerated, long-term unemployed, on fixed income to produce new, living-wage public sector jobs that deliver on community infrastructure and care needs, such as community climate, public health, and other programs to help improve public lands, parks, and health. This guaranteed government employment program would benefit those residents with the most needs in Oakland and offer apprenticeships that support them. One way to implement this program would be for the City of Oakland to work with contracted firms and city agencies who can provide training and employment opportunities for this pre-apprenticeship program. The focus of the learn and earn program would be to prepare workers for higher paying jobs in Oakland – e.g., technology, construction, environmental engineering, design, and arts management.
Since the mid-twentieth century, in the aftermath of Oakland’s large-scale deindustrialization, the city has struggled to attract distinct, profitable industries to build and grow their businesses within city limits. This program can attract a diverse collection 31 of industries. Although this is a long-term project, this program requires short-term planning and data collection to determine target industries to pilot the program.
CCC-Oakland addresses two interconnected challenges: persistent unemployment and underemployment among Oakland residents most impacted by structural racism, and unmet public needs related to climate resilience, public health, parks, and neighborhood infrastructure.
Phase I – Planning & Data Collection (12 months)
Identifies target industries, city and private partners, workforce gaps, and apprenticeship pathways. Establishes program infrastructure, community engagement, and evaluation metrics.
Phase II – Pilot Implementation (18 months)
Launches paid, living-wage employment with pre-apprenticeship training and direct pathways into higher-paying careers in construction, environmental engineering, technology, design, and arts management.
Phase II builds on Phase I by: translating planning and data collection into paid, living-wage employment; Implementing pre-apprenticeship pipelines identified in Phase I; delivering visible community infrastructure improvements; creating measurable outcomes for scaling citywide or regionally; positioning Oakland as a leader in guaranteed public employment.
Proposed cost: The proposed cost of this investment would be $3.21 million (Phase I planning: $360,000; Phase II implementation: $2.85 million).
Phase I: Planning, Data Collection, and Pilot Design (12 months)
Summary Budget
Budget Category Amount
Personnel $180,000
Fringe Benefits (25%) $45,000
Community Participant Stipends $40,000
Consultants & Contracted Partners $45,000
Data Collection & Evaluation $20,000
Travel & Local Transportation $7,500
Supplies & Program Materials $5,000
Convenings & Community Engagement $7,500
Indirect / Administrative Costs (≈5%) $10,000
32 Budget Category Amount
Total $360,000
Budget Justification
Personnel – $180,000
Personnel costs support the core planning, coordination, and administrative infrastructure necessary to design a guaranteed employment and pre-apprenticeship program serving formerly incarcerated, long-term unemployed, and fixed-income Oakland residents. • Program Director (0.75 FTE): $90,000
Responsible for overall program design, coordination with City of Oakland agencies, contracted firms, and public-sector partners. Oversees apprenticeship pathways in sectors such as construction, environmental engineering, technology, design, and arts management.
• Research & Policy Analyst (0.75 FTE): $70,000
Conducts labor market analysis, identifies target industries, maps workforce needs, and supports data-driven decision-making for pilot implementation. Leads historical and contemporary analysis of public-sector employment models. • Community Engagement Coordinator (0.5 FTE): $20,000
Facilitates outreach to impacted communities, supports participant recruitment, and organizes listening sessions with formerly incarcerated and long-term unemployed residents to ensure program design reflects lived experience and community needs.
Fringe Benefits – $45,000
Calculated at approximately 25% of personnel costs, covering health insurance, payroll taxes, and required employment benefits in accordance with municipal and nonprofit standards.
Community Participant Stipends – $40,000
Funds stipends for 20–25 community participants engaged in planning workshops, listening sessions, and advisory roles. These stipends recognize the labor and expertise of residents most impacted by unemployment and incarceration and align with the program’s commitment to economic dignity and fair compensation.
Consultants & Contracted Partners – $45,000
Supports short-term contracts with specialized partners essential to pilot development:
• Workforce development consultants with experience in pre-apprenticeship programs
• Industry advisors from construction, environmental engineering, technology, and arts management
• Legal or compliance consultants to assess public-sector employment structures and apprenticeship regulations
33 Data Collection & Evaluation – $20,000
Covers data acquisition, survey design, and evaluation tools to assess workforce needs, identify viable industries, and establish baseline metrics for future program phases. This includes qualitative interviews, labor market datasets, and analysis software.
Travel & Local Transportation – $7,500
Supports local travel within Oakland for site visits to public lands, parks, and community facilities, as well as meetings with city agencies, unions, and training partners. Includes public transportation, mileage reimbursement, and accessibility accommodations.
Supplies & Program Materials – $5,000
Covers materials necessary for planning and engagement activities, including printing, digital tools, workshop supplies, and documentation of program design.
Convenings & Community Engagement – $7,500
Supports community meetings, stakeholder convenings, and public forums where residents, city agencies, and industry partners collaboratively shape the program. Includes space rental, interpretation services, food, and accessibility supports.
Indirect / Administrative Costs – $10,000
Represents modest administrative overhead (approximately 5%) to support fiscal management, reporting, and compliance. This intentionally low indirect rate maximizes direct investment in planning and community engagement.
Phase II: Pilot Implementation & Workforce Development (18 months)
Summary Budget
Category Amount
Participant Wages (Guaranteed Employment) $1,400,000
Personnel & Program Staff $620,000
Fringe Benefits (25%) $155,000
Training & Apprenticeship Costs $300,000
Contracted Industry & City Partners $175,000
Tools, Equipment & PPE $80,000
Supportive Services (Wraparound Care) $60,000
Evaluation & Data Reporting $40,000
Administrative / Indirect Costs (≈3%) $20,000
Total $2,850,000
Budget Justification
34 Participant Wages (Guaranteed Employment) – $1,400,000 This category supports 60–75 CCC participants in guaranteed, living-wage public-sector employment across climate resilience, public health, parks, and community infrastructure projects.
• Average wage: $25/hour
• Average hours: 30 hours/week
• Duration: 9–12 months per participant
Wages prioritize residents who are formerly incarcerated, long-term unemployed, or living on fixed incomes, ensuring immediate economic stability while participants build skills and credentials.
Personnel & Program Staff – $620,000
Personnel are essential to supervising worksites, coordinating apprenticeships, and supporting participants’ transitions into higher-paying careers. • Program Director (1.0 FTE): $150,000
Oversees program operations, city coordination, compliance, and funding reporting.
• Worksite Supervisors (3 × 1.0 FTE): $240,000
Supervise daily operations across environmental, infrastructure, and public health sites.
• Apprenticeship & Industry Liaison (1.0 FTE): $115,000 Manages partnerships with unions, contractors, tech firms, and training providers. • Case Manager / Reentry Support Specialist (1.0 FTE): $115,000 Provides individualized support for participants facing housing instability, legal barriers, or reentry challenges.
Fringe Benefits – $155,000
Calculated at approximately 25% of personnel costs, covering required benefits, payroll taxes, and insurance consistent with municipal and nonprofit standards.
Training & Apprenticeship Costs – $300,000
Supports pre-apprenticeship instruction and credentialing aligned with Oakland’s workforce needs, including:
• OSHA and safety certifications
• Construction and environmental remediation training
• Technology and digital skills coursework
• Arts management and public-sector administration modules
Funds cover instructional fees, training materials, certifications, and stipends during classroom-based learning.
Contracted Industry & City Partners – $175,000
Supports agreements with:
• City of Oakland departments (Parks & Recreation, Public Works, Public Health) 35 • Union apprenticeship programs
• Environmental engineering firms
• Technology and design organizations
These partnerships provide specialized instruction, worksites, and pathways to permanent employment.
Tools, Equipment & PPE – $80,000
Covers durable equipment and safety gear required for public-sector and environmental work, including tools, protective clothing, technology hardware, and maintenance supplies.
Supportive Services (Wraparound Care) – $60,000
Addresses barriers to sustained participation and completion, including:
• Transportation assistance
• Work clothing and boots
• Emergency financial assistance
• Mental health and wellness referrals
These supports are particularly critical for participants with histories of incarceration or long-term unemployment.
Evaluation & Data Reporting – $40,000
Funds ongoing evaluation of employment outcomes, skill acquisition, and post-program placement into apprenticeships or permanent jobs. Includes participant tracking systems and reporting to funders and city agencies.
Administrative / Indirect Costs – $20,000
Represents minimal overhead (approximately 3%) to support fiscal management, audits, and compliance, maximizing direct investment in wages and training.
Recommendation #5
Implement anti-speculator laws. We propose the implementation of anti-speculation and rental market regulatory measures to curb displacement, reduce investor-driven housing instability, and protect low-income homeowners and tenants. These policies are intended to discourage rapid property “flipping,” reduce incentives for land speculation, and limit predatory practices that extract wealth from distressed neighborhoods.
Anti-speculation measures should include:
Anti-flipping tax: A graduated transfer tax or surcharge on properties resold within a short time window (e.g., 1–3 years) to deter speculative buying and rapid resale that drives up prices and destabilizes neighborhoods.
36 Land value taxation (or land value–based surcharges): A tax structure that places greater emphasis on land value rather than improvements, encouraging productive use of land and discouraging long-term vacancy or speculation on undeveloped/underused parcels.
Limits on property tax liens and tax sale practices: Reforms that reduce the disproportionate impact of tax lien enforcement on low-income residents and seniors, including stronger notice requirements, payment plans, and hardship protections to prevent displacement and speculative acquisition through liens.
Rental market regulation should include:
Landlord licensing and/or rental registry: A system to register rental units and hold landlords accountable to basic habitability and safety standards, paired with transparent compliance requirements.
Short-term rental and lease regulation: Ordinances that prevent the conversion of long- term housing into short-term, high-turnover rental stock in ways that accelerate displacement.
Equitable code enforcement: Enforcement practices that protect tenant health and safety while preventing selective or punitive approaches that can be weaponized to displace residents.
Implementation should prioritize equity and accountability by (1) targeting protections for low-income homeowners and tenants most vulnerable to displacement, (2) ensuring data transparency on enforcement and market outcomes, and (3) dedicating resulting revenues—where applicable—toward affordable housing preservation, legal services, and anti-displacement programs.
Recommendation #6
Community reparations plan. The purpose of this plan would be to redress the harms of urban renewal in Oakland by providing monetary funds for displaced residents of Black neighborhoods. Beginning in the 1940s, the Federal Highway Administration began drawing plans for constructing the interstate system with five freeways in Oakland: I-880, I-980, I- 580, I-80 and the Cypress Street Viaduct. Nearby homes and businesses were devalued further by the state using eminent domain which allowed for sections of their neighborhoods to be razed to make way for transportation infrastructure in West Oakland, Downtown Chinatown, and East Oakland. The residents who remained after the freeway construction were exposed to new environmental harms from air pollution from freeway emissions, and they were also walled off by the freeway’s massive structures which divided their neighborhoods, obstructed mobility, and made it more difficult for these communities to access crucial amenities, including parks. The Cypress Street Viaduct alone uprooted 600 families and dozens of businesses; the total number of homes, 37 properties, and businesses that were demolished and the dispossession incurred by redlined Black communities is difficult to fully calculate.
Proposed cost: Ideally, funds would derive from the federal government, state government, city government, as well as Bay Area Rapid Transit. While this is ultimately a long-term project, in the short-term, additional data collection is needed to determine the debt owed to displaced residents of neighborhoods that were destroyed by urban renewal, freeway construction, and related projects. Total 3-Year Investment: $25,500,000
Summary Budget (3 Years)
Category Amount
Direct Reparations Payments to Displaced Residents $18,000,000 Historical Research, Data Collection & Claims Verification $2,800,000 Community Outreach & Claims Assistance $1,500,000
Program Personnel & Governance Infrastructure $1,900,000 Legal, Compliance & Intergovernmental Coordination $500,000 Evaluation, Reporting & Public Transparency $300,000
Administrative / Indirect Costs (≈2%) $500,000
Total $25,500,000
Budget Justification
Direct Reparations Payments – $18,000,000
This category funds monetary reparations for individuals and families displaced or dispossessed by urban renewal, freeway construction, eminent domain, and related state actions.
Funds may be distributed as:
• One-time direct payments
• Tiered compensation based on severity of harm (e.g., home loss, business loss, environmental exposure)
• Heirs’ claims, where original residents are deceased
Estimated reach:
1,200–1,800 households receiving payments averaging $10,000–$15,000
This approach acknowledges that while total dispossession cannot be fully calculated, material redress is both necessary and overdue.
Historical Research, Data Collection & Claims Verification – $2,800,000 Supports rigorous documentation of displacement and harm, including:
38 • Archival research (federal, state, city, FHA, Caltrans, BART records) • Mapping demolished homes, businesses, and neighborhood boundaries • Eminent domain and property valuation analysis
• Environmental exposure documentation (air pollution, barriers to access) • Claims verification and adjudication infrastructure
This funding is essential to establish eligibility standards, calculate reparative debt, and ensure the program’s credibility and legal defensibility.
Community Outreach & Claims Assistance – $1,500,000
Funds community-based engagement to ensure impacted residents and descendants are able to access reparations.
Includes:
• Neighborhood-based claims assistance centers
• Partnerships with trusted community organizations
• Language access (including Cantonese and other community languages) • Stipends for community historians and elders
• Outreach to displaced families now living outside Oakland
This ensures reparations do not reproduce exclusion through bureaucratic barriers.
Program Personnel & Governance Infrastructure – $1,900,000 Supports staffing and governance necessary to administer a large-scale reparations program.
• Program Director (1.0 FTE, 3 yrs): $480,000
• Deputy Director for Research & Claims (1.0 FTE): $420,000 • Community Reparations Coordinators (2 × 1.0 FTE): $720,000 • Fiscal & Grants Manager (0.5 FTE): $280,000
Personnel oversee payments, research integrity, community engagement, and interagency coordination.
Legal, Compliance & Intergovernmental Coordination – $500,000 Supports legal review and coordination among funding partners, including:
• Federal and state agencies
• City of Oakland
• Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART)
• Regional transportation authorities
Ensures compliance with public finance law, claims appeals processes, and multi-source funding agreements.
Evaluation, Reporting & Public Transparency – $300,000
39 Funds independent evaluation and public reporting, including:
• Annual public reports to City Council
• Data dashboards showing disbursements and demographics • Community accountability meetings
Transparency is essential to maintain public trust and establish this program as a model for other cities.
Administrative / Indirect Costs – $500,000
Represents approximately 2% of total costs, covering fiscal oversight, audits, and reporting. This intentionally low overhead prioritizes direct reparative investment.
Phased Implementation (3 Years)
Year 1: Infrastructure & Accounting
• Establish governance and staffing
• Begin historical research and mapping
• Design eligibility criteria and claims process
Year 2: Claims Processing & Initial Payments
• Open claims period
• Distribute first round of reparations
• Continue research and verification
Year 3: Expanded Payments & Reporting
• Complete payments
• Publish final accounting of harms and reparative debt • Issue policy recommendations for long-term reparations
Recommendation #7
Maintain current funding budget for arts. Residents have expressed a general sense of satisfaction for the current state of cultural and artistic activities in Oakland. We recommend that current levels of funding be maintained (FY 2024-2025), with improvements to various administrative processes (i.e., permit acquisition). Relatedly, we recommend partnering with local art and cultural institutions to generate public arts projects that represent the historical conditions of Black life in Oakland, similar to the New Deal-era Works Projects Administration’s Historical Records Survey, which interviewed several former slaves.
