HomeMy WebLinkAboutforeclose2Rebuilding
neighboRhoods,
RestoRing health
a report on the impact of foreclosures on public health
PRoduced by a PaRtneRshiP between
causa Justa :: Just cause &
alameda county Public health department
Acknowledgements
This report was jointly produced by Causa Justa :: Just Cause (CJJC) and the Alameda County
Public Health Department (ACPHD). Many individuals and organizations contributed thought-
fully, tirelessly, and wholeheartedly to its development. We especially acknowledge and thank
all the East and West Oakland residents who shared their personal insights and experiences
through the door-to-door survey and one-on-one interviews. The foreclosure crisis has deeply
impacted many of these residents, and it is their voices and stories that we seek to underscore
and augment in this report.
Authors
Dawn Phillips, Program Director, CJJC
Robbie Clark, Housing Rights Lead Organizer, CJJC
Tammy Lee, Community Epidemiologist, ACPHD
Alexandra Desautels, Local Policy Coordinator, ACPHD
contributors
388 residents of East and West Oakland neighborhoods
Kimberly Isaac, CJJC member since 2000 and West Oakland resident
Karen Mims, CJJC member since 2009 and East Oakland resident
Maria Ramirez, CJJC member since 2009 and East Oakland resident
Joan Phillips, CJJC member since 2010 and East Oakland resident
survey outreach, data support, and Report Reviewers
Members of the National Civilian Community Corps
Vanessa Moses, Oakland Basebuilding Lead Organizer, CJJC
Paper Buck, CJJC volunteer
Justin Stein, CJJC volunteer
Sandra Witt, Deputy Director of Planning, Policy, and Health Equity, ACPHD
Jane Martin, Supervising Epidemiologist, ACPHD
Matt Beyers, Epidemiologist, ACPHD
Liz Maker, Evaluation Specialist, ACPHD
Sarah Martin-Anderson, Policy Consultant, ACPHD
Jennifer Aquino, ACPHD intern
Lauren Pettis, ACPHD intern
Report design and layout
Design Action Collective
Photo credits
David Velasquez, CJJC Intern
Tatiana Randal, CJJC Intern
Amber McZeal, Oakland Housing Organizer, CJJC
Report Funder
The California Endowment
Rebuilding Neighborhoods, Restoring Health | 3
Table of ConTenTs
foreword ..................................................................................................................................................................4
executive summary ................................................................................................................................................6
background: Roots of the Foreclosure Crisis ......................................................................................................10
Introduction: Foreclosures as a Public Health Crisis ..........................................................................................12
Research scope & Methodology ..........................................................................................................................13
survey sample.......................................................................................................................................................15
Research findings .................................................................................................................................................17
Oakland’s Low-income Communities of Color Hardest Hit .......................................................................17
Multiple Assaults on Individual and Community Health ...........................................................................19
Financial Instability: Loss of Wealth and Struggles to Make Ends Meet ..................................................20
Unemployment and Underemployment: Intensifying the Foreclosure Crisis .........................................22
Housing Instability: Forced Out of Homes and Into Unhealthy Living Conditions ..................................25
Psychological Distress: The Heavy Emotional Toll of Foreclosures .........................................................28
Mass Displacement: Uprooting Residents From Neighborhoods and Schools ......................................31
Vacant Foreclosed Properties: Spreading Blight, Crime, and Neighborhood Decay ..............................34
Economic Fallout: Plummeting Property Values and City Revenue .........................................................36
Conclusions & organizing, Policy, & Practice Implications ...............................................................................38
limitations & Technical notes .............................................................................................................................43
References ..............................................................................................................................................................44
4 | Rebuilding Neighborhoods, Restoring Health
Charlene Wedderburn
Causa Justa :: Just Cause
Board Chair, Member and
West Oakland Resident
How does one put a face on some of the most
daunting statistics that negatively impact health
and housing here in Oakland? As a native of
Oakland and long-time health and housing ad-
vocate, I know through personal experience that
African Americans/Blacks are disproportionately
the face and real lives that make up these horrific
statistics that persist and plague our communities.
As the disparity gap widens, there are those who
benefit at the expense of African Americans/Blacks.
Many are misled into believing that what is needed
is more money to figure out how to deal with this
dilemma. A lack of money is not the issue, rather
how that money is allocated and who gets to spend
it. While money is being pumped into research
grants, non-profit agencies, public health institu-
tions, sizeable salaries, creation of work places,
consultants, workshops/seminars, etc., all in the
pursuit to supposedly decrease and eliminate this
gap, it continues to grow. A large portion of the
money that organizations receive to provide servic-
es to this population should go to development and
investment in the people through tangible assets
and resources that will create productivity which
leads to self-sufficiency and a sense of pride and
self worth.
