Infrastructure Financing District (EIFD) Report

I. Executive summary:

Oakland, like many other communities in the Bay Area, is experiencing an affordable housing crisis that disproportionally affects Black residents. Black Oaklanders are dramatically overrepresented in the city’s unhoused population and disproportionately impacted by gentrification[i].

CEO Action for Racial Equity surveyed and interviewed Black Oaklanders for their views on the housing crisis, and their responses indicated that they would like the city to address the housing racial disparities by prioritizing investments in mixed-use infrastructure that includes:

• Affordable housing for moderate, low, very low and no-income people
• Space for civic uses for much needed goods and services
• Commercial/retail space for local merchants and other small businesses.

Black Oaklanders would also like Oakland’s infrastructure investments to enhance racial equity in the long run. Projects that make Oakland wealthier but displace Black Oaklanders are not racially equitable solutions.

There are many ways that the city can raise the funds needed for the infrastructure investments that could make a difference to Black Oaklanders, including the formation of an affordable housing Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District (EIFD).  We see an EIFD as an effective way to raise long-term sustainable funding for infrastructure projects that can have a positive long-term impact on the city and help close equity gaps, while not increasing taxes on Oaklanders.

For these reasons, CEO Action for Racial Equity encourages the City of Oakland to adopt an EIFD to fund mixed use infrastructure with affordable housing, space for goods and services and commercial space as described in this report.  We also encourage the city to spend such infrastructure investments in a manner that allows Black Oaklanders to gain (and retain) property ownership.

+

II. Who We Are

This report was prepared by the Oakland Place-Based team of the CEO Action for Racial Equity (CEOARE) Fellowship. The CEOARE Fellowship is a first-of-its-kind, business-led initiative that mobilizes CEO Action for Diversity & Inclusion™ signatory organizations^[ii] to advance policy change at the federal, state and local levels. We’re driven by the belief that meaningful collaboration can lead to lasting change.

CEOARE’s mission is to identify, develop, and promote scalable and sustainable public policies and corporate engagement strategies that will advance racial equity, address social injustice, and improve societal well-being. Our vision is to improve the quality of life for the 47M+ Black Americans through advocacy and advancement of solutions that seek to end systemic racism.

CEOARE aims to listen, learn, co-create and work toward solutions for and with Oakland’s Black community.  We acknowledge the strengths, assets and leadership that exists in Oakland and work with various key Oakland stakeholders to drive progress towards racial equity.  We seek to bring our skills and resources to the table to help accelerate impact.

+

III. CEOARE Fellowship Place-Based Methodology

CEOARE has taken a thorough approach to understanding and working to address the most critical needs of Black Oaklanders.

Preparation

In June 2021, we began our Oakland place-based work by researching the city’s history and current state, paying special attention to demographic information, equity studies and ongoing efforts relating to equity issues. We reviewed the census, other publicly available data and various existing surveys to understand the existing societal racial disparities and the ongoing efforts to address the disparities.

Engagement and Analysis

In August and September of 2021, we conducted listening sessions with leaders of community-based organizations serving Black Oaklanders, other community leaders (including some policymakers) and Black Oakland residents. Our community listening sessions included over 60 informal in-person interviews with Black Oaklanders and dozens of formal interviews through focus group discussions and other curated conversations. We also reviewed publicly available data from previously conducted surveys and listening sessions.

In October 2021, we synthesized the information gained from our listening sessions and research and quickly recognized that affordable housing was the equity theme that rose to the top. We therefore researched various current and potential solutions that Oakland was already considering or that we thought Oakland should consider.

Our EIFD Work

In our research, we came across a January 21, 2020 resolution introduced by Councilmember Loren Taylor directing the city administrator to, among other things:

“… evaluate and return to City Council with recommendations and/or strategies for the establishment of Enhanced Infrastructure Financing Districts (EIFDs) to fund catalytic development projects … [that] would be consistent with the city’s equitable economic development goals, particularly neighborhood stabilization and wealth creation/enhancement in communities of color.” [iii]

Although we could find no further developments on this effort, we began exploring the establishment of EIFDs as a potential solution with community members, subject matter specialists, and city policymakers in November 2021. For the reasons discussed below we concluded that the EIFD solution was worth pursuing.