Proposed cost: This program would require little or no additional costs; however we would encourage the Cultural Affairs Division to apply for relevant grants to support large-scale arts and cultural projects.
Recommendation #8
40 Additional community land trusts and land banks. The City of Oakland has been most recently the site of successful community land trust operation for Black mothers and their children (cf. Moms 4 Housing). We recommend the expansion of community land trusts and land banks to purchase homes quickly and compete with speculators.
Proposed cost:
As a short-term pilot, we recommend $5 million to be designated as part of the Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development’s budget, earmarked for the creation of an Affordable Housing Trust Fund. The fund, in its first two years can offer applicants up to $50,000 per CLT. Successful applicants must build or buy homes that will be available for residents who are 30% or below area median income (AMI).
Summary Budget (2 Years)
Category Amount
CLT & Land Bank Capital Grants (up to $50,000 per CLT) $4,000,000 Program Administration (HCD) $400,000
Technical Assistance & Capacity Building $300,000
Rapid Acquisition & Predevelopment Support $200,000
Community Outreach & Application Support $60,000
Evaluation & Reporting $40,000
Total $5,000,000
Budget Justification
CLT & Land Bank Capital Grants – $4,000,000
This category funds direct capital grants to community land trusts and land banks to enable rapid acquisition and development of permanently affordable housing.
• Grants of up to $50,000 per CLT / land bank
• Supports approximately 80 CLT-affiliated housing units or projects
Funds may be used for:
• Property acquisition
• Gap financing to compete with speculators
• Predevelopment costs
• Rehabilitation tied to permanent affordability
All funded homes must serve households at 30% AMI or below and remain permanently affordable through CLT ownership structures.
This investment builds on Oakland’s demonstrated success with community-led anti- displacement housing models, including the nationally recognized work associated 41 with Moms 4 Housing, which illustrated the capacity of CLTs to intervene where traditional affordable housing mechanisms move too slowly.
Program Administration (HCD) – $400,000
Supports the administration of the pilot within the Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development.
Covers:
• Program oversight and fiscal management
• Application review and compliance monitoring
• Coordination with CLTs, land banks, and City departments • Reporting to City Council and the public
Administration is intentionally lean to maximize capital deployment.
Technical Assistance & Capacity Building – $300,000
Funds technical assistance to strengthen CLT and land bank readiness, particularly for Black-led and community-based organizations.
Includes:
• Legal support for land trust formation and governance • Real estate acquisition and financing assistance
• Compliance with affordability covenants and reporting requirements
This ensures newer and smaller CLTs can participate equitably in the pilot.
Rapid Acquisition & Predevelopment Support – $200,000
Provides flexible resources that allow CLTs and land banks to act quickly in competitive real estate markets.
Funds may support:
• Earnest money deposits
• Appraisals and inspections
• Environmental assessments
• Bridge costs prior to permanent financing
Speed is essential to counter speculative investors and preserve affordability.
Community Outreach & Application Support – $60,000
Supports outreach to eligible CLTs and land banks, including:
• Information sessions
• Application assistance
• Language access and technical support
Ensures broad participation and equitable access to funding. 42 Evaluation & Reporting – $40,000
Funds evaluation of pilot outcomes, including:
• Number of properties acquired
• Units preserved or created at ≤30% AMI
• Speed of acquisition relative to market conditions
• Anti-displacement impact
Findings will inform potential program expansion.
Proposed Program Guidance
• Homes must serve households at 30% AMI or below
• Properties must remain permanently affordable through CLT or land bank ownership
• Priority given to Black-led, community-based organizations • Emphasis on speed-to-acquisition and anti-speculation capacity Potential Funding Sources
Federal Funding Sources:
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
• HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME)
• Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
• Section 108 Loan Guarantee Program
U.S. Department of the Treasury
• American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) – State & Local Fiscal Recovery Funds • Capital Magnet Fund
State of California Funding Sources:
California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) • Local Housing Trust Fund (LHTF) Program
• Infill Infrastructure Grant (IIG) Program
• Multifamily Housing Program (MHP)
California Strategic Growth Council
• Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities (AHSC) 43 California Housing Finance Agency (CalHFA)
• Mixed-Income Program & Special Needs Housing
• Mortgage assistance and layered financing for CLT-based developments Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART)
• Joint development and land disposition programs
• Potential land contributions or capital funding for CLTs near stations • Particularly relevant given historic displacement tied to regional infrastructure City of Oakland Funding Sources:
Oakland Affordable Housing Trust Fund
• General Fund set-asides
• Bond proceeds
• Transfer tax or real estate–linked revenues
• Ideal “home” for the proposed CLT pilot
General Obligation Bonds
• Voter-approved housing bonds can allocate a carve-out for CLTs and land banks In-Lieu Fees & Impact Fees
• Commercial and market-rate residential development fees • Can be targeted toward permanent affordability strategies Philanthropic Funding Sources
• San Francisco Foundation
• Ford Foundation
• Kresge Foundation
• Surdna Foundation
• Chan Zuckerberg Initiative
These funders have supported CLTs, anti-displacement work, and/or Black-led housing models across California.
CONCLUSION
The BND Racial Impact Analysis ultimately underscores the need for the City of Oakland to focus on the life and legacy of its Black residents. By designing a study that examines the ongoing effects of public policy decisions and actions on the Black community in Oakland, 44 we gain a better understanding of the impact of public policies on marginalized communities and inform future policies and practices that promote equity and justice.
Nevertheless, with every instance of devastating harm enacted by the government colluding with the unjust real estate industry, banks, and developers, there has been powerful resistance by Black people. Black Oakland has always fought back, and we have sustained wins and losses. From the founding of the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters in the 1920s and the Black Panther Party For Self-Defense, to the incubation of prison abolition movements, and solidarity with Black Lives Matter, Oakland residents (property owners and renters alike) regularly expose connections between environmental and employment concerns, as well as alliances with protests across the globe. While we have still not gotten what we deserve, this report implores the City to consider Oakland as a model for how state-sanctioned, egregious injustices have taken and continue to take over a vibrant and resilient community.
45 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to thank Councilperson Carroll Fife for her continued leadership and support of Black residents in District 3 and throughout Oakland. We would also like to thank District 3 staff, especially Rediat Bayet for her guidance, expertise, and patience. We are grateful for the work of the Department of Race and Equity, including Director Darlene Flynn, and especially for the support from Amy Ferguson-Yep. We are also indebted to the work of student researchers from UC Berkeley and Columbia University, Robert Ortiz- Stahl, Maya Sapienza, and James Kitson, and want to extend a special note of gratitude to Robynn Battle and Shristi Reddy of CAMI Consulting. We would also like to thank the City of Oakland City Council for providing the financial support for this analysis, and finally the people of Oakland who remain resilient and committed to the goal of equity and social justice in Oakland.
APPENDIX A
A BLACK NEW DEAL: RACIAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
Literature Review
The purpose of this review is to provide historical context to better understand which policies and/or practices produced disparities in access and opportunity Black residents in Oakland. This review is an outgrowth of the analysis provided by the City Administrator and Office of Race and Equity annotating the impact local policy over time. While not exhaustive, this review seeks to undergird recognition that racism is embedded in structures, policies, and practices that maintain normative conditions.
The sections are organized by theme; however, it should be noted that all of the categories operate distinctly. In other words, each of the six designated themes (housing, economy, public safety and policing, environment and health, education, and arts and culture) are interrelated, and in some cases, impossible to disaggregate.1 Some of the categories provide more historical context, acknowledging the structural conditions that have largely contributed to the experiences Black Oaklanders have had over time.
Housing
The history of housing in Oakland is intricately intertwined with the economic history of the city. Uneven development in Oakland, where both space and nature were continually produced by and for real estate-based capital accumulation, led to the segregation of the city’s increasingly diverse communities. The settlement of the Oakland Hills by wealthy, white communities was no coincidence. As a 1911 Laymance Real Estate Company brochure stated about one neighborhood in the Oakland Hills, “It is probably unnecessary to even mention that no one of African or Mongolian descent will ever be allowed to own a lot in Rockridge or even rent any house that may be built there” (qtd. in Simon 2014).
Starting with the New Deal, thousands of small homes were built in, primarily in East Oakland, to complement the significant growth in industrial capital that had come into the city. In 1934, the newly created Federal Housing Authority (FHA) flooded the market with subsidized, low-interest mortgage loans, expanding the suburbs in the wake of the Great Depression. As a result, East Oakland was filled with suburban-style residential developments - modest, prefabricated, Mediterranean-style, single family homes (Schwarzer 2021). Racialized minorities, namely Black Americans, rarely qualified for FHA loans because they were only to be used for newly constructed homes. Intensifying patterns of segregation that developed all over Oakland, the practice of bank redlining prevented the flow of real estate investment capital into West and North Oakland, where Black people lived. The Home Owner’s Loan Corporation (HOLC) and the Federal Home 1 The focus of this review is mostly on historical data. More recent quantitative data on these categories can be found in the 2018 Oakland Equity Indicators report.
46 Loan Bank Board, produced Residential Security Maps and Surveys that ranked sections of US cities into color-coded, ranked sections. Most Black neighborhoods were colored red and ranked “D” for “hazardous” on the maps. Homes in these areas were most often disqualified from receiving loans. In contrast, white neighborhoods that had racial covenants were ranked high because they offered “protection from adverse influences” like “infiltration of inharmonious racial or nationality groups” (Sugrue 2014; HOLC 1937).
The 1937 HOLC area reports for most of Oakland’s flatland neighborhoods alerted investors of “detrimental influences, ” like the “infiltration” of “lower grades, ” particularly “Negros, ” “Orientals, ” “shopkeepers, ” “lower classes, ” and “foreign born. ” Per the map, neighborhoods west of Grove Street (which is now Martin Luther King, Jr Way) were all red (D grade). East 14th Street (now International Blvd) acted as the east/west redline in East Oakland. These designations effectively ghettoized North, West, and parts of East Oakland through the 1950s, limiting Black residents to areas adjacent to industrial zones and fallow business corridors.
In a 1946 seminar report from the Oakland Institute on Human Relations, the deplorable conditions of Black housing (namely overcrowding and dilapidated housing stock) generated “tension” amongst Black and non-Black populations. In particular, the report claimed that restrictive covenants had a profound impact on maintaining segregation. Up until 1948, racial covenants, established by the real estate industry, developers, and homeowners’ associations, were legal and effectively prevented most people of color from moving into these new communities. Even after racial covenants were outlawed by the Supreme Court, contractors faced challenges building homes for people of color in “Caucasians only” neighborhoods (Sugrue 2014). All in all, white Oaklanders had open access to affordable, single-family homes close to East Oakland’s industrial cluster, as Black residents were summarily excluded. Nevertheless, as the report from the Oakland Institute on Human Relations found, “gentlemen’s agreements” were enacted “by real estate agents which make it impossible for Negroes to purchase or rent property that is not legally restricted by covenant conspiracy” (p. 1).
At the start of World War II, Black and white migrants from the South and the Southwestern regions of the U.S. arrived in Oakland hoping to fulfill the labor needs of a burgeoning wartime industry. The Black population expanded rapidly as the demand for workers in Oakland’s shipyards continued to grow. The rapid influx of new residents to Oakland meant that there wasn’t enough housing for migrants, both Black and white. In order to mollify strain between Black residents and southern white migrants, the Oakland Housing Authority designated housing projects for Black residents only in West Oakland, and whites-only projects in East Oakland. These housing projects mostly sat adjacent to railroads, only landfill in industrial areas. Black residents became concentrated in West Oakland largely because they were prohibited from renting in Oakland’s eastern suburban communities due to racial covenants. As a result, old, dilapidated homes in West Oakland were subdivided to accommodate more residents. After the war ended, temporary wartime housing was razed, causing housing scarcity in neighborhoods that housed the largest population of Black residents in the city.
47 Despite the outlawing of racist housing policies and practices, namely redlining, under the Fair Housing Act of 1968, de facto discrimination and devaluation continued due to zoning and housing prices, the relocation of home insurance agencies to the suburbs, as well as the continuation of denied loan applications to Black families (Kantor and Nyusten 1982; Squires et al. 1991). Redlining, in tandem with racial covenants and selective federal housing subsidies, created a distinctly racialized landscape of wealth and deprivation throughout Oakland’s industrial boom period and beyond.
Exclusionary zoning has been particularly effective in maintaining racial inequities in housing. In Oakland, there are three residential zoning categories that reflect high density (urban and high rise), medium density (mixed housing), and low density (detached and hillside) areas. Areas that are zoned for high and medium density correspond with areas that were redlined and therefore designated “risky” for lending - typically neighborhoods inhabited by people of color with low-incomes in the flatlands. Areas zoned for low density were historically identified as suitable for lending - neighborhoods in the Oakland hills and foothills with wealthier and white residents. Exclusionary zoning was not prohibited under the Federal Housing Act because it does not explicitly discriminate against people based on race.
In 1964, the Oakland Redevelopment Agency surveyed discrimination in Oakland housing:
of 486 houses listed for sale in the Oakland Tribune, on April 26, 21% had racial restrictions; of 675 rental units, 17% had racial restrictions. All of this was right after the passage of the Rumford Fair Housing Act (1963), which banned racial and religious discrimination in the sale or rental of housing that was not publicly assisted or that held FHA insured mortgages. The Rumford Act was later revoked through the passage of Prop 14 (advocated by conservative white homeowners and business people). All of these factors, and many others, led the Black Panther Party to regularly refer to the unequal growth of the East Bay suburbs in comparison to Oakland as an imperial state exploiting a colony.
So, while government policy made it cheaper to own a house in the suburbs than rent an apartment in Oakland, various forms of government-induced discrimination made sure there was racial exclusivity in the suburbs, which was crucial for attracting businesses and protecting property values, all the while developers built houses, shopping centers, and other commercial and industrial developments in the burbs. Where there was government support for investment in Oakland was primarily in the Oakland Hills and Lake Merritt area.
Starting in the 1950s and eclipsing in the late-1970, white suburban homeowners in California organized a powerful movement to change the state's taxation and revenue collection system. They sought changes because of rising real estate values and inflation rates, which led to increased property taxes. A powerful group of conservative anti-tax individuals built a campaign to reduce property tax rates. They did so by criticizing public expenditures in older neighborhoods, which mostly housed Black, Latinx, and Asian families, who lived quite a distance away from the suburban homeowner tax base. In 1978, Proposition 13, the country’s first comprehensive tax limitation initiative, passed with 48 nearly 65% of California voters supporting the measure. A healthy 70% of the suburban communities of Alameda County supported the measure, while 52% of Oakland residents opposed it, showing the clear desire of the majority-white suburban population hoping to alienate city investments, tax revenues, and wealth from urban areas. The spatial distribution of support for Prop 13 reflects a clear anti-tax sentiment in favor of the protection of personal, real estate-based wealth over the redistributive structures of taxation.