We know that African American/Black communities
have been targeted with predatory lending prac-
tices to racialized health care practices where there
is lack of access and in many cases sub-standard
care. African American/Black folks have become
the sub-economy for many who would not have
livelihoods if this segment of our population were
to become empowered to realize self-sufficiency
and self-determination.
We are at a critical juncture in our history. So much
havoc has been wreaked upon a community that
has been lulled to sleep through welfare programs
that create dependency and learned helpless-
ness, a criminal justice system that isn’t just, an
educational system that has low to no expectations
of our children, depletion of public housing stock
as a safety net, and the American dream of hom-
eownership snatched from under our feet with the
highest foreclosure rates of any group of people—
all of which negatively impact the general health
and well-being of our communities, not only here
in Oakland, but nationwide.
A new approach is needed in which the voices of
the African American/Black community which has
been most affected by these negative impacts,
needs to be invoked. This community will neces-
sarily have to rise up and take its rightful place as
well as ownership of its personal responsibility for
helping to eradicate the burdensome realities of
health and housing disparities because herein lay
the experts.
Causa Justa :: Just Cause and the Alameda County
Public Health Department are beginning this work
through “Rebuilding Neighborhoods, Restoring
Health: A Report on the Impact of Foreclosures on
Public Health.” It is imperative that organizations
such as these work in concert with the experts
(folks most impacted) to actualize real change and
solutions to an age-old problem.
As quoted from the report, “The multi-faceted na-
ture of the foreclosure crisis requires a holistic and
comprehensive approach to solving it and prevent-
ing it from happening again.”
anthony Iton, MD, JD, MPH
The California Endowment
Senior Vice President,
Healthy Communities
As we witness the profound and seemingly in-
exorable environmental devastation associated
with the disastrous deep-sea oil spill in the Gulf of
Mexico, many Americans feel a visceral and some-
what sickening sense of frustration and helpless-
ness. This slow-motion environmental and eco-
nomic catastrophe forces us to reconsider whether
there are clearer limits to the risks we are willing
to take to satiate our appetite for “cheap” energy.
foReWoRD
Rebuilding Neighborhoods, Restoring Health | 5
The disaster also acutely crystallizes the question
of how we strike the right balance between private
sector risk-taking and effective regulation that pro-
tects the interests of vulnerable populations and
other precious resources. While the BP oil spill
is the most recent and dramatic example of our
relatively hands-off approach to aggressive private
sector risk-taking, the banking and foreclosure
crisis and resultant world economic crisis are a re-
flection of the very same phenomenon.
Ultimately, decisions about the design of poli-
cies that balance these competing interests come
down to a question of values. Unfortunately, it
appears that we are still struggling in this country
to reach a stable consensus on the core values
that should serve as the underpinning of our
social policy and more clearly define the role of
government. Consequently, we are witnessing a
stark polarization between notions of individual
responsibility, market justice, laissez-faire capi-
talism, and small government versus notions of
social responsibility, environmental stewardship,
sustainability, equity, and fairness. Policies that
are firmly grounded in the latter values will help
steer us away from inevitable and extreme envi-
ronmental and economic crises that are propelled
by the reckless and profit-blinded actions of a
handful of private sector actors that feel no mean-
ingful regulatory constraints or consequences.
Until those who are strongly committed to a
sense of social and environmental stewardship
engage more effectively in the values battle-
ground, we will continue in the “damage control”
mode that has us cleaning up toxic spills, bury-
ing masses of people abandoned by Katrina-like
events, and trying to mitigate the health and so-
cial consequences of economic disasters such as
the foreclosure crisis. This vivid report reminds us
of the undeniable human health costs of inaction.
The foreclosure crisis, in conjunction with the as-
sociated surge in unemployment and larger eco-
nomic recession, has focused renewed attention
on the human health consequences of large-scale
social crises. While the association between hous-
ing stability and homeownership and health has
been documented in the public health literature,
the direct effects of foreclosure on health have
only recently begun to be explored. Thus this
ground-breaking and highly anticipated report by
Causta Justa :: Just Cause (CJJC) and the Alameda
County Public Health Department (ACPHD) will
greatly advance our understanding of this issue
and provide a tool for communities, advocates,
and policymakers to employ in the design of
thoughtful preventive and intervention strategies.
The report uses empirical data gathered from
hundreds of Oakland residents living in foreclo-
sure hotspots to illuminate in compelling detail
the profound acute and sustained consequences
of the foreclosure crisis, and the larger issue of
housing instability, on human health. The report
convincingly elucidates the fact that these health
consequences are interactive and synergistic
and occur at both the individual-level and the
larger community-level; thus wreaking havoc
not only on isolated families, but also on whole
neighborhoods in Oakland and Alameda County.
The report brilliantly delineates key pathways
through which these health consequences occur
and thereby offers policymakers a much deeper
insight into the inter-relatedness of housing
policy and health policy. Furthermore, the report
prescribes cogent city, county, state, and federal
policy approaches to mitigating the immediate
consequences of the foreclosure crisis in Oakland
and Alameda County and preventing future crises.