Shortly thereafter, we were happy to learn that the city was mobilizing to pursue such an effort. On December 15, 2021, Councilmember Sheng Thao (along with Councilmember Carroll Fife and Council President Nikki Fortunato Bas as co-sponsors) introduced a “Recommendation Directing the City Administrator to Study the Creation and Implementation of a citywide Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District Funding Affordable Housing and Infrastructure Improvements.” Thereafter, the city engaged community-based housing advocate TODCO, which in turn contracted with real estate advisory firm Kosmont Companies to conduct a feasibility study. CEOARE has advocated for a racial equity lens to be applied to the effort.

We have since continued to seek input from Black Oakland community members to amplify their voices as the City of Oakland contemplates moving forward with an EIFD. We facilitated listening workshops and a survey to gather sentiment from Black Oaklanders, and we sought input on the definition of “affordable housing” and on the types of infrastructure that could most benefit Oakland’s Black population.

In this report, we provide data highlighting why affordable housing is a priority racial equity issue in Oakland. We then describe how EIFDs work and why we view an EIFD as a practical solution. Finally, we share what we have heard from Black Oaklanders and provide recommendations for the EIFD effort that we have formed based on community input.

IV. Why Oakland and Why Now?

We believe every Oaklander has a right to high-quality and affordable housing so they can live with security, peace, and dignity. This aspiration is not being met.

Crisis of Unhoused Black Oaklanders The estimated number of people living without permanent housing in Oakland (including those living in cars) has reached a high of over 5,000[iv]. Black people are disproportionately overrepresented in the homeless population, making up 60% of the unhoused population but only 23% of the general population[v].

Loan Denial Disparities Black Oakland home loan applicants are more than twice as likely to have their applications denied by financial institutions than white Oaklanders, at a rate of 25.7% compared to 12.1%[vi].

Rent Burden It is common for Oaklanders of all races to spend more than 30% of their income on rent. Black American Oakland households spend a particularly high percentage of their income – 58.4% – on rent. In contrast, white Oaklanders on average spend only 34.9% of their income on rent.

Inequalities in Homeownership In Oakland, 74.1%[vii] of Black resident householders do not own their homes versus 43.6% of white householders. Citywide, 56.4% of all householders did not own their homes compared to nationwide at 34.4%[viii].

We also recognize that Oakland’s Black community is shrinking. As illustrated in Figure 1 below, while Black residents made up the largest demographic group (47%) in Oakland in 1980, by 2020 the Black population fell to just 23%, with white residents making up 34% and the “Other” category, primarily Asian and Hispanic, making up the remaining 43%.

Figure 1: Oakland’s population from 1930-present broken out by race[ix]

Figure 2: Median per capita income by race compared to median rental costs[x]

Housing affordability is clearly a significant issue in Oakland as shown in Figure 2. Affordability is particularly impacting Black and Hispanic Oaklanders and Oaklanders who identify as two or more races. For such Oaklanders, median per capita incomes are below or barely at or above average rental costs. And when Oakland rents are compared to national averages as shown in Figure 3, the affordability challenge is underscored.

Figure 3 – Oakland median rents compared to national median rents[xi]

The data in Figure 3 illustrates the ongoing decline and the likely correlation to the affordable housing challenges that Black Oaklanders face. CEOARE is committed to making Oakland more affordable for Black Oaklanders to live, stay and thrive in Oakland. We therefore advocate in favor of affordable housing solutions. We believe the proposed affordable housing EIFD is the right solution.

+

V. Why an EIFD?

An EIFD is a government entity established by a city and/or county that carries out a plan within a defined area or areas to construct, improve and/or rehabilitate affordable housing and/or other infrastructure. EIFDs can provide decades of funding for infrastructure projects designed to positively impact the community. As the infrastructure is built, community members benefit. At the end of the EIFD period, the city and/or county reaps the benefit of the growth in the tax base that comes from the growth in the property values that likely would not have happened but for the investment. Unlike other funding mechanisms, EIFDs are structured in a manner that can give the community a formal voice. And EIFDs can do all of this without raising any Oaklanders’ taxes.  Here are more details on EIFDs.