Prop 13 had a profound economic impact on urban economies all over the state of California. The Proposition set maximum tax rates at 1% of total property value and restricted maximum increases in assessed value to 2% from one year to the next.
Furthermore, its passage mandated that property could only be revalued under a transfer of ownership. The impact on city revenues was particularly substantial for cities like Oakland with aging infrastructure, large minority and working-class population, and significant public works programs. In fact, Oakland saw a 53% overall reduction in property tax revenue after the implementation of Prop 13 (Ross 2009). Since its passage, residents in urban cities like Oakland have the unique disadvantage of paying for many services through price systems made up of fees and charges rather than through property taxes and similar general citywide revenue streams.
Various forms of social vulnerability resulted from city revenue curtailment via Prop 13.
Reduced welfare and financial hardships are also generated from declining support for other public programs related to education, environmental health, psychological services, child care, etc. Furthermore, the impacts of disinvestment run across generational lines (i.e., those purchasing homes before and after passage of Proposition 13) and thus disproportionately affect households who must buy into newly reassessed properties with adjusted (and higher) property tax rates (Ross 2009).
Evictions via foreclosure and landlords started to become more commonplace in the 1990s because of higher housing costs, the dearth of affordable housing units, stagnant wages, and a shift in tax policy that favored the rich. These issues became especially poignant in cities like Oakland, which had a declining service economy and whose poor and working-class residents did not benefit from the first wave of the Tech Boom that gripped other parts of the Bay Area.
In 1996, California passed the Costa-Hawkins Rental Act, which restricted rent control and eliminated vacancy control. This means that landlords could charge whatever rent they want once a unit becomes vacant, regardless of whether the tenant leaves voluntarily or not. What this did was motivate landlords to evict tenants so they could charge exorbitant rent, thereby escaping strict rent control ordinances. In Oakland, it’s common for people on the same block or in the same building to pay vastly different amounts for rent each month. This came at a particularly precarious time for low income families, since large tech companies began relocating their headquarters to the Bay Area, and with them came tech workers who drove up housing and rental costs all over the region. These transitions made the neighborhoods that made up the region more unstable. 49 Gentrification is an economic, cultural, and social set of processes that restructures urban space and contours neighborhood change. Federal, state, and local governments spur the spread of gentrification via policy, land use management, and development strategies.
Such policies have contributed to the spread of market-based housing finance models that transform the homeownership landscape. Thus, predatory inclusion becomes a primary mode for shoring up capital accumulation for investors (Taylor 2019). The Fair Housing Act of 1968 removed the risk from investing in neighborhoods primarily inhabited by Black populations, thereby making way for banks, the real estate industry, and investors to take advantage of vulnerable Black communities (Taylor 2019). The infusion of capital into the old urban landscapes of poverty and redlining often ignites gentrification, which “has become not a sideshow in the city, but a major component of the urban imaginary” (Ley 2003, 2527). Therefore, market-based housing policies and urban redevelopment plans laid the foundation for real estate brokers, landlords, and mortgage lenders to build their wealth by exploiting Black communities.
From the late 1990s through 2005, rising housing prices contributed to a liquid mortgage market characterized by low loan-default rates, increasing homeownership and escalating subprime lending - that included for prospective landlords who did not have much cash or equity. Once housing prices stopped rising, subprime borrowers couldn’t refinance their houses to pay off their loans before they adjusted to higher, unaffordable interest rates. As a result, urban and suburban landscapes all over the country were littered with a mighty supply of foreclosed, vacant and unsold homes. Between 1995 and 2006, home prices in West Oakland increased by 700%.
These modes of displacement and violence have been intensified through the increased financialization of housing since the subprime mortgage crisis of 2007. Financialization is what Manuel Aalbers describes as a “pattern of accumulation in which profit making occurs increasingly through financial channels rather than through trade and commodity production. ” What financialization involves is the growth of financial actors (banks, lenders, private equity companies), new financial tools (mutual funds, hedge funds, asset- backed securities), and the increasing power of financial firms in different areas of the economy, namely, real estate. Through financialization, the bulk of the wealth ends up in the hands of a very small number of people. West Oakland became an ideal site for the financialization of real estate.
By 2008, the U.S. faced huge increases in housing foreclosures, which contributed to widespread bank losses and declining tax revenues and major budget deficits for local and state governments. Between 2007 and 2011, one in seven properties in Oakland entered default, resulting in 1 in 14 homes being lost to foreclosure. The bulk of the foreclosures took place in the low-income Flatlands of East and West Oakland. These are the same areas that were targeted by predatory lenders in the years leading up to the Great Recession. These are also the regions that were redlined.
50 Evictions targeted largely people of color in Oakland and most foreclosures in Oakland since 2007 have been homes lived in by tenants rather than owners (AEMP 2016). Between 2007 and 2011, real estate investors acquired 42% of all properties that went through foreclosure in Oakland. A whopping 93% of those properties acquired by investors were in Oakland’s primarily poor and working-class Flatlands neighborhoods (King 2012). During that same period, Black tenants were sixty-six times more likely to be named in an eviction order than a white tenant, despite making up less than 25% of the overall population (Silverstein 2020: 102). Black women are disproportionately evicted from their homes and face further limitations due to landlords and property management companies uniformly denying housing applicants with criminal or eviction records.
The mass dispossession of property and wealth from people of color provided an opportunity for mostly white people and large scale investors to benefit from their losses and accumulate wealth by purchasing these homes below the market rate, flipping these properties, and selling them at market rate which began to increase between 2010 and 2020.3 As a result, between 2012 and 2020, Oakland experienced a more dramatic shift in population demographics than any other city in the country.4 Using speculative capital, real estate investors took advantage of several opportunities to purchase foreclosed homes in West and East Oakland because of the subprime mortgage crisis. Such investment companies sought to expand their portfolios by purchasing homes and land primarily in foreclosure markets. These companies would either flip or hold properties in speculation. Investor-owners kept many of these properties vacant and in various stages of disrepair so that some received court-ordered demolition notices.
4 Louis Hansen, Oakland, S.F . neighborhoods fastest gentrifying in US., (June 18, 2020), https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/06/18/oakland-s-f-neighborhoods-fastest- gentrifyingin-u-s/.
Sources on Housing:
Aalbers, M.B., 2016. The financialization of home and the mortgage market crisis. In The financialization of housing. Routledge.
Davis, B. A. (2021). Housing as a Human Right: Black Epistemologies in Deep East Oakland. International Journal of Human Rights Education, 5(1).
Fauria, A & Mathur, S. (2012). Impact of Targeted Redevelopment of Central Business District on Housing Prices in the Surrounding Neighborhoods: Evidence from Oakland, California. Journal of Urban Planning and Development. 138.
Goldstein, Z. (2023). If It’s Vacant Take It: Interventions in Geographies of Exclusion in Oakland, California, Radical History Review (145): 139–146.
HOLC. (1937). Area Description, Oakland, CA. Home Owner’s Loan Corporation (HOLC) Division of Research and Statistics.
51 Johnson, M.S. (1991). “Urban Arsenals: War Housing and Social Change in Richmond and Oakland, California, 1941-1945. ” Pacific Historical Review 60(3): 283–308
Johnson, M. S. (1994). The second gold rush: Oakland and the East Bay in World War II. Univ of California Press.
Kantor, A. C., & Nystuen, J. D. (1982). De facto redlining a geographic view. Economic Geography, 58(4), 309-328.
King, S. 2012. “Who Owns Your Neighborhood?: The Role of Investors in Post-Foreclosure Oakland” Urban Strategies Council.
Lambert-Mullen, Massimo and Trejo, Gilbert (2020) "Tracking Gentrification in Oakland, " Humboldt Geographic: 1(16).
Lym, G.R. (1967). “Effect of a Public Housing Project on a Neighborhood: Case Study of Oakland, California. ” Land Economics, 43(4): 461–66.
Melkonian, M.J., and Whitman, P .A. (1968). “The Oakland Leased Housing Program. ” Stanford Law Review, 20(3):538–70.
PolicyLink. (2022). “Oakland’s Displacement Crisis: As Told by the Numbers.”
Ramírez, M.M. (2020) Take the houses back/take the land back: Black and Indigenous urban futures in Oakland, Urban Geography, 41:5, 682-693
Schwarzer, M. (2021). Hella town: Oakland's history of development and disruption. Univ of California Press.
Simon, G. L. (2014). Vulnerability-in-production: a spatial history of nature, affluence, and fire in Oakland, California. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 104(6), 1199-1221.
Squires, G. D., Velez, W., & T aeuber, K. E. (1991). Insurance redlining, agency location, and the process of urban disinvestment. Urban Affairs Quarterly, 26(4), 567-588.
Sugrue, T. J. (2014). The origins of the urban crisis: Race and inequality in postwar Detroit- updated edition (Vol. 168). Princeton University Press.
Silverstein, E. (2020). Life, liberty, and rental property: Oakland's nuisance eviction program. Hastings Journal of Crime and Punishment, 1(1), 79-134
Taylor, KY . (2019). Race for Profit: How Banks and the Real Estate Industry Undermined Black Homeownership. Chapel Hill: UNC Press
52 Education
The history of race and education in Oakland has been profoundly impacted by economic and housing policies, and demographic shifts since the early 20th century. In the post-war period, the city drew school attendance boundaries that maintained segregation between white students and other people of color. In particular, the 1947 boundaries in West Oakland made it so that McClymond’s High School, “were roughly coterminous with Negro residential concentration” (Heyman 1963, 10). Although Oakland Schools did not have a segregation policy, race restrictive covenants and economic discrimination created a segregated school landscape, where Black students attended schools in the poorest, oldest areas and buildings. “The long term pattern of economic and social inequality for the Negro in America has resulted in fewer Negroes being trained to teach or qualifying on examinations for teaching jobs in California” (Oakland Institute on Human Relations 1946,
2.)
When Skyline High School opened in 1961, calls against “racial gerrymandering” dominated neighborhood politics since the site was located in the majority-white Oakland hills, and the attendance boundaries encompassed mostly white households (Heyman 1963, 13). During the same year, Oakland was identified by the Ford Foundation as its first city to participate in the Gray Area Project, an outgrowth of the Ford Foundation’s Great Cities School Improvement Program. Oakland received $2M to be used over a three-year period. The grant was generated in response to the rapid decrease in white residents, and explosive increase in Black residents. The hope was for the funds to prevent these areas from becoming “slums. ” Ultimately, the program did not generate positive results since segregation remained a trenchant barrier social, economic, and political change for Black residents.
Attempts at desegregation continued unsuccessfully throughout the 1960s, with persistent racial imbalances plaguing Oakland’s public schools. In response, the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense founded a school to support Black children’s educational development. In 1971, the BPP founded the Intercommunal Youth Institute, designed to be a liberatory response to oppressive conditions that Black children faced in public school. After significant growth, the IYI became the Oakland Community School in 1975, which was part of the Oakland Community Learning Center (OCLC). This is where the BPP offered various service and community outreach programs.
In 1978, after the passage of Prop 13, funding for schools in California dropped precipitously, as per-student spending lowered. In economically distressed cities with large Black populations like Oakland, the impact was devastating. Segregation persisted through the 1980s and 1990s, when the city’s Black population reached its peak.2 Contributing to an already contentious environment, the Oakland Public Schools School Board passed a resolution in 1996 implementing African American Vernacular English (AAVE), also known as Ebonics. Even as the city had experienced a significant growth in its nonwhite
2 California Department of Education Educational Demographics Unit (1993-1994) 53 population at this time, the majority, ninety percent, of the entire state’s schoolteachers were white and had training in European linguistic traditions. Through the state’s adoption of the Crosscultural, Language, and Academic Development (CLAD) teacher certification and credential, educators had hoped to address the needs of its growing population of Black and Latinx students.
Since then, Black OUSD students have been overwhelmingly impacted by poverty, especially in West Oakland, where students also suffer from chronic health ailments – health and welfare of the children has been a specific problem for Oakland. Since 1993, the spread of charter schools in Oakland has contributed to the divestment of resources at district schools. By the late-1990s, parents of children in the under resourced neighborhoods of East and West Oakland started a campaign called the Oakland Small Schools Movement, which successfully advocated for access to smaller schools so that children from low-income households could receive great attention and support.3 While the results of this campaign have been mixed, with several of the schools becoming charter schools or shutting down, the recognition that public school students in the flatlands have not been properly served looms above the city.
In 2019, Oakland teachers were among the lowest paid in the Bay Area, and despite a move by the Oakland Education Association (OEA) to increase salaries and provide additional student support, the Oakland Unified School Board ultimately voted to enact $20.2 million in cuts to the budget. Between 2018 and 2023, OUSD lost 3,000 students to charter schools, which contributed to the dismissal of over 100 teachers, and the shuttering of several schools (Mendoza 2025). The lack of financial resources has hindered progress, and the needs of Oakland’s schoolchildren have gone unaddressed. The school district gets hit directly when there is a budget shortage, high unemployment, and financial disaster. Furthermore, a significant population of the children attending Oakland schools do not have the financial means to make other choices (attend private schools in the area) – trapped by economic circumstances.
Sources on Education in Oakland:
Baugh, J. (2000). Beyond Ebonics: Linguistic pride and racial prejudice. Oxford University Press.
Bethea, S. L. (2012). The Impact of Oakland Freedom School’s Summer Youth Program on the Psychosocial Development of African American Youth. Journal of Black Psychology, 38(4), 442-454
Chatmon, C. P ., & Watson, V . M. (2018). Decolonizing School Systems: Racial Justice, Radical Healing, and Educational Equity inside Oakland Unified School District. Voices in Urban Education, 48, 7-12.
3 Matthew Green, How Charter Schools Became Such a Big Player in California’s Education System, KQED (Mar. 20, 2019), https://www.kqed.org/news/11729643/how-charterschools-became-such-a-big-player-in- californias-education-system.
54 Fehrer K, Leos-Urbel J. “We’re One Team”: Examining Community School Implementation Strategies in Oakland. Education Sciences. 2016; 6(3):26.
Heyman, I. (1963). Civil rights U.S.A.: public schools; cities in the North and West: Oakland
Kirp, D. L. (1979). Race, schooling, and interest politics: The Oakland story. The School Review, 87(4), 355-397.
Kissell, R. E., & Trujillo, T. (2020). Leading Towards Equity Through Decades of Reform: Oral Histories of District Politics and Community-Driven Reform in Oakland. Urban Education, 0(0).
Mathias, B. (2023). Understanding the development of East Oakland youth at the nexus of place, race, and wellbeing (Order No. 30570508). Available from Dissertations & Theses @ University of California; ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (2884037060).
Mendoza, J. (2025). Racial Capitalism and the Proliferation of Charter Schools in Oakland. UC Law Journal of Race and Economic Justice, 22(1), 183.
Murch, D. J. (2010). Living for the city: Migration, education, and the rise of the Black Panther Party in Oakland, California. UNC Press Books.
Noguera, P . A. (2004). Racial Isolation, Poverty, and the Limits of Local Control in Oakland.
Teachers College Record, 106(11), 2146-2170.\
Robinson, Robert. (2020). Until the Revolution: Analyzing the Politics, Pedagogy, and Curriculum of the Oakland Community School. Espacio Tiempo y Educación, 7(1): 181- 203. 10.14516/ete.273
Wolfram, W. (1998). Language ideology and dialect: Understanding the Oakland Ebonics controversy. Journal of English linguistics, 26(2), 108-121.
Economics
During World War I, thousands of migrant and immigrant workers rushed to Oakland, drawn by the availability of new jobs. At that time, wartime industrialization bolstered the city’s economy as shipbuilding became dominant at the port in West Oakland. Oakland’s nascent automobile industry grew significantly, earning Oakland the designation, “Detroit of the West. ” Automobile manufacturers like Chevrolet, General Motors, and Durant Motor Company expanded their operations in Oakland. Alongside this wartime economic boom was the development of new factories and residential communities in the east (Walker 2001).
55 During the Second World War, several suburban communities received large levels of public and private investments to attract homeowners, industry, and financial capital— marking a redistribution of wealth, property values, and tax revenues that directly undercut the economic health of cities like Oakland. This process was propelled by large government subsidies in the suburban housing market and a powerful coalition of construction entrepreneurs and suburban boosters. Through federal urban policy retrenchment and market forces, the suburban landscape was converted into various forms of capital:
increased property values for (white) homeowners, direct profits for developers, and taxes for public agencies (Self 2003). The results of regional suburbanization became clear in the rapid development of suburban locales and the underdevelopment of Oakland during the postwar period.
After the war’s end, many Black residents in Oakland faced challenges to remaining employed as they were often the first fired and the last to be rehired (Oakland Institute on Human Relations 1946). Despite the success of unions in supporting Oakland’s large labor class, many unions in the 1940s and 1950s “followed a discriminatory policy regarding admission of Negroes and other members of minority groups. The building trade unions and their bar tenders’ unions were mentioned as organizations following ‘Jim Crow’ policies” (Oakland Institute on Human Relations 1946, 1.)
With the closing and relocation of several industrial giants in the area between 1950 and 1960, the unemployment rate climbed at the same time as the commercial infrastructure of neighborhoods crumbled. The decline in industry brought about significant economic setbacks as most companies moved to the periphery (other Bay Area cities surrounding Oakland) producing industrial (and toxic) wastelands in Oakland. The city tried to recover by implementing urban renewal infrastructure. Redevelopment was seen as purely an economic solution, and not tied to social improvements or as addressing any systemic issues. Urban renewal introduced state-mandated policies and politics that destroyed the landscape, leaving Black people confined to disinvested parts of the city.
The implementation of urban renewal strategies in Oakland was used in the postwar period to combat a different kind of urban death. White, middle-class Americans were drawn to the suburbs via the passage of several New Deal era federal policies that made it much easier for them to abandon the urban core and establish communities in newly constructed neighborhoods.
In a profound shift from New Deal policies, President Johnson’s Great Society sought to shrink the role of the government. One of his landmark programs was the War on Poverty, which sought to rid the United States of the crippling hold of poverty that was disproportionately impacting marginalized communities of color. To accelerate the state’s retraction from social services introduced by the New Deal, the War on Poverty made local community and private entities, such as community-based organizations, the primary agents in charge of planning and organizing antipoverty measures. In 1965, the Johnson Administration targeted Oakland as a site for war on poverty funding and programs. By 56 1968, 140 nonmilitary federal programs were spending close to $100 million a year in Oakland, almost double the city's annual budget of $57.9 million (Self 2003).
A report written by Wilson Record, head of the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies and research director of the Oakland Ford Foundation project on racial problems, decried an “explosive” increase in Black population since 1940. “The report noted that while the Bay Area’s total population doubled since 1940, the Negro total had increased 12 times and might comprise 20 per cent of the total here by 1980” (Record 1963, 8). The report also claimed that the Black nationalist and separatist movements organized by Black Bay Area residents “is a warning that the Black integrationist efforts of Negro and white middle-class liberals may come to be weighed and found wanting by a growing number of angry black men” (Record 1963, 8). Belief in unruly Black militancy and violence bolstered the need for a “war” to curb Black radical politics and organizing.
The Oakland Ford Foundation project, of which Record was research director, was approved in 1961, with Oakland designated as the first US city chosen for the program. The purpose of the program was to institute an “all-out attack on the social problems of minority groups and proper assimilation of new citizens into the community. ”4 Since Oakland had been successful in its previous programs designed to assimilate racial minority groups into the city, it was selected first. The bulk of the funds were to be spent in the Castlemont High School area of East Oakland. There, they encouraged Black residents to participate in programs funded by the project, including education, recreation, health, and “delinquency” training, to help Black residents learn to become good and productive citizens of Oakland. Rather than maintaining that the state was responsible for not only the challenges that Black residents in Oakland faced, but should also be dedicated to ameliorating these conditions, not through erasure, but proper funding and social services.
Similarly, the state used the strategy of “individualizing disorder” to contain radical, liberation struggles taking place in Oakland as Black Power activists concurrently organized poor Black Oaklanders to fight against police brutality and economic exploitation. As Ruth Wilson Gilmore noted about the period between 1965 and 1980, “there is a moral panic over ‘crime’ – civil disorder, idle youth on the streets, people of color out of control, women and children without husbands and fathers, students who believe it is their job to change the world (not merely to understand it) and political alliances among organizations trying to merge into full-scale movements (1998, p. 177).
In Oakland and beyond, blackness was linked to poverty, conflating racial inequality and poverty with Black disadvantage. This coupling of poverty and Blackness was bolstered by multiple poverty studies, and research experts who focused on urban ghettoes and adjudicated the presumed needs, desires, and behaviors of poor people. The focus of the War on Poverty as a solution to Black disadvantage was largely driven by a white middle- class panic about the “threat” of Black radicalism and violence. Oakland’s conservative leadership rejected federal resources to ameliorate conditions for Black residents. “As governor, Reagan and Oakland attorney Edwin Meese killed the Oakland Economic Development Council, the nonprofit that had channeled more than $20 million in federal
4 Oakland Tribune. 1961. “Fund OK’d by Ford Foundation.” December 28, p. 1. 57 grants to the city’s poor, when they vetoed its 1971 block grant” (Winston and Bondgraham 2023, 133). All in all, the federal government made several attempts to address poverty in Oakland specifically, but the local government and power players were able to dismantle funding programs and therefore hinder progress.
As it related to jobs, deindustrialization disproportionately affected Black people in Oakland, as it removed a huge sector of the economy to which many were employed.
Between 1958 and 1963 Oakland’s employment dropped by 3,200 people because 80 businesses declared bankruptcy or just left the city. In 1964, the unemployment rate for Oakland was at 11%, but for black people, it was 20%. Manufacturing jobs were replaced with white- and blue-collar service jobs in the 1960s and 1970s, many of which were not open to Black people. Education requirements prevented many from financial, insurance, and information service careers, while racist employers avoided hiring black people in service jobs like as waiters or doormen.
Several federal, state, and local programs were developed in the 1960s and 1970s to create more job opportunities for minority communities for construction projects in Oakland. The federal government established economic development and affirmative action programs at the Port of Oakland; the board of directors of BART established JOBART (Job Opportunities BART) to increase minority participation in BART construction projects; and Alameda County established the “Alameda County Home Plan, ” and Project PREP (Property Rehabilitation Program), yet none of those opportunities yielded intended or expected results and Black Oakland residents remained.
Even with local programs that help Black and other marginalized groups secure access to construction work, Oakland, like other economically distressed cities with high unemployment and an underemployed blue-collar workforce, looked to deploy local-hire preferences in the hopes of developing jobs for public works projects. Such plans reflect the belief that public works programs can generate job opportunities for very low-income laborers and stir economic development.
Starting in the 1970s, Oakland experienced a significant flight of private capital. Industrial giants like General Motors, Del Monte, and other companies left. By 1995, eight out of the top ten largest employers in Oakland were government-based (County of Alameda, Federal government, OUSD, City of Oakland, State of California, AC Transit, and BART).
The passage of Proposition 209 (California Civil Rights Initiative) in 1996 had a devastating impact on Black-owned business and Black college enrollment. The measure ended race- conscious programs, which affected public contractors of color in California. As a result of the law, there was a sharp decline in the number of contracts given to DBEs (disadvantaged business enterprises). It remains unclear whether the economic and social costs of Prop 209 have outweighed the benefits, nevertheless, California residents voted to maintain the state law when it was challenged in 2020.
58 Mayor Jerry Brown’s infamous “10K Plan” to bring 10,000 new residents into Oakland’s economically distressed downtown largely overlooked Black-owned businesses.5 Claims that Brown “cut generous deals with developers, streamlined the approval process, and pushed aside city officials who stood in the way” led Black residents and business leaders in Oakland to begin calling the 10K plan “Jerryfication, ” a play on Jerry Brown’s name and the gentrification process that was envisioned to be inevitable.6 Prior to Brown’s election, Oakland had been losing its Black population (-21,000 Black residents between 1990 and 2000), but during Brown’s two terms, Oakland lost another 34,000 between 2000 and 2008.
This loss was one of the largest population shifts since Black people moved to Oakland from the South during WWII.
Sources on Economy:
Alkon, A. H. (2018). Entrepreneurship as activism? Resisting gentrification in Oakland, California. Revista de Administração de Empresas, 58, 279-290.
Chow JL, Jutte D, Eyre S, Pies C, Syme SL, Shrimali BP , Cheung K, 2018. “How We See Oakland: Low-income Women and Mothers Explore Economic Hardship in Oakland, California Through Photovoice, ” Special Publications, Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco.
Douzet, F . (2012). The color of power: Racial coalitions and political power in Oakland.
University of Virginia Press.
Gilmore, Ruth Wilson. 1998. “Globalisation and US Prison Growth: From Military Keynesianism to Post-Keynsian Militarism. ” Race & Class 40:2/3, p. 176.
Golub, A., Marcantonio, R. A., & Sanchez, T . W. (2013). Race, space, and struggles for mobility: Transportation impacts on African Americans in Oakland and the East Bay. Urban Geography, 34(5), 699-728.
Herrera, J. C. (2012). UNSETTLING THE GEOGRAPHY OF OAKLAND'S WAR ON POVERTY:
Mexican American Political Organizations and the Decoupling of Poverty and Blackness1. Du Bois Review: Social Science Research on Race, 9(2), 375-393.
Hochstim, J. R., Athanasopoulos, D. A., & Larkins, J. H. (1968). Poverty area under the microscope. American Journal of Public Health and the Nations Health, 58(10), 1815-1827.
Lohrentz, Tim. (2015). “The Impact of Proposition 209 on California’s MBEs. ” The Equal Justice Society, January. https://equaljusticesociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/ejs- impact-prop-209-mwbes.pdf
5 Joan Walsh, “Jerry Brown Shakes up Oakland’s Black Political Establishment, ” Salon, June 23, 1999, https://www.salon.com/1999/06/23/brown/.
6 Zusha Elinson, “As Mayor, Brown Remade Oakland’s Downtown and Himself, ” The New York Times, September 2, 2010, sec. U.S., https://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/03/us/politics/03bcbrown.html 59 Orozco, M., Austin, M., & Beale, E. (2008). The Unity Council: Brief History of a Pioneering Community Development and Service Organization. Oakland, CA
Parkin, J. (2003). Constructing meaningful access to work: Lessons from the Port of Oakland Project Labor Agreement. Colum. Hum. Rts. L. Rev., 35, 375.
Pressman, J. L., & Wildavsky, A. (1984). Implementation: How great expectations in Washington are dashed in Oakland; Or, why it's amazing that federal programs work at all, this being a saga of the Economic Development Administration as told by two sympathetic observers who seek to build morals on a foundation (Vol. 708). Univ of California Press
Raphael, S. (1998). Inter- and Intra-Ethnic Comparisons of the Central City-Suburban Youth Employment Differential: Evidence from the Oakland Metropolitan Area. ILR Review, 51(3), 505-524.
Record, W. (1963). Minority Groups and Intergroup Relation in the San Francisco Bay Area.
In Stanley Scott, Ed., The San Francisco Bay Area: Its Problems and Future, pp. 1–48.
Berkeley, CA: Institute for Governmental Studies.
Rhomberg, C. (2004). No there there: Race, class, and political community in Oakland. Univ of California Press.
Ross, J. (2009). Proposition 13 thirty years later: What has it meant for governance and public services? (Chapter 9). In After the tax revolt: Proposition 13 turns 30, ed. J. Citrin,I.
Martin, 135–40. San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California.
Self, R.O. (2003). American Babylon: Race and the struggle for postwar Oakland. Princeton University Press.
Tate, W. D. (1976) The New Black Urban Elites. San Francisco: R&E Research Associates
Walker, R. (2001). Industry builds the city: The suburbanization of manufacturing in the San Francisco Bay Area, 1850–1940. Journal of Historical Geography, 27(1), 36-57.
Environment and Health
Urbanization is a socio-ecologically uneven process which involves the devaluation of areas where marginalized communities reside. In Oakland, it is the combination of racist housing policy alongside economic development that has produced a public health crisis amongst Black residents in West Oakland. Black people have been historically segregated into environmentally hazardous areas of the city, which constitutes “environmental racism” – the uneven distribution of pollution and remediation and/or resources along racial lines (Pulido 2016). East Oakland and West Oakland are the most exposed neighborhoods to 60 environmental hazards, which affect a majority of Black, Latinx, and Southeast Asian populations that experience abject poverty (Garzón et. al. 2013)
While industrial and real estate capital accumulated and fueled the eastern expansion of Oakland during the early 20th century (namely during the first and second World Wars), racially-restrictive covenants and redlining impeded capital from flowing west - hence the subsequent devaluation of North and West Oakland as well as Chinatown. Black residents in Oakland have historically been impacted by federal housing policy, which tied low- income and people of color to environmentally destructive industries. Not unlike systematic patterns in southeastern US, where Black residents have been forced to live near hazardous waste sites. These areas, which housed racially-marginalized groups, were also the sites of significant lead contamination (McClintock 2015). In other words, harming the environment has also harmed the physical health of Oakland’s Black residents.
In Oakland, like many other post-industrial cities, environment and health must be considered alongside housing concerns. As mentioned above, after the end of WWII, returning Black soldiers were corralled into redlined neighborhoods and excluded from the most economically valuable, environmentally safe, and desirable housing. The HOLC prevented them from enjoying the benefits of the Servicemen’s Act of 1944, which is most known as the G.I. Bill. This act provided veterans with federal loans and funds for business property, as well as low-interest home mortgages.7 Black residents were denied high quality housing in healthy environments, and therefore had to live in neighborhoods that were riddled with waste, toxins, and deficient residential structures. According to the 1950 Census, “15,000 units were substandard, over 3,500 unfit for repair, some houses were unlisted by the city and were illegally constructed. ” What’s more, homes had “inadequate and decrepit plumbing dangerous to health, ” including some that did not have indoor plumbing.8 The mostly Black residents in the redlined neighborhoods of Oakland’s flatlands were relegated to hazardous, contaminated tracts that furthered the detrimental impact of structural racism. These policies and practices exposed poor and racially marginalized residents to environmental harms including derelict housing stock and industrial contaminants, which caused destructive health outcomes and, in many cases, premature death.9
Freeway construction projects that took place between the 1950s and 1980s produced additional environmental harms to North and West Oakland residents. Even though more parks and recreational spaces were created after the end of racial segregation in public
7 Woods, LL. (2013). “Almost ‘No Negro Veteran … Could Get a Loan’: African Americans, The GI Bill, and the NAACP Campaign Against Residential Segregation 1917–1960, ” The Journal of African American History 98(3):
392–417. Katznelson, I. (2006) When Affirmative Action Was White: An Untold History of Racial Inequality in Twentieth-Century America (New York: W. W. Norton & Company).