• What are EIFDs and how do they work? Enhanced Infrastructure Financing Districts (EIFDs) are a type of tax increment financing (TIF) tool used for community-wide benefit projects. TIFs work by freezing the property tax revenues that flow in a designated project area to the city/county at the “base level” in the current year. Additional tax revenues in future years (the “increment”) are collected and held in a separate pool of money specially designated to fund infrastructure projects that can be beneficial to the public. EIFDs are governed by a governing document called the Infrastructure Finance Plan (IFP). The body that creates the IFP is the Public Finance Authority (PFA).^[xii]
• Do EIFDs impact tax rates or funding for schools? EIFDs do not increase tax rates and, in accordance with California state law, are not allowed to draw from school funding.^[xiii]
• How sustainable are EIFDs? EIFDs can provide up to 45 years of funding for infrastructure.^[xiv] The systemic obstacles to housing and capital faced by Black Oaklanders have been longstanding, and EIFDs are viable strategies to address these obstacles because of their longevity.
• Who governs EIFDs? The California Government Code, as amended by CA AB 116, requires that PFAs (Public Finance Authorities), the governing bodies for EIFDs, include city officials and community members.^[xv]  This means that community voices are at the table. EIFD case studies in California show that municipalities experience fewer hurdles in EIFD formation when they engage the public early in the process.^[xvi] This approach also builds trust among community stakeholders and elected officials.
• Do EIFDs take up all municipal property taxes? No; municipalities have full discretion over how much or how little to contribute to an EIFD.
• Can other sources of funding be applied to EIFDs? EIFDs can be financed by bundling diverse sources of funding, separate and apart from municipal property tax revenues^[xvii], to catalyze funding growth and development, such as funding from other jurisdictions (e.g., state, or county) and philanthropic support. We encourage Alameda County, local foundations and other organizations to participate in funding the district.
• What type of projects can EIFDs fund? EIFDs can fund a variety of infrastructure developments that can be leveraged to address public health issues^[xviii] that contribute to root causes of houselessness.^[xix] For example, EIFDs can fund infrastructure for non-profit Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFIs) to reduce predatory lending practices, or broadband infrastructure to support mental health telehealth.  They can also fund other infrastructure that helps the community.
• Why should non-profit CDFIs be considered as a component of mixed-use affordable housing developments funded through EIFDs? In 2020, CDFI Program award recipients reported originating more than 1 million loans and investments totaling more than $25.4 million to finance more than 41,000 units of affordable housing and fund more than 87,000 businesses—all in distressed and underserved communities lacking access to traditional lending or banking institutions.^[xx] Advocacy for sustainable funding towards non-profit CDFI infrastructure is an important strategy to address root causes of racial housing disparities.
• Won’t developments of affordable housing decrease property values? Studies conducted over decades and in various cities show that affordable housing does not depress neighborhood property values and may improve values in some cases.^[xxi]
• What about Measure U, the infrastructure ballot measure? Measure U, the $850 million infrastructure measure on the November 2022 ballot^[xxii]—sometimes referred to as a continuation of 2016’s Measure KK—seeks to raise $350 million for affordable housing. We support the measure. But even that funding will not be enough to solve Oakland’s affordable housing crisis. About 73% of the $100 million Measure KK allocated to affordable housing has helped Oakland create approximately 1600 units of housing. Of those, only 665 units are for extremely low-income households.^[xxiii] Even if the remaining unspent $26.8 million from Measure KK and the additional $350 million from Measure U are spent on low and very low-income housing, and even if the average per unit cost remains the same as it was for Measure KK, there still will not be enough affordable housing units built to meet Oakland’s needs. Moreover, it is not yet clear if Measure U will pass. If it does not pass, Oakland will need to find a sustainable funding source for affordable housing. The EIFD can be that source.

Watch a short CEOARE EIFD video[xxiv] to learn more about EIFDs and how they can benefit Black Oaklanders.

+

VI. Findings and Recommendations:

As discussed above, the City of Oakland is considering the formation of an affordable housing Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District (EIFD). We have asked members of the Black community what they’d like such an EIFD to fund. Here’s what we’ve heard:

Black Oaklanders see a need for several types of infrastructure. Mixed-use infrastructure could meet those needs. To meet the needs of Black Oaklanders, such mixed-use infrastructure should include affordable housing, physical space for needed goods and services, and space for small local businesses to provide their goods and services to the community—and to thrive. We also heard that for a development to truly meet the needs of Black Oaklanders, it must give local Black Oaklanders property ownership.