8 City of Oakland, “Our City Oakland - 1950’s Urban Renewal & Tour of an American City, ” YouTube, Vintage City of
Oakland Footage, May 16, 2016, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LpSIVaHI78. 9 “Persistent Poverty in Alameda County, ” Alameda County Data Sharing Initiative, January 9, 2020, https://data.acgov.org/datasets/AC-HCSA::persistent-poverty-in-alameda-county. 61 spaces in 1964, they did not make up for the deficit in comparison to parks in the hills, plus freeway construction all but erased any gains the greenspaces might provide. In the 1970s, a new wave of parks populated the city that were connected to the “undeveloped” lands left fallow by freeway construction.10
In West Oakland, both new and old parks are currently situated near freeways, exposing residents to additional environmental toxins from air pollution, where they live, work, and play (Alston 2010). One survey, conducted in 2010, found that such pollution has an “exposure zone within a range of up to 300 to 500 meters from a highway or a major road, ” bearing in mind that the Mayo Clinic advises people to avoid areas that are 400 meters away from a road when exercising.11 Most parks in West Oakland are within the exposure zone of freeways, and of the fourteen public parks there, six were within 500 meters of the Cypress Freeway before it collapse in 1989: Willow Park, De Fremery Park, Ramondi Park, Wade John Park, Lowell Park, and Poplar Park. De Fremery Park was positioned between 172-485 meters away from the Cypress Freeway while Ramondi Park sat 149-428 meters away. These two parks, the oldest in West Oakland, are situated on opposite sides of and in proximity to the freeway. Willow Park, located within 404-465 meters of the Cypress Freeway, was previously a scrap yard during World War II before it was redeveloped as a public park.12
West Oakland is also situated next to the Port of Oakland and is encircled by three major highways that are integral to the Bay Area’s transportation needs. Most of the exposure to pollutants comes from the port (namely large, diesel trucks that transport shipping containers). West Oakland currently has the highest levels of air pollution in the Bay Area, and equally as high rates of pollution-related health outcomes. Residents of West Oakland have a higher mortality rate, higher asthma rates, increased risks of cardiovascular disease, lower life expectancy, birth defects (California EPA 2021). Furthermore, the California Environmental Protection Agency found that neighborhoods that were redlined have the highest CalEnviroScreen (CES) scores – those with high environmental burden – today.
Furthermore, areas that were historically redlined have disproportionate rates of cancer, asthma, poor mental health, and a lack of adequate health insurance (Nardone, et al. 2020).
10 “City of Oakland Open Space Conservation and Recreation: An Element of the Oakland General Plan” (City of Oakland, June
1996). 4-3.
11 “Traffic-Related Air Pollution: A Critical Review of the Literature on Emissions, Exposure, and Health Effects, ” Special Report (Boston, MA: HEI Panel on the Health Effects of Traffic-Related Air Pollution, 2010), https://www.healtheffects.org/publication/traffic-related-air-pollution-critical-review-literature-emissions- exposure-and-health. See Edward Laskowski M.D., “Does Air Pollution Make Outdoor Exercise Risky? What If You Have Asthma or Another Health Problem?, ” Mayo Clinic, accessed March 31, 2025, https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/fitness/expert-answers/airpollution- and-exercise/faq-20058563
12 “Oakland, California Turns a Run-Down, Contaminated Area into a Recreational Centerpiece” (Environmental Protection Agency, February 2009), https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015- 09/documents/oakland_ca_willow_park_brag.pdf.
62 Oakland sits at the center of the U.S. environmental justice movement. Since 1999, community organizations in Oakland have successfully shut down an incinerator (Hamburg 1998), a yeast plant (DeFao 2002), and pushed for the management of toxic soils (Counts 1999). The Port remains a crucial site for anti-pollution protest, especially because of the presence of diesel trucks and effects of sea shipping (Hamilton and Wentworth 2016).
As Oakland residents have pushed forward their support and advocacy for an environmental sustainability agenda, green resources and environmental goods continue to be unevenly distributed, particularly in the formerly redlined and low-income neighborhoods that continue to house predominantly Black and Latinx residents. The Oakland Parks and Recreation Foundation published “The Continuing Crisis: The 2018 Report on the State of Maintenance, ” which shows that Oakland residents with less wealth and power are more likely to experience reduced maintenance and reduced park quality.
Sources on Environment and Health:
Alsan, M., Garrick, O., & Graziani, G. (2019). Does diversity matter for health? Experimental evidence from Oakland. American Economic Review, 109(12), 4071-4111.
Alston, D. (2010). “The Summit: Transforming a Movement, ” Race, Poverty and the Environment 2(3/4): 14–17.
California Environmental Protection Agency. “Oakland Initiative Report. ” Environmental Justice Task Force Report, 2018, 1-28.
CalEPA. “Pollution and Prejudice. ” ArcGIS Story Maps. Esri, August 17, 2021. https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/f167b251809c43778a2f9f040f43d2f5.
Counts, L. (1999). Toxic soil removal criticized. Cityside, Oakland Tribune
DeFao, J. (2002). Rising Tensions. West Oakland neighbors bandy over yeast plant emissions” San Francisco Chronicle, 13
Fisher, J. B., Kelly, M., & Romm, J. (2006). Scales of environmental justice: Combining GIS and spatial analysis for air toxics in West Oakland, California. Health & Place, 12(4), 701- 714.
C. Garzón, B. Beveridge, M. Gordon, C. Martin, E. Matalon, E. Moore. (2013). “Power, Privilege, and the Process of Community-Based Participatory Research: Critical Reflections on Forging an Empowered Partnership for Environmental Justice in West Oakland, California. ” Environmental Justice, 6(1), 71-78
Haan, M., Kaplan, G. A., & Camacho, T. (1987). Poverty and health prospective evidence from the alameda county study. American journal of epidemiology, 125(6), 989-998
63 Hamburg, L. (1998). Oakland residents get incinerator shut down. East Bay Reg. A, 15.
Hamilton, D., & Wentworth, N. (2016). City of Oakland 2013 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory Report.
Ku, A. Kammen, D.M., Castellanos, S. 2021. A quantitative, equitable framework for urban transportation electrification: Oakland, California as a mobility model of climate justice, Sustainable Cities and Society, Volume 74.
McClintock, N. (2015). A critical physical geography of urban soil contamination.
Geoforum, 65, 69-85.
McClintock, N., Cooper, J., & Khandeshi, S. (2013). Assessing the potential contribution of vacant land to urban vegetable production and consumption in Oakland, California.
Landscape and Urban Planning, 111, 46-58.
McClintock, N. (2011). From industrial garden to food desert. Cultivating food justice: Race, class, and sustainability, 89-120.
McClintock, N. (2012). Assessing soil lead contamination at multiple scales in Oakland, California: Implications for urban agriculture and environmental justice. Applied Geography, 35(1-2), 460-473.
Montauk, S. and B. Miller. (2018). “Continuing Crisis: The 2018 Report on the State of Maintenance in Oakland Parks. ” Oakland Parks and Recreation Foundation: Oakland, CA. https://oaklandlibrary.org/sites/default/files/lac/2019-09- 11/2018%20Report%20on%20the%20State%20of%20Maintenance%20of%20Oakland%2 0Parks_0.pdf.
Nardone, A., Chiang, J., & Corburn, J. (2020). Historic redlining and urban health today in US cities. Environmental Justice, 13(4), 109-119.
Pulido, L. (2016). Environmental racism. International Encyclopedia of Geography: People, the Earth, Environment and Technology: People, the Earth, Environment and Technology, 1-
13. Sutton, P . M., Athanasoulis, M., Flessel, P ., Guirguis, G., Haan, M., Schlag, R., & Goldman, L. R. (1995). Lead levels in the household environment of children in 3 high-risk communities in California. Environmental research, 68(1), 45-57.
Vechakul, J., Shrimali, B.P . & Sandhu, J.S. (2015) Human-Centered Design as an Approach for Place-Based Innovation in Public Health: A Case Study from Oakland, California.
Matern Child Health J 19, 2552–2559.
64 Arts and Culture
In the 1940s and 1950s, 7th Street in West Oakland was anchored by dozens of jazz and blues clubs that earned it a reputation as “Harlem of the West. ” Most of the legendary blues, jazz, soul, and R&B musicians, performed at the clubs. The centerpiece of the club scene was Slim Jenkins Place, an upscale establishment that took up much of a city block with its huge dining area and bar. Other clubs also existed on the street, and virtually every café had a jukebox blaring out the jazz and blues songs of the time. Many musicians got their start performing at the 7th street clubs, defining a distinct Oakland blues sound and cutting their first records with local music promoters. The area blossomed back then due to its proximity to the waterfront and shipyards, where workers spent their days toiling during the post-WWII period.
Since the mid-20th century, Oakland has long been home to artists and grassroots arts organizations. Historically, the City of Oakland has been the site of multiple community activities and celebrations of Black culture. One notable example from 1975 was “Black Cowboys Day in Oakland, ” which was accompanied by Northern California’s first Black cowboy parade. This free event provided information, primarily to children about the significance of Black cowboys to Black life and heritage in Oakland. Then, in 1978, Governor Jerry Brown put forth a plan for an “Oakland Renaissance” that focused on multiple areas in which Oakland could enhance its cultural, economic, and political landscape with funds from the city. Not long after this announcement, Proposition 13 passed, creating an impasse for funds to support these efforts (Arnold 2018).
The relationship of arts and culture to economic development in Oakland has become instrumental to the city’s economic growth. Nevertheless, local artists have encountered significant challenges to getting city funding for arts projects outside of downtown. Events like Art Murmur, established in 2006 under Mayor Jerry Brown’s administration, was connected to his “10K” initiative, therefore the event was linked to a gentrification aesthetic and demographic, underserving the remaining Black population in Oakland. Nevertheless, artistic activism changes Oakland for the better by promoting inclusivity, education, expression, social justice and cohesion and more while also getting youth involved (City of Oakland 2018).
Sources on Arts and Culture in Oakland:
Anderson-Barrett, Riley. 2019. "The Reinvigoration of Oakland Neighborhoods Through Public Art Installations. "
Arnold, Eric. K. (2011). The Oakland Renaissance: A Blessing for Some. Race, Poverty & the Environment, 18(1), 42-48.
65 Balliger, Robin. “Proximal Disruptions: Artists, Arts-Led Urban Regeneration and Gentrification in Oakland, California. ” Art and Gentrification in the Changing Neoliberal Landscape 39–56.
Balliger Robin. (2021) Painting over precarity: Community public art and the optics of dispossession, gentrification and governance in West Oakland, CA. Journal of Urban Cultural Studies, 8 (1), 81.
Bedoya, R. (2024). CULTURAL PLANNING, CULTURAL POLICY , AND THE. The Routledge Handbook of Urban Cultural Planning.
Cerdera, Pablo. Healing and Belonging: Community Based Art and Community Formation in West Oakland. 2015. Oberlin College, Undergraduate thesis. OhioLINK Electronic Theses and Dissertations Center
City of Oakland Department of Cultural Affairs. (2018). “Belonging in Oakland: A Cultural Development Plan. ” June.
Gamso, Nicholas. "Revisiting Suzanne Lacy’s Oakland Projects. " PAJ: A Journal of Performance and Art, vol. 42 no. 3, 2020, p. 76-81. Project MUSE muse.jhu.edu/article/764719.
Heitz, Kaily. 2021. Oakland is a vibe: Blackness, cultural framings and emancipations of the town. Ph.D. diss., University of California, Berkeley.
Lacy, Suzanne. 2013. Imperfect art: working in public: a case study of the Oakland Projects (1991-2001). Robert Gordon University, PhD Thesis.
McElvain, R. (2016). Cultural Planning in Oakland: An Experimental Exploration of the Black Arts Movement and Business District (Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley).
Teresa Sanz, Beatriz Rodriguez-Labajos, Does artistic activism change anything? Strategic and transformative effects of arts in anti-coal struggles in Oakland, CA, Geoforum, Volume 122, 2021, Pages 41-5.
Werner, Matt. 2012. Oakland in Popular Memory: Interviews with twelve cutting-edge artists from Oakland and beyond. Thought Publishing.
Werth, Alex. 2018. "Oakland’s Arts and Cultural Economy. " Appendix to the City of Oakland’s “Belonging in Oakland: A Cultural Development Plan, ” May 4.
Whang, V . 2018. Culture, Equity, and Cities. GIA Reader, 29(2)
66 Policing and Public Safety
Between 1940-1950, the period following World War II, the Black population in Oakland and the greater Bay Area exploded. While Oakland promised to be a salve for Black migrants escaping brutal despotism in the Jim Crow South, many Black residents experienced some of the same horrors on the west coast. In the 1940s, Black residents lodged formal complaints of discrimination in spaces of public accommodation, police brutality, and employment discrimination (Self 2003). The Oakland Police Department was especially brutal towards Black migrants and residents in those years (Winston and Bondgraham 2023). In fact, in 1947, the Oakland chapter of the National Negro Council created the Committee Against Police Brutality, which became one of the nation’s first Black-led groups targeting police misconduct (Winston and Bondgraham 2023, 114). Violent beatings and unlawful arrests of Black residents by the police continued unabated, and in 1949 a coalition including the Civil Rights Congress, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), and the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) demanded a statewide investigation into the actions of police officers, particularly in Los Angeles and Oakland. One investigator found that conduct by Oakland’s mayor Clifford Rishell), city manager (John Hassler), and police chief (Lester Divine) showed patterns of racism against Black people. As a result, the Assembly Interim Committee on Crime and Corrections (also known as the Kilpatrick Committee hearings) heard testimony from dozens of residents about their abuse at the hands of OPD officers in early 1950. Despite overwhelming findings of violence, discrimination, obstruction, and police brutality against Black people in Oakland, few changes were made within OPD and the city never acknowledged the police department’s legible institutionalized racism (Winston and Bondgraham 2023, 117-119).
In the 1960s, when Oakland became the target of several social and economic programs as part of President Johnson’s War on Poverty, police brutality remained an important topic of concern. The Oakland Economic Development Council (OEDC) was the local, nonprofit committee responsible for distributing millions of federal anti-poverty funds. In 1966, the committee voted to develop a 30-member civilian police oversight board charged with hearing formal complaints about police brutality. It was because Black residents made up the bulk of Oakland’s low-income population, and had a long history of antagonism with the OPD that the committee proposed the oversight board. The OEDC report stated that “Stories about ‘police brutality’ and ‘police harassment’ are common, yet existing channels for filing complaints are seldom used” (Oakland Tribune 1966, 24). Unsurprisingly, the city’s conservative white power brokers (including the mayor, downtown retailers, real estate industry, and the Oakland Tribune’s Knowland family) opposed the creation of a police oversight board and worked to eventually get rid of the federal government’s influence on the local economy and policy (Self 2003; Winston and Bondgraham 2023).