Black Oaklanders see affordable housing as housing that does not cost more than 30% of a household’s income. Black Oaklanders need moderate, low-income, very low-income and no-income affordable housing. Black Oaklanders also recognize the need for creating affordable housing for aging Black Oaklanders who are now or may soon be living on fixed incomes as they retire.

Black Oaklanders seek physical space for goods and services that supply basic needs. Many Black Oaklanders today live in food deserts[xxv] and with limited access to good, nonpredatory financial institutions[xxvi]. The mixed-use infrastructure needed therefore includes a grocery store and a space for health services. The development also should include infrastructure for a nonprofit Community Development Financial Institution and space for a nonprofit organization or government agency to provide services to assist with job training.

Black Oaklanders would also like to see infrastructure that includes spaces designed to help Black Oaklanders thrive. The EIFD should therefore include physical permanent space for small local Black business owners to sell their goods and services.

Finally, we heard from Black Oaklanders that investment in Black communities without providing a clear path to property ownership will not lead to equity in the long run. Investments need to be made in a manner that provides property ownership to Black Oaklanders. Without ownership, the investments can lead to more rapid gentrification and continue to push Oakland’s Black population from their established neighborhoods. Projects that make Oakland wealthier but displace Black Oaklanders are not racially equitable solutions.

Given what we heard from the community, we encourage the city to move forward with an EIFD in West Oakland and Deep East Oakland where Oakland’s Black communities are largest. We believe that investing in mixed-use infrastructure in these areas will not only help Black Oaklanders, but all Oaklanders. Investing in housing can lead to fewer people being displaced, which the Oaklander community will likely appreciate, and will undoubtedly result in savings for the city.[xxvii]  Housing is a major component of the social determinants of health, and studies show that investments that support unhoused and housing insecure populations in municipalities have resulted in major returns realized by cost savings in healthcare[xxviii]. Mixed-use infrastructure that includes space for local merchants to thrive can also strengthen small Black-owned local businesses, which in turn can have a positive impact on Oakland’s economy. Overall, mixed-use infrastructure can not only positively affect the health and welfare of many of Oakland’s most marginalized residents, it can also positively affect Oakland’s economy and benefit all Oaklanders.

Given what we have heard from the community, we strongly encourage the following stakeholder groups to take action:

• In the design of a potential EIFD in Oakland, local city officials and policymakers should commit to alignment with the racial equity perspectives of the Black Oakland community by committing to build mixed use infrastructure that includes:
  1. Affordable housing for moderate, low, very low, fixed and no income residents with rents of no more than 30% of net income.
  2. Community service centers that offer programs that can lead to greater economic empowerment for Black residents (such as job training centers).
  3. Access to a grocery store that will help address food deserts.
  4. Community non-profit banks (Community Development Financial Institutions).
  5. Permanent locations for local Black vendors and community markets.
• Local corporations could offer to provide seed funding for the chosen infrastructure project while the EIFD increment builds over time.
• Community Based Organizations (CBOs) can seek opportunities to partner with the city on the formation of the EIFD focusing on affordable housing with a racial equity lens. They can also advocate for the EIFD’s IFP to include funds to build the physical infrastructure needed for such CBOs to supply services to low and no-income residents.
• Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFIs) can advocate for the EIFD’s IFP to include funds to build the physical infrastructure of nonprofit CDFIs near the new affordable housing units.
• Foundations can participate by offering support via ‘seed’ funding to expedite the infrastructure project while the EIFD increment builds over time.
• Alameda County policy makers can join the Oakland EIFD effort. Additional tax increment funds could increase and accelerate the benefits of the EIFD. Alameda County could benefit by long term savings on providing health and welfare services to many of Oakland’s underserved residents. Alameda County Health Care Agency’s mission[xxix] is to “Achieve health equity by working in partnership to provide high quality services, foster safe and healthy communities, and promote fair and inclusive opportunities for all residents.” As noted in an Alameda County report titled “How Place, Racism and Poverty Matter for Health in Alameda County,”[xxx] the county’s greatest health inequities are in West Oakland and Deep East Oakland, the very areas that the city is already considering for the EIFD. That same report looks at the social determinants of health and notes that access to the features of a mixed-use project like we have described (including, among other things, access to grocery stores, good jobs, strong local businesses, and non-predatory financial institutions) can lead to positive health outcomes. The EIFD effort we have described is thus very aligned to the county’s goals.