Coupled with the Johnson administration’s War on Poverty, its twin, the War on Crime became a national initiative that effectively flooded Black neighborhoods with plain clothes police officers to address community issues. The plan was to ameliorate the historically contentious relationship between law enforcement and poor Black 67 communities. Once President Nixon came into office in 1969, he started to fully demobilize the War on Poverty, and increase funding for police and prison construction instead via his War on Drugs. Nixon’s campaign against drugs was in no way colorblind. In fact, in 1994, John Ehrlichman, Assistant to the President for Domestic Affairs under Nixon acknowledged in a Harper’s interview that the drug war was levelled at Black people:
You want to know what this [war on drugs] was really all about? The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying?
We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news.
Did we know we were lying about the drugs?
Of course we did.13
As a result, Black residents, especially in Oakland, were disproportionately targeted for arrest and imprisonment from drug-related activity. Growth in the drug trade, which came directly through the Port of Oakland, operated alongside the disappearance of several key industrial and retail businesses that had employed Black residents in Oakland. The crackdown on and criminalization of Black residents by law enforcement in the 1980s and 1990s highlighted the lack of access to opportunities, training, funding, and social infrastructure for those who were deemed excessive in the wake of deindustrialization, privatization, white flight, and economic deregulation.
Exacerbating these issues, was the passage of several laws and initiatives including the 1994 Crime Bill, that poured billions of dollars into police and prisons. This had a profound impact on the growth of Oakland’s prison population. As Winston and Bondgraham (2023) write:
Federal agents found plentiful targets for mass arrests and conspiracy indictments in Oakland. California’s prison population exploded, with 248,516 inmates serving state time in 2000, up almost fivefold from 54,300 in 1980. Starting in 1995, Alameda County jailed more than 4,000 residents per year, the overwhelming majority being Black and Latino, a rate that wouldn’t decrease substantially until criminal charging and sentencing reforms began in 2012 (p. 178).
Welfare recipients and residents of public housing units were not spared, and in many cases, the subject to extreme regulations that limited their access to fair employment,
13 Baum, Dan. 2016. “Legalize it All: How to Win the War on Drugs.” Harpers, April https://harpers.org/archive/2016/04/legalize-it-all/
68 public space, and housing. After the passage of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, public housing authorities engaged in strict lease enforcement and eviction of public housing tenants who engage in criminal activity. The policy allowed housing authorities to evict residents regardless of individual circumstances, thus tying federal funding to an increase in crime-related evictions. Once individuals were evicted because of drug-related prosecution, they were not eligible for subsidized housing for another three years. This law was particularly harmful to poor, Black families whose families were being tragically impacted by the increasing criminalization of Black and Latinx youth. The people most likely to lose their housing through the provisions of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act were low- income single mothers, not high-level drug dealers. In the landmark case, Department of Housing and Urban Development v. Rucker, the Supreme Court ruled that a public housing authority, in this case, the Oakland Housing Authority, can evict an entire family from public housing because one member has been accused of being involved in illegal drug activity.
The Oakland Housing Authority (OHA) was permitted to remove Pearlie Rucker, an elderly Black woman, and her mentally disabled daughter, who was arrested for public intoxication and possessing drug paraphernalia, from their home.
Despite the OHA’s effective crusade to remove untenable tenants from their homes, the agency experienced its own legal troubles as the decades’ long “war against the poor” gave way to violent, extralegal encounters between law enforcement and Oakland’s residents of color. In 1991, four members of the Oakland Housing Authority’s special drug task force were convicted of assault, intimidation, battery, theft, and false arrest related to their activity as housing authority police. Similarly, the OPD continued its longstanding patterns of violence against people of color, some of which reached Supreme Court rulings, such as in United States v Reese (1993). In Reese, a special unit of the OPD was charged with stealing drug money, falsifying reports, committing perjury, and using excessive force.
Nevertheless, once Elihu Harris came into power as Oakland mayor in 1991, he put forth a public safety program that diverted $500,000 from youth athletic and jobs programs to support and expand law enforcement (Winston and Bondgraham 2023, 176).
Since then, the OPD has been under federal scrutiny and court monitoring since 2003 for what is known as the ‘Riders case’ (Winston and Bondgraham 2023). In this incident, several OPD officers were accused of regularly beating and framing drug suspects while they were patrolling West Oakland in the early 2000s, then falsifying reports to hide their crimes. Despite being under federal oversight OPD has continued to target Black residents in Oakland, and between May 2010 and May 2012, eight of the nine victims of OPD shootings were Black (Winston and Bondgraham 2023).
Sources on Policing and Public Safety:
Alexander, M. 2010. The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness.
New York: New Press.
Armaline, W. T., Vera Sanchez, C. G., & Correia, M. (2014). ‘The biggest gang in Oakland’: re- thinking police legitimacy. Contemporary justice review, 17(3), 375-399. 69 Bankhead, T., & Barry, E. (2018). Envisioning Oakland as a restorative city. Newcastle L.
Rev., 13, 53.
Braga, A. A., Barao, L. M., Zimmerman, G., Brunson, R. K., Papachristos, A. V ., Wood, G., & Farrell, C. (2019). Oakland Ceasefire Evaluation.
Greer Jr, R. S. (2014). No to Bratton: A Rejection of Stop and Frisk, and a Call for Progressive Reform in Oakland. Hastings Race & Poverty LJ, 11, 223.
Jain, S., Cohen, A. K., Jagannathan, P ., Leung, Y ., Bassey, H., & Bedford, S. (2018).
Evaluating the implementation of a collaborative juvenile reentry system in Oakland, California. International journal of offender therapy and comparative criminology, 62(12), 3662-3680.
King, M. 2017. When Riot Cops Are Not Enough: The Policing and Repression of Occupy Oakland. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Oakland Tribune. 1966. “Panel Favors Police Review, ” February 24, p. 23E.
Oglesby-Neal, A., Kim, K., Tecotzky, S., & Fording, J. (2025). An Assessment of Measure Z in Oakland: The Implementation of the Oakland Police Department’s Geographic and Community Policing Strategies and Special Victims Section. Urban Institute.
Radburn, M., Stott, C., Bradford, B. & Robinson, M. (2018) “When is policing fair? Groups, identity and judgements of the procedural justice of coercive crowd policing. ” Policing and Society 28:6, pages 647-664
Ramírez, M. M. (2020). City as borderland: Gentrification and the policing of Black and Latinx geographies in Oakland. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 38(1), 147-166.
Reiss, A. J. (1985). Policing a city's central district: The Oakland story (Vol. 83, No. 9). US Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.
Self, R. (2000). “To Plan Our Liberation”: Black Power and the Politics of Place in Oakland, California, 1965-1977. Journal of Urban History, 26(6), 759-792.
Stasell, W. L. (2001). Rucker v. Davis and Its Significance for Tenant Advocates. Clearinghouse Rev., 35, 144.
Stewart, J. K. (2009). Independent Board of Inquiry Into the Oakland Police Department. Retrieved from the CNA Institute for Public Research website http://dig. abclocal. go. com/kgo/PDF/010610-opd-report. pdf.
70 Swanson, E. (2015, April). Report of the Court-Appointed Investigator in Delphine Allen v.
City of Oakland.
Wilson, J. M., & Cox, A. G. (2008). Community policing and crime: The process and impact of problem-solving in Oakland. RAND.
Wilson, J. M., Cox, A. G., Smith, T. L., Bos, H., & Fain, T. (2007). Community policing and violence prevention in Oakland: Measure Y in action. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
Wilson, J. M., & Riley, K. J. (2004). Violence in East and West Oakland. Santa Monica, CA.
Winston, A. & Bondgraham, D. (2023). The Riders Come Out at Night. New York: Simon & Schuster.
71 APPENDIX B
A Black New Deal: Racial Impact Analysis
Inclusive Engagement Plan
Project scope and goals
The Black New Deal: Racial Impact Analysis will examine the cumulative, ongoing effects of public policy decisions and actions on the Black community in Oakland, and generate input from Black residents. The study will address the following questions: (1) What are the ongoing effects of federal, state, and locally-subsidized policies (e.g., redlining, eminent domain, urban renewal, and gentrification) on the Black community in Oakland? (2) How do residents of Oakland perceive the impact of public policy decisions and actions on their community? (3) What factors may be producing and perpetuating racial inequities? (4) What policy changes could help mitigate the negative effects of these policies on the Black community in Oakland?
Proposed race and equity outcomes
1. Identify historical and contemporary racist policy: We seek to determine which policies or practices, written or unwritten, create or maintain racial disparities in access to opportunity, public assistance, public space, housing, goods and services, and well- being.
2. Recognition that racism is embedded in structures, policies, and practices that maintain normative conditions: In order to address racism and cultivate individual benefits, it is imperative to address racism at the structural, institutional, and policy levels, measuring the cumulative effects of antiblack racism.
3. Dismantle racism: Desire to document examples of harm and address how to intervene in or mitigate structural and policy outcomes that have contributed to various inequities. Our goal is to advocate for an equitable, not equal society. We seek to reform racist structures and policies, while accounting for long-term harms they have caused.
Research focused on reducing inequities for the target populations within the context of their lived experience can in turn become valuable evidence to catalyze larger structural changes that promote equity and oppose longstanding racist practices.
4. Center the experiences of Black residents: We must recognize and prioritize the impact of structural racism on the experiences and outcomes of Black residents. Black Oaklanders alone know their own experiences and needs. We must identify historical socio-spatial dynamics and conditions that have led to inequities. Therefore, theorizing the Black experience is an ideal way to account for historical and contemporary relationships to policy, design, and public space.
5. Prioritize community engagement: We must work collaboratively with communities, not research or experiments on different communities, and become integrated and 72 work alongside community leaders and stakeholders. Research studies have historically focused on individual behavior thereby rendering Black communities as problems that need to be fixed, without recognizing issues rooted in social, political, and economic structures. The resulting analysis of urban problems and proposed solutions frequently privileges the perspective of dominant social groups and objectifies communities, practices, and space in terms of racial difference, rather than the structures and power relations that produce urban problems.
6. Sharing findings widely: We must ensure that the dissemination of findings in a manner that is legible to all stakeholders. The study findings should be evident and accessible to multiple parties: community members, policymakers, researchers, and other stakeholders.
Timeline for completion
The deadline for completion of this project is June 30, 2025
Why should the public get involved?
Black Oakland residents should get involved because the study focuses on six interrelated areas through which we can better understand the cumulative impact of racial discrimination and disparities in Oakland:
1. Arts & Culture: Resources for and access to cultural spaces, public spaces
2. Public Safety (Policing): Relationship with law enforcement, rates of adult and juvenile felony arrests, jail incarceration, prison incarceration, law enforcement stops, use of force by police and impact on communities
3. Housing: Access to housing, segregation patterns, housing financing, impact of zoning, tax, and housing policies
4. Economics: Access to capital, wealth disparities, poverty levels, welfare reform, income disparities, employment rates, business development
5. Environment: Health and health disparities, life expectancy, land use, access to healthcare, disease (asthma, cancer, etc.)
6. Education: Access to adequate education (education disparities), enrollment policy, afterschool programming, community centers.
What is the specific public process purpose?
Inform: The results of the research study will not only provide Oakland and Bay Area residents with important historical data about the city’s racial politics and economic development, but it will also help develop strategies for repair and reconciliation.
73 Consult: A significant portion of this project requires input from community stakeholders, many of whom have been impacted (harmed) directly or indirectly by federal, state, and local policies over the past 75-100 years.
What are the City’s objectives in involving the public in the process? Ultimately, the goal of this project is to use historical and contemporary data on longstanding disparities and injustices enacted against Black Oakland residents. By compiling archival and ethnographic data (specifically input from Black Oakland residents), the City can develop a list of comprehensive solutions and develop thoughtful policy options to address these injustices moving forward. Relatedly, sustained engagement with Black Oakland residents can ultimately improve the City’s fraught relationship with this shrinking and under-resourced racial group.
What are the constraints to public influence?
Severe and significant funding limitations
Who are the decision-makers?
Council priority: District 3 CM Carroll Fife
Who are the stakeholders in the process?
Underserved Racial/Ethnic Groups, i.e.: people of color identified by demographic data.
What public involvement tools/activities are appropriate for the project? There are several appropriate engagement tools that align with the research design. We will use both quantitative (primarily descriptive) and qualitative (primarily ethnography and phenomenology) methods to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the stated research questions. Survey and interview questions will align with the six thematic areas of the overall Racial Impact Analysis project. The primary methodological tools will include survey methods (questionnaires and interviews), and focus groups to increase response rates.
The method of contact for survey participants should be a combination of online and in- person primarily in Districts 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7. Since the focus of the project is the impact of various policies and practices on Oakland’s Black community, questions will consider policies that may not refer explicitly to an individual’s race or ethnicity, but may demonstration how historical forms of racism and contemporary patterns of discrimination and bias affect who has access to resources [see Appendix for additional information].
Each of the participants will complete a survey, whether they are participating in semi- structured interviews during focus group sessions or if they are approached at their home, online, or in their communities. The methods of distributing the survey and engaging the public include door knocking in Districts 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7. This particular method helps alleviate barriers by meeting individual participants where they reside, thereby including people who have limited or compromised mobility. The survey will also be distributed during semi-structured interviews with focus groups that are recruited through 74 collaboration with community organizations and city council members (see schedule below for more details). Furthermore, interviewers will be trained and recruited via input from community organizations and city council leadership in Districts 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7.
Finally, links to the online version of the survey will be distributed at public, community events in Districts 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7.
How will you incorporate inclusive engagement practices into activities?
As mentioned above, the primary focus and goal of the project is to examine the cumulative, ongoing effects of public policy decisions and actions on the Black community in Oakland, and generate input from Black residents. Therefore, relationships with under- represented communities are necessary and fundamental to the success of the project.
While we are committed to deepening existing relationships with trusted advocates and leaders, we are more interested in the perspectives of quotidian residents who may not have already established significant relationships with city processes and politics, hence utilizing the door knocking method to collect survey data.
What is the public involvement schedule?
Activity Name Activity Description and Timeline Timeline 2) Develop protocol
for SSI
Sampling Plan (includes SSI and door-to-
door data collection)
Tasks include determining sample size and
developing a stratified sampling plan across
the five targeted districts.
March 15
Development of survey in SurveyMonkey
Develop the SSI survey in SurveyMonkey and
provide a survey link and QR code to gain
entry to the online survey during the data
collection period.
March 28
Recruitment (includes networking with EC
Reems, Roots, ACPHD, Urban Habitat and
City Councilmembers)
• Networking with different groups to recruit
individuals by phone or social media to
participate in either the SSI or
neighborhoods to do the door-to-door data
collection;
• Develop a tracking/logging system as
community members are approached to
conduct the SSI or door-to-door survey.
April 30 – May
31 Script
Develop the SSI scripts used with the SSI
interview and when out in the field for the
door-to-door survey data collection.
May 15
75 Activity Name Activity Description and Timeline Timeline Training
Training includes:
• Gaining informed consent and how to
conduct the interview/interview flow;
• Documentation (i.e., where to upload
interview recordings, where to find survey
link for completing survey online); and
• Data management protocol (i.e., file
naming and data storage).
May 15 – May 30
Data management of the survey
Manage survey data in SurveyMonkey.
May 30 – July 15
3) Development of
Short Focus
Group Survey
Based on SSI
questions
Development of survey in SurveyMonkey
Develop the shortened SSI survey for the
focus groups into SurveyMonkey and provide
a survey link and QR code to be shared with
focus group participants.
March 28
Training
Training on the shortened SSI survey. This
includes gaining informed consent and how to
administer the survey during the focus group.
May 30
Data Management of FG Survey
Manage FG survey data in SurveyMonkey.
Management includes cleaning data and
preparing for transfer to SPSS for data
analysis.
May 30 – July 15
4) Write up of Survey
Findings
Data analysis of all survey data
Write up of data results
July 15 –
September 1
What are the reporting mechanisms?
Results of the Racial Impact Analysis will be presented in a written final report that provides a comprehensive summary for the project:
1. Brief description of the study’s intent
2. Changes and implications
3. Description of data collection and analysis methods
4. Visualization of findings and data
5. Description of results
6. Recommendations and suggestions for report dissemination
7. Conclusions
The report will offer recommendations for the successful implementation and enforcement of equitable policy including ongoing data collection, community engagement, and public 76 reporting. A portion of the data and results of the study, including policy recommendations, will be presented before the City Council at the completion of the report period.
Survey Sample Population:
1. Total Black population across the 5 districts = 75,232 (Oakland Redistricting Commission Charter Report, 2020-2023)
2. Total Citizen Voting Age Population (CVAP) (i.e., 18 and older) = 63,833 (Oakland Redistricting Commission Charter Report, 2020-2023) This is the number upon which the sample size calculations below are based.
Percentage of Black residents by District: (Oakland Redistricting Commission Charter Report, 2020-2023)
District - % of population, # based on percent, total district population, CVAP #
District 2 - 13.6% 8530 62,534 6,657
District 3 - 26.7% 17,279 62,647 13,553
District 5 - 16% 9,843 61,628 7,882
District 6 - 33.2% 21,742 65,401 19,859
District 7 - 28.5% 17,835 62,569 15,882
Total: 63,833
Sample Size Calculation for Surveys (includes Semi-Structured Interviews) (Calculator.Net, 2008-2024) (SurveyMonkey, 2024)
1. Based on a population of 63,833 African Americans ages 18 and older, with a confidence level of 95% and a Margin of Error of 10%, 96 surveys (~100 surveys) are needed.
2. Based on a population of 63,833 African Americans ages 18 and older, with a confidence level of 98% and a Margin of Error of 10%, 136 surveys (~140 surveys).
77 Welcome to The Black New Deal Community Survey
Thank you for participating in our survey. Your
feedback is important.
CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE
Black New Deal (BND) - City of Oakland, CA
Community Survey
Welcome to The Black New Deal Community Survey
78 Thank you for your interest in participating in the Community Survey as part of the City of Oakland's Black New Deal Study.
Purpose: The purpose of this study, as a Racial Impact Analysis project, is to generate input from Black residents about the ongoing effects of public policy decisions and actions on the Black community in Oakland. Specifically, the research will focus on addressing the following:
What are the ongoing effects of federal, state, and locally-subsidized policies (e.g., redlining, eminent domain, urban renewal, and gentrification) on the Black community in Oakland?
How do residents of Oakland perceive the impact of public policy decisions and actions on their community?
Specifically, as part of the study, this Community Survey hopes to document your thoughts on six overlapping themes: art & culture, economics, education, environment, housing, and public
safety (policing).
Participation: I am aware that my participation is voluntary and that I may end my participation in this survey at any time during the data collection process. I also understand that there will be no harm or risk to me by participating in this evaluation activity.
I understand my rights to privacy will be protected. I am aware that if the staff believes there is a potential for serious harm that I may cause to another person or any immediate danger to myself, then a program staff may need to inform others to protect my safety of me or others. According to federal laws and regulations, program staff may be allowed to reveal confidential information to appropriate authorities to protect the safety and welfare of a program participant or other only when:
1. There is reasonable suspicion of child, dependent adult, elderly abuse; or
2. The participant is a serious danger to him/herself or to others.
COMPLETION OF THIS SURVEY IS VOLUNTARY. You have the right to decline to fill out this survey or to stop filling it out at any point without penalty or loss of benefits of services.
Selecting YES below serves as your consent to take the survey and acknowledging that you have been informed.
Yes
No
79 Black New Deal (BND) - City of Oakland, CA
Community Survey
Before we get started with the interview and survey, I would like to ask you a few questions about yourself if this is okay.
How old are you?
What is your zip code?
If you know, which district do you live in?
Please tell us about your educational background.
12th grade or less
Graduated high school / Equivalent
Some college – no degree
Associate degree
Vocational/Trade school diploma
Bachelor’s degree
Master’s degree
Professional degree (i.e., MD, DDS or JD)
Doctorate degree
Are you:
Black or African American (e.g., African American, Jamaican, Haitian, Nigerian, Ethiopian, Somali, etc.) Multi-racial
Other (please specify)
What sex were you assigned at birth (birth certificate)? Female
Male
80 Are you:
Female
Male
Transgender, non-binary, or another gender
What was your total HOUSEHOLD income (pre-tax) in the past 12 months? Less than $25,000
$25,000 to $34,999
$35,000 to $49,999
50,000 to $74,999
$75,000 to $99,999
$100,000 or more
Which of the following best describes your employment status? (Check all that apply)
Employed full time for wages
Employed part time for wages
Self-employed
Out of work for more than 1 year
Out of work for less than 1 year
A Student
Retired
81 For the next questions, we are interested in learning about your thoughts on housing here in Oakland.
Black New Deal (BND) - City of Oakland, CA
Community Survey
Housing in Oakland
1) Do you live in the community you grew up in?
a. Yes
b. No
c. Unsure
2) How long have you lived in your neighborhood?
a. More than 10 years
b. 5-10 years
c. 2-5 years
d. Less than 2 years
e. Unsure
3) What is the racial composition of your neighborhood? a. Mostly Black
b. Mostly White
c. Mostly Latino/a
d. Racially mixed
e. Unsure
4) Have you moved in the past 5 years?
a. Yes
b. No
c. Unsure
82 Black New Deal (BND) - City of Oakland, CA
Community Survey
4a. If yes, why?
a. To be near relatives
b. School
c. Improve life and living conditions
d. Better opportunities for family
e. Job/work related
f. Moved with parents
g. To buy/own home
h. Forced out/evicted
i. Other (please specify)
83 Black New Deal (BND) - City of Oakland, CA
Community Survey
5) How many of your relatives, not in your immediate family, live in Oakland? a. Many
b. Some
c. A few
d. None
e. Unsure
6) How many of your relatives live in Oakland but not in the same neighborhood? a. Many
b. Some
c. A few
d. None
e. Unsure
7) Since you've been an adult, has your family ever taken in a relative, who was not a regular member of your household, but needed a place to live for at least a month?
a. Yes
b. No
c. Unsure
8) Do you rent or own your home?
a. Own
b. Rent
c. Live at home
d. Other
84 9) Approximately what percentage of your household monthly income do you spend on your rent or mortgage?
a. <20%
b. 21-30%
c. 31-35%
d. 36-40%
e. 41-50%
f. More than 50%
g. Not sure
85 Black New Deal (BND) - City of Oakland, CA
Community Survey
9a. If you're not sure, do you spend more than 30% of your monthly income or less than 30%?
a. More
b. Less
c. Unsure
10) Do you own rental property?
a. Yes
b. No
c. Unsure
86 Black New Deal (BND) - City of Oakland, CA
Community Survey
10a. If so, why did you decide to purchase rental property? (Check all the apply) a. As primary residence
b. For income
c. For long-term capital gains
d. As retirement security
e. Other
f. Unsure
11. Thinking now about your own personal situation, looking ahead to the next five years or so, do you feel very optimistic, somewhat optimistic, somewhat pessimistic, or very pessimistic about what the future holds for you and your family? a. Very optimistic
b. Somewhat optimistic
c. Somewhat pessimistic
d. Very pessimistic
e. Unsure
12. How do you feel about your current housing situation--do you feel very stable and secure, fairly stable and secure, just somewhat stable and secure, fairly unstable and insecure, or very unstable and insecure?
a. Very stable and secure
b. Fairly stable and secure
c. Somewhat stable and secure
d. Fairly unstable and insecure
e. Very unstable and insecure
f. Unsure
87 13. When it comes to housing policy, what do you think is more important for the local government to do right now?
a. Focus on policies that provide more affordable rental housing b. Focus on policies that support homeownership
c. Focus on both - they are equally important
d. Do not focus on either
e. Unsure
14. What is the top reason contributing to issues with fair housing in Oakland? a. Displacement
b. Community opposition to development
c. Lack of affordable housing
d. Land use and zoning laws
e. Barriers to development
f. Location of employers
g. Availability of public transit
15. To your knowledge, what actions has the City of Oakland taken to overcome historical patterns of segregation or remove barriers to equal housing opportunities? (Check all that apply)
a. Supporting affordable housing for people
with special needs (senior, disabled, etc)
b. Inclusionary zoning
c. Land use changes to allow different types of
housing
d. Supporting affordable housing near public
transportation
e. Supporting development of larger affordable
housing units
f. Funding rehabilitation/imporvements for low-
income homeowners
g. Dedicated local funding for affordable
housing
h. Providing financial support/resources for
low-income homebuyers
i. Funding outreach services for those at risk of
losing their home
j. Programs/resources for preservation of
existing affordable housing
k. Implementing anti-displacement
policies/programs for low-income/POC
residents
l. Improving access to high-quality education
for vulnerable students
m. Other
n. Unsure
88 16. To your knowledge, which of the following policies, programs, or actions does Oakland use to prevent or mitigate the displacement of low-income households? a. Inclusionary zoning
b. Condominum conversion regulations
c. Affordable housing fee on residential
development
d. Housing counseling
e. Fair housing legal services
f. Dedicating surplus land for affordable
housing
g. Affordable housing fee on commercial
development
h. Rent review board and/or mediation
i. Living wage employment ordinances
j. Rent stabilization/rent control
k. Preserving subsidized affordable units
l. Community land trusts
m. Preserving unsubsidized affordable units
n. SRO preservation
o. Other
p. Unsure
17. In 1978, voters passed Prop 13 which restricts property tax increases to 2% per year. When a property is sold, however, it is reassessed based on the sales price.
The new owner often has to pay a much higher property tax than neighbors with homes of similar value that were purchased awhile ago. Do you approve or disapprove of this method of property tax assessment?
a. Approve
b. Neither approve nor disapprove
c. Disapprove
d. Unsure
18. Wealthy Californians should pay more state taxes.
a. Strongly agree
b. Agree
c. Neither agree nor disagree
d. Disagree
e. Strongly disagree
f. Unsure
89 19. The quality of life in California is declining because we are not funding the services needed to build a strong future
a. Strongly agree
b. Agree
c. Neither agree nor disagree
d. Disagree
e. Strongly disagree
f. Unsure
90 Now, we would like to learn about your thoughts on public schools here in Oakland.
Black New Deal (BND) - City of Oakland, CA
Community Survey
Education in Oakland
20. If applicable, in which district does your child or children attend school?
21. How satisfied are you with schools in your neighborhood? a. Satisfied
b. Somewhat satisfied
c. Somewhat dissatisfied
d. Dissatisfied
e. Unsure
22. Do you/did you attend an Oakland Unified School District school in the past 15 years?
Yes
No
91 Black New Deal (BND) - City of Oakland, CA
Community Survey
22a. If so, which one?
22b. Were there police/school safety officers in your school? a. Yes
b. No
c. Unsure
23. What do you think is the most important issue facing Oakland's K–12 public schools today?
a. Curriculum
b. Lack of funding
c. Standards/quality of education
d. Large class sizes
e. Quality of teachers
f. Teacher retention/shortage
g. Low teacher pay
h. Racial inequities
i. Safety/security
j. Unsure
24. Over the past few years, do you think the quality of education in Oakland's K–12 public schools has improved, gotten worse, or stayed the same? a. Improved
b. Gotten worse
c. Stayed the same
d. Unsure
25. How concerned are you that Oakland’s K–12 public schools in lower-income areas have a shortage of good teachers compared to schools in wealthier areas? a. Very concerned
b. Somewhat concerned
c. Not too concerned
d. Not at all concerned
e. Unsure
92 26. How would you rate the quality of public schools in your neighborhood today? If you had to give your local public schools a grade, would it be A, B, C, D, or F? Think of grades A to F as a scale where A is the best and F is failing. a. A
b. B
c. C
d. D
e. F
93 The following questions help us understand more about your experience with the current economy.
Black New Deal (BND) - City of Oakland, CA
Community Survey
Economy and Economic Development
27. Have you or members of your family ever owned a business? a. Yes
b. No
c. Unsure
94 Black New Deal (BND) - City of Oakland, CA
Community Survey
If yes, is this still the case?
a. Yes
b. No
c. Unsure
28. After 2008, your financial wellbeing:
a. Dramatically decreased
b. Decreased
c. Remained the same
d. Increased
e. Unsure
29. After the COVID-19 pandemic, your financial wellbeing:
a. Dramatically decreased
b. Decreased
c. Remained the same
d. Increased
e. Unsure
30. Are you working now for pay, laid off, or not working at all for pay? a. Working for pay
b. Laid off
c. Not working
95 Black New Deal (BND) - City of Oakland, CA
Community Survey
If you are working, what is your area of employment?
a. Government
b. Healthcare
c. Construction
d. Education
e. Real estate
f. Restaurant/food service
g. Retail
h. Military
i. Manufacturing
i. Professional services
k. Retired
l. Other (please specify)
31. In your lifetime, have you ever not been hired for a job because you are Black? Yes
No
Unsure
32. Besides your present job(s), are there any other ways you are supporting yourself or being supported?
Yes
No
Unsure
33. How much of a problem, if any, do you think there is with the availability of public transit in Oakland?
a. Severe problem
b. Moderate problem
c. Minor problem
d. Not a problem
e. Unsure
96 34. How often do you ride AC Transit?
a. Daily
b. 5 days per week
c. Once per week
d. Bi-weekly
e. Monthly
f. A few times per year
g. Never
h. Unsure
35. How often do you ride AC Transit?
a. Daily
b. 5 days per week
c. Once per week
d. Bi-weekly
e. Monthly
f. A few times per year
g. Never
h. Unsure
36. How satisfied are you with bus service in Oakland overall? a. Satisfied
b. Somewhat satisfied
c. Somewhat dissatisfied
d. Dissatisfied
e. Unsure
37. How satisfied are you with BART service?
a. satisfied
b. somewhat satisfied
c. somewhat dissatisfied
d. dissatisfied
e. unsure
97 38. Did you or anyone in your family receive the following benefits at any time in the past 12 months?
a. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANF) or California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs) b. Medicaid, Medical Assistance, the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) or any kind of state or govern
c. A federal, state, or local government housing program that lowers your rent, such as a housing voucher or public housing
d. Supplemental Security Income (SSI), which provides cash assistance to low-income aged, blind and disabled persons
e. Social Security Disability Income (SSDI), which provides f. Help paying for child care from a government agency
g. Unemployment insurance benefits
h. Unsure
39. Thinking about Oakland's economy, would you say that over the next year, the region's economy will...
a. Get significantly better
b. Get somewhat better
c. Stayed the same
d. Get somewhat worse
e. Get significantly worse
f. Unsure
40. Thinking about your own economic situation, would you say that over the next year, your economic situation will...
a. Get significantly better
b. Get somewhat better
c. Stayed the same
d. Get somewhat worse
e. Get significantly worse
f. Unsure
98 41. What facilities do you have in your neighborhood? (check all that apply) a. Library
b. Grocery store
c. Public transit
d. Parks
e. Public school
f. Bank
42. Overall, how satisfied are you with the facilities in your neighborhood? a. Satisfied
b. Somewhat satisfied
c. Somewhat dissatisfied
d. Dissatisfied
e. Unsure
43. Which of these issues affect your neighborhood/community the most? a. Crime
b. drug use
c. Poverty/homelessness
d. Taxes
e. Pollution
f. None
g. Unsure
99 We would like to know your thoughts about arts and cultural opportunities here in Oakland.
Black New Deal (BND) - City of Oakland, CA
Community Survey
Arts and Culture
44. Have you ever participated in any protests in your neighborhood? Yes
No
Unsure
45. During the past year, about how many times have you visited a local museum or gallery or attended an art or cultural event, such as a play, concert, festival, reading or film in Oakland?
a. 1-2 times
b. 3-5 times
c. 6-10 times
d. 11-20 times
e. More than 20 times
f. Unsure
46. How would you rate the overall quality of Oakland's arts and cultural opportunities?
a. Excellent
b. Very good
c. Good
d. Fair
e. Poor
f. Unsure
100
We are interested in learning about your thoughts on policing and safety here in Oakland.