+

VII. Conclusion

CEOARE listened to Black Oaklanders. Black Oaklanders would like to see the City of Oakland invest in mixed-use infrastructure that includes affordable housing, space for needed goods and services and space for local businesses. To work toward racial equity and help Black Oaklanders in the long run, the development should support Black Oaklanders in gaining (and retaining) property ownership.

An EIFD can achieve these goals and bring benefits to all Oaklanders. We therefore encourage the City of Oakland, Alameda County, community-based organizations, and all other stakeholders to work together to adopt an EIFD to build the mixed-use infrastructure described in this report to build a better tomorrow for Oakland.

+

VIII. End Notes

[i] Orenstein, N. (2022, May 16). Oakland’s homeless population surpasses 5,000 people during the pandemic. The Oaklandside. Retrieved October 3, 2022, from https://oaklandside.org/2022/05/16/oakland-homeless-population-count-5000-people-pandemic/

[ii] CEO Action to Racial Equity . CEOARE. (2022, August 18). Retrieved October 3, 2022, from https://ceoactionracialequity.com/

[iii] Granicus, I. (n.d.). OAKLAND CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 8 7992 ^ C.M.S. City of Oakland – legislation. Retrieved October 3, 2022, from http://oakland.legistar.com/gateway.aspx?M=F&ID=30dd2941-44d6-480f-82ff-f9f8f0cc3219.pdf

Introduced by Councilwoman Loren Taylor

[iv] Orenstein, N. (2022, May 16). Oakland’s homeless population surpasses 5,000 people during the pandemic. The Oaklandside. Retrieved October 3, 2022, from https://oaklandside.org/2022/05/16/oakland-homeless-population-count-5000-people-pandemic/

[v] EveryOne Home. (2022). Oakland 2022 point in time Count Unsheltered & Sheltered Report. Oakland 2022 Point In Time Count Unsheltered & Sheltered Report. Retrieved October 3, 2022, from https://oaklandside.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Oakland-PIT-2022-Infographic-Report.pdf

[vi] Oakland Equity Indicators. (n.d.). Retrieved October 3, 2022, from https://cao-94612.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/2018FullReport-12021edit.pdf

[vii] Oakland Equity Indicators. (n.d.). Retrieved October 3, 2022, from https://cao-94612.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/2018FullReport-12021edit.pdf

[viii] Oakland Equity Indicators. (n.d.). Retrieved October 3, 2022, from https://cao-94612.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/2018FullReport-12021edit.pdf

[ix] Ma-X. (2022, September 9). Oakland Demographic Study. Retrieved October 3, 2022, from https://observablehq.com/@ma-x/oakland-demographic-study

[x] Ma-X. (2022, September 9). Oakland Demographic Study. Retrieved October 3, 2022, from https://observablehq.com/@ma-x/oakland-demographic-study

[xi] Bureau, U. S. C. (n.d.). ACS Data. Explore census data. Retrieved October 3, 2022, from https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?g=1600000US0653000&tid=ACSST5Y2020.S1902

United States Census Bureau. (n.d.). U.S. Census Bureau: Oakland City, California – Bay Area Census. QuickFacts – Oakland City, CA . Retrieved October 3, 2022, from https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/oaklandcitycalifornia

Oakland, CA Rental Market Trends. RentCafe. (n.d.). Retrieved October 3, 2022, from https://www.rentcafe.com/average-rent-market-trends/us/ca/oakland/

[xii]  Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District (EIFD). Southern California   Association of Governments. (2021, January 11). Retrieved October 3, 2022,  from https://scag.ca.gov/post/enhanced-infrastructure-financing-district-eifd

[xiii] Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District (EIFD). Southern California Association of Governments. (2021, January 11). Retrieved October 3, 2022, from https://scag.ca.gov/post/enhanced-infrastructure-financing-district-eifd

[xiv] Primer on California’s new tax increment financing tools. CALED Technical TIF Committee. (n.d.). Retrieved October 3, 2022, from https://caled.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/CALED-TIF-Primer-3-17.pdf

[xv]  Local Government, A.B. 116. California Legislative Information. (2019). Retrieved October 3, 2022, from https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB116

[xvi]   Governor’s Office of Planning and Research . (2020, December 29). Housing Financing Tools and Equitable, Location-Efficient Development in California. CASE STUDIES REPORT Prepared in Accordance with California Senate Bill 961, 2017-2018 Reg. Retrieved from https://opr.ca.gov/docs/20210203-Case_Studies_Final_Report.pdf

[xvii]  Primer on California’s new tax increment financing tools. CALED Technical TIF Committee. (n.d.). Retrieved October 3, 2022, from https://caled.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/CALED-TIF-Primer-3-17.pdf

[xviii]  Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District (EIFD). Southern California Association of Governments. (2021, January 11). Retrieved October 3, 2022, from https://scag.ca.gov/post/enhanced-infrastructure-financing-district-eifd

[xix] City of Oakland Homeless Count & Survey. City of Oakland Homeless Count & Survey Comprehensive Report. (2019). Retrieved from https://everyonehome.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/2019HIRDReport_Oakland_2019-Final.pdf

[xx]  Office of Inspector General. (2020, November 13). Audit Report – Financial Management. CDFI Fund FY 2020. Retrieved from https://www.cdfifund.gov/sites/cdfi/files/2021-04/CDFI_FY20_AFR_508_Compliant.pdf

The Center for Housing Policy. (n.d.). ‘Don’t Put it Here!” Does Affordable Housing Cause Nearby Property Values to Decline? Insights from Housing Policy Research. Retrieved from https://furmancenter.org/files/media/Dont_Put_It_Here.pdf

[xxi] The Center for Housing Policy. (n.d.). ‘Don’t Put it Here!” Does Affordable Housing Cause Nearby Property Values to Decline? Insights from Housing Policy Research. Retrieved from https://furmancenter.org/files/media/Dont_Put_It_Here.pdf

[xxii] Legislation 22-0567. City of Oakland California. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://oakland.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5702686&GUID=503A10B7-417B-44A6-9D8B-B57BDA7D5683&Options=&Search=

[xxiii]  Measure KK at work! Oakland’s 2016 affordable housing and… City of Oakland. (n.d.). Retrieved October 3, 2022, from https://www.oaklandca.gov/topics/measure-kk-at-work

[xxiv]  CEOARE EIFD, https://vimeo.com/702161183/4b0b60df70

[xxv]  Atlantic Media Company. (2019). Grown In Oakland. The Atlantic. Retrieved October 4, 2022, from https://www.theatlantic.com/sponsored/allstate-2019/grown-oakland/3250/

[xxvi] Oakland Equity Indicators Project. (2018). Retrieved October 4, 2022, from https://www.oaklandca.gov/projects/oakland-equity-indicators

[xxvii] For example, with fewer homeless encampments on the street, the city will likely spend less on services such as putting up barriers to keep people safe from traffic and sanitation related services.

[xxviii] Data compiled over seven years by the San Francisco Department of Public Health showed the net public savings associated with supportive housing was estimated to be $13,095 per person per year.  A Los Angeles County study showed similar returns as well.

Sturtevant, L., & Viveiros, J. (2016, January). How Investing in Housing Can Save on Health Care. Housing Health Innovations in the Field. Retrieved from https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/health/program-areas/NHC_Invest_Housing_Save_Health_Care_2016.pdf

[xxix] Our Core Values. Health Care Services Agency – Alameda County’s Official Website. (n.d.). Retrieved October 3, 2022, from https://www.acgov.org/health/core-values.htm

[xxx] The Community Assessment, Planning, Education, and Evaluation (CAPE) Unit of the Alameda County Public Health Department (ACPHD). (2022). An update since our 2008 report “Life and Death from Unnatural Causes.” How Place, Racism, and Poverty Matter for Health in Alameda County. Retrieved from https://acphd-web-media.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/media/data-reports/fact-sheets-presentations/docs/healthequity.pdf

---

This REPORT contains examples of leading practices CEOARE is using to advance our mission, and is intended for informational and discussion purposes only. No representation, warranty or undertaking, express or implied, is made as to the fairness, accuracy, completeness or correctness of the information or the opinions contained herein. This presentation does not constitute professional advice or consultation. Companies are encouraged to work within their organizations to develop their own action plans, as applicable, taking into consideration the unique aspects of their business and applicable laws and regulations.