Black New Deal (BND) - City of Oakland, CA
Community Survey
Policing and Safety
47. On a scale from 1 to 10, what is the level of police presence in your district/neighborhood? 1 is the lowest level and 10 is the highest level. 0 10
48. Have you ever been stopped or questioned by OPD?
Yes
No
Unsure
101
Black New Deal (BND) - City of Oakland, CA
Community Survey
If "Yes" to being stopped, how many times have you been stopped or questioned in your lifetime?
a. 1-2 times
b. 3-5 times
c. More than 5 times
d. Unsure
If "Yes" to being stopped, where were you stopped or questioned? a. Street
b. House/Apartment
c. Bus or BART
d. Car
e. Other (please specify)
102
Black New Deal (BND) - City of Oakland, CA
Community Survey
49. Have you ever been patted down or frisked by a police officer? Yes
No
Unsure
103
Black New Deal (BND) - City of Oakland, CA
Community Survey
If you said "Yes" to being patted down or frisked, how many times have you been patted down or frisked?
a. 1-2 times
b. 3-5 times
c. More than 5 times
d. Unsure
104
Black New Deal (BND) - City of Oakland, CA
Community Survey
50. Have you ever been taken into police custody?
Yes
No
Unsure
51. In the last 12 months, have you spent any time in a jail, prison, or a juvenile detention facility?
Yes
No
Unsure
105
Black New Deal (BND) - City of Oakland, CA
Community Survey
If "Yes," the last time you were in jail, prison, or juvenile detention, how long were you in?
a. Less than 1 year
b. 1-2 years
c. 2-5 years
d. 5-10 years
e. More than 10 years
52. Have you ever felt unsafe/threatened in the presence of local police? Yes
No
Unsure
53. Have you ever been physically assaulted by law enforcement members? Yes
No
Unsure
54. Following the Black Lives Matter Movement (2020), has the law enforcement presence intensified in your neighborhood?
Yes
No
Unsure
55. How would you describe your views of the Oakland Police Department? a. Positive
b. Mostly positive
c. Neutral
d. Mostly negative
e. Negative
106
56. How would you describe your encounters with OPD officers? a. Positive
b. Mostly positive
c. Neutral
d. Mostly negative
e. Negative
57. Do OPD officers treat people in your neighborhood with respect? a. Always
b. Almost always
c. Sometimes
d. Almost never
e. Never
58. Do OPD officers abuse their authority?
a. Always
b. Almost always
c. Sometimes
d. Almost never
e. Never
59. Do you feel comfortable talking to the police?
a. Always
b. Almost always
c. Sometimes
d. Almost never
e. Never
60. Do you believe calling the police will make a situation better? a. Always
b. Almost always
c. Sometimes
d. Almost never
e. Never
107
61. How important is it for the police department to engage in community outreach activities?
a. Very
b. Somewhat
c. Neutral
d. Not very
e. Not at all
62. How satisfied are you with the police department’s communication and transparency with the community?
a. Very
b. Somewhat
c. Neutral
d. Not very
e. Not at all
63. How would you rate the police department’s response to incidents of domestic violence in your community?
a. Positive
b. Mostly positive
c. Neutral
d. Mostly negative
e. Negative
64. In general, do you think the criminal justice system in California is biased against African Americans, or do you think the criminal justice system treats people equally regardless of race?
a. Criminal justice system is biased against African Americans b. Criminal justice system treats people equally regardless of race c. Unsure
108
Finally, we are interested in learning about your thoughts on health and environmental issues here in Oakland.
Black New Deal (BND) - City of Oakland, CA
Community Survey
Health and Environment
65. How would you rate the overall quality of public recreational areas in the region, such as parks, trails, and playgrounds?
a. Excellent
b. Very good
c. Good
d. Fair
e. Poor
f. Unsure
66. Overall, how would you rate your health?
a. Excellent
b. Very good
c. Good
d. Fair
e. Poor
f. Unsure
67. Was there a time during the last 12 months when you needed to see a doctor but could not because of the cost?
Yes
No
Unsure
68. How many parks do you have in your neighborhood?
a. 1
b. 2-5
c. More than 5
d. Unsure
109
69. How safe are the parks and greenspaces in your neighborhood? a. Very safe
b. Somewhat safe
c. Somewhat unsafe
d. Very unsafe
e. Unsure
70. How satisfied are you with the condition of the parks and greenspaces in your neighborhood?
a. Satisfied
b. Somewhat satisfied
c. Somewhat dissatisfied
d. Dissatisfied
e. Unsure
71. Do you or anyone in your household suffer from asthma? Yes
No
Unsure
We recognize that you have given us a lot of your time with these questions. Would you mind answering a few more questions?
Yes
No
110
Black New Deal (BND) - City of Oakland, CA
Community Survey
Additional Questions
72. How many of your relatives live in Alameda County but not in Oakland? a. Many
b. Some
c. A few
d. None
e. Unsure
73. How many of your relatives live in California but not in Alameda county? a. Many
b. Some
c. A few
d. None
e. Unsure
74. How do you feel about rent control?
a. Strongly favor
b. Somewhat favor
c. Neutral
d. Somewhat oppose
e. Strongly oppose
f. Unsure
75. How do you feel about the following statement:
"Part of our taxes should go to making sure that everyone has an equal opportunity to have a good life."
a. Strongly agree
b. Agree
c. Disagree
d. Strongly disagree
e. Unsure
111
Welcome to The Black New Deal Community Survey
Thank you for participating in our survey. Your
feedback is important.
CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE
Black New Deal (BND) - City of Oakland, CA Focus Group
Community Survey
Welcome to The Black New Deal Community Survey
112
Thank you for your interest in participating in the Community Survey as part of the City of Oakland's Black New Deal Study.
Purpose: The purpose of this study, as a Racial Impact Analysis project, is to generate input from Black residents about the ongoing effects of public policy decisions and actions on the Black community in Oakland. Specifically, the research will focus on addressing the following:
What are the ongoing effects of federal, state, and locally-subsidized policies (e.g., redlining, eminent domain, urban renewal, and gentrification) on the Black community in Oakland?
How do residents of Oakland perceive the impact of public policy decisions and actions on their community?
Specifically, as part of the study, this short Community Survey hopes to document your thoughts on seven overlapping themes: art & culture, economics, education, transportation, environment, housing, and public
safety (policing).
Participation: I am aware that my participation is voluntary and that I may end my participation in this survey at any time during the data collection process. I also understand that there will be no harm or risk to me by participating in this evaluation activity.
I understand my rights to privacy will be protected. I am aware that if the staff believes there is a potential for serious harm that I may cause to another person or any immediate danger to myself, then a program staff may need to inform others to protect my safety of me or others. According to federal laws and regulations, program staff may be allowed to reveal confidential information to appropriate authorities to protect the safety and welfare of a program participant or other only when:
1. There is reasonable suspicion of child, dependent adult, elderly abuse; or
2. The participant is a serious danger to him/herself or to others.
COMPLETION OF THIS SURVEY IS VOLUNTARY. You have the right to decline to fill out this survey or to stop filling it out at any point without penalty or loss of benefits of services.
Selecting YES below serves as your consent to take the survey and acknowledging that you have been informed.
Yes
No
113
Black New Deal (BND) - City of Oakland, CA Focus Group
Community Survey
Before we get started with the interview and survey, I would like to ask you a few questions about yourself if this is okay.
How old are you?
Please tell us about your educational background.
12th grade or less
Graduated high school / Equivalent
Some college – no degree
Associate degree
Vocational/Trade school diploma
Bachelor’s degree
Master’s degree
Professional degree (i.e., MD, DDS or JD)
Doctorate degree
Are you:
Black or African American (e.g., African American, Jamaican, Haitian, Nigerian, Ethiopian, Somali, etc.) Multi-racial
Other (please specify)
What sex were you assigned at birth (birth certificate)? Female
Male
Are you:
Female
Male
Transgender, non-binary, or another gender
114
What was your total HOUSEHOLD income (pre-tax) in the past 12 months? Less than $25,000
$25,000 to $34,999
$35,000 to $49,999
50,000 to $74,999
$75,000 to $99,999
$100,000 or more
Which of the following best describes your employment status? (Check all that apply)
Employed full time for wages
Employed part time for wages
Self-employed
Out of work for more than 1 year
Out of work for less than 1 year
A Student
Retired
115
For the next questions, we are interested in learning about your thoughts on housing here in Oakland.
Black New Deal (BND) - City of Oakland, CA Focus Group
Community Survey
Housing in Oakland
1. How do you feel about rent control?
a. Strongly favor
b. Somewhat favor
d. Somewhat oppose
e. Strongly oppose
f. Unsure
2. What is the top reason contributing to issues with fair housing in Oakland? a. Displacement
b. Community opposition to development
c. Lack of affordable housing
d. Land use and zoning laws
e. Barriers to development
f. Location of employers
g. Availability of public transit
3. Do you think your state and local governments are doing enough to ensure that there is sufficient affordable quality housing in your community, or do you think your state and local governments should be doing more?
a. There is enough affordable quality housing
b. The state and local governments should be doing more c. Unsure
116
4. When it comes to housing policy, what do you think is more important for the local government to do right now?
a. Focus on policies that provide more affordable rental housing b. Focus on policies that support homeownership
c. Focus in both - they are equally important
d. Do not focus on either
e. Unsure
117
Now, we would like to learn about your thoughts on public schools here in Oakland.
Black New Deal (BND) - City of Oakland, CA Focus Group
Community Survey
Education & Transportation in Oakland
5. What do you think is the most important issue facing Oakland's K–12 public schools today?
a. Curriculum
b. Lack of funding
c. Standards/quality of education
d. Large class sizes
e. Quality of teachers
f. Teacher retention/shortage
g. Low teacher pay
h. Racial inequities
i. Safety/security
j. Unsure
6. How would you rate the quality of public schools in your neighborhood today? If you had to give your local public schools a grade, would it be A, B, C, D, or F? Think of grades A to F as a scale where A is the best and F is failing. a. A
b. B
c. C
d. D
e. F
The next question asks about your thoughts on public transportation here in Oakland.
7. How much of a problem, if any, do you think there is with the availability of public transit in Oakland?
a. Severe problem
b. Moderate problem
c. Minor problem
d. Not a problem
e. Unsure
118
The following questions help us understand more about your experience with the current economy.
Black New Deal (BND) - City of Oakland, CA Focus Group
Community Survey
Economy and Economic Development
8. Did you or anyone in your family receive the following benefits at any time in the past 12 months?
a. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANF) or California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs) b. Medicaid, Medical Assistance, the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) or any kind of state or govern
c. A federal, state, or local government housing program that lowers your rent, such as a housing voucher or public housing
d. Supplemental Security Income (SSI), which provides cash assistance to low-income aged, blind and disabled persons
e. Social Security Disability Income (SSDI), which provides f. Help paying for child care from a government agency
g. Unemployment insurance benefits
h. Unsure
9. Thinking about Oakland's economy, would you say that over the next year the region's economy will...
a. Get significantly better
b. Get somewhat better
c. Stay the same
d. Get somewhat worse
e. Get significantly worse
f. Unsure
119
We would like to know your thoughts about arts and cultural opportunities here in Oakland.
Black New Deal (BND) - City of Oakland, CA Focus Group
Community Survey
Arts and Culture
10. How would you rate the overall quality of Oakland's arts and cultural opportunities?
a. excellent
b. very good
c. good
d. fair
e. poor
f. unsure
120
We are interested in learning about your thoughts on policing and safety here in Oakland.
Black New Deal (BND) - City of Oakland, CA Focus Group
Community Survey
Policing and Safety
11. On a scale from 1 to 10, what is the level of police presence in your district/neighborhood? 1 is the lowest level and 10 is the highest level. 0 10
12. How would you describe your views of the Oakland Police Department? a. Positive
b. Mostly positive
c. Neutral
d. Mostly negative
e. Negative
121
Finally, we are interested in learning about your thoughts on health and environmental issues here in Oakland.
Black New Deal (BND) - City of Oakland, CA Focus Group
Community Survey
Health and Environment
13. Which of these issues affect your neighborhood/community the most? a. Crime
b. Drug use
c. Poverty/homelessness
d. Taxes
e. Pollution
f. None
g. Unsure
14. How satisfied are you with the condition of the parks and greenspaces in your neighborhood?
a. Satisfied
b. Somewhat satisfied
c. Somewhat dissatisfied
d. Dissatisfied
e. Unsure
a. Government is
doing enough
b. Government
should be doing more
c. Government is
doing too much d. Unsure
Rental housing
Housing to
purchase
15. Do you think your state and local governments are doing enough to ensure that there is sufficient affordable quality housing in your community, or do you think your state and local governments should be doing more for..." 122
16. To your knowledge, how successful were Oakland’s past actions in achieving goals for overcoming historical patterns of segregation or removing barriers to equal housing opportunity?
a. Successful
b. Somewhat successful
c. Somewhat unsuccessful
d. Unsuccessful
e. Unsure
Spending less Spending the same Spending more
a. K-12 schools
b. Mental health
services
c. Colleges and
universities
d. affordable
housing
e. Economic
development
projects
f. Building and
repairing roads and
highways
g. Police and fire
services
h. Libraries
i. Building and
repairing public
transit
j. Parks and other
public space
k. prisons and
correctional
institutions
17. Should your state and local government be spending less, more, or the same on...
123