Prior research by ACPHD has demonstrated that
people who live in certain low-income neighbor-
hoods in Alameda County can expect to die, on
average, a decade or more before residents of
the rest of the County. These low-income neigh-
borhoods represent a constellation of socially
hazardous conditions that are not natural, but
instead the legacy of man-made policy. Through
portraying the tight relationship between the
foreclosure crisis and the physical and emotional
health of Oakland and Alameda County residents,
this report invites us to dedicate ourselves to the
creation of new social policy and systems change
that better reflect the values of equity, social jus-
tice, environmental stewardship, and community
responsibility. This work aligns squarely with the
mission, vision, and practice of The California
Endowment, which salutes CJJC and ACPHD for
demonstrating the data-driven, inter-sectoral, val-
ues-centered leadership that sustainable progress
in health equity demands.
6 | Rebuilding Neighborhoods, Restoring Health
An epidemic of foreclosures has struck Alameda
County, and Oakland in particular. Between 2006
and 2009, 42,553 property owners in Alameda
County and 14,941 property owners in Oakland re-
ceived a notice of default on their mortgage loan.
In Oakland, this means about 1 in 4 mortgages
began to enter into foreclosure during this 4-year
period. Low-income communities of color in East
and West Oakland have been especially hard hit.
Unfortunately, the situation is poised to get worse
as more adjustable rate mortgages reset, unem-
ployment rates remain unabated, and subprime
lending persists, particularly in communities of
color.
The economic repercussions of this foreclosure
crisis are at the forefront. But foreclosures are
also creating devastating health impacts – not
only for individuals and families undergoing the
process, but whole communities that are reeling
from its ripple effects and aftershocks. This re-
port aims to tell that untold story from the voices
and experiences of community members that
have been heavily impacted. The health impacts
exeCuTIve suMMaRy
of foreclosure are particularly detrimental since
many of the neighborhoods with the highest fore-
closure rates already bear the burden of the poor-
est health outcomes countywide.
Causa Justa :: Just Cause (CJJC) and the Alameda
County Public Health Department (ACPHD) have
partnered to assess and help alleviate health
impacts of foreclosure in Oakland’s hardest hit
neighborhoods. During the summer of 2009,
CJJC went door-to-door in select East and West
Oakland neighborhoods to conduct an in-depth
survey on the health impacts of foreclosure
(N=388 residents). Survey findings, supplement-
ed by local data and recent secondary research,
are presented in this report.
This report examines the many pathways by
which foreclosures are taking toll on individual
and community health. Below is a summary of
key findings regarding these pathways, followed
by recommendations to prevent and mitigate fur-
ther health impacts of foreclosure.
Pathway Diagram of Individual and Community Health Impacts of foreclosure
Rebuilding Neighborhoods, Restoring Health | 7
Housing Instability: Forced out of Homes
and into Unhealthy living conditions
Being without financial resources and affordable
housing options, many of the foreclosed are be-
ing forced to live in unstable, unaffordable, or
substandard living conditions that create stress
and health hazards. In our survey:
43% of tenants living in current or recent fore-•
closed buildings are worried about being evict-
ed or forced to move out, in spite of the Just
Cause for Eviction ordinance in Oakland.
31% of tenants in foreclosed buildings report •
they are now living in unhealthy places where
there are substandard conditions like mold,
rodents, and cockroaches.
Those currently/recently experiencing fore-•
closure are at 2 times greater risk of living in
more crowded living situations with five or
more persons.
Residents experiencing foreclosure and related
problems of housing instability are significantly
more likely to report that their physical health has
become worse over the past 2 years.
Key findings
Financial Instability: loss of wealth and
struggles to make ends meet
One of the most direct ways that foreclosure is
impacting health is through its crushing effects
on the financial stability of individuals and house-
holds. The foreclosed are making tough choices
with health implications, like paying for food,
housing, or healthcare. According to our survey:
Residents currently or recently experiencing •
foreclosure are 3 times less likely to feel their
income is enough to cover basic living ex-
penses (compared to those not experiencing
foreclosure).
About 4 in 10 residents currently or recently •
experiencing foreclosure report that they have
to limit spending on food and household main-
tenance/utilities when they lack money. Over 3
in 10 report they forego medical care.
Risks are particularly dire since over three-•
fourths of those currently or recently expe-
riencing foreclosure have children in their
household.
Unemployment and Underemployment:
Intensifying the Foreclosure crisis
Problems of financial instability and the foreclo-
sure crisis are exacerbated by unemployment and
underemployment. In the surveyed communities:
Over 1 in 5 residents is unemployed, and prob-•
lems of underemployment are widely evident.
More than 1 in 4 full-time workers and 2 in 3
part-time workers are looking for more or bet-
ter work.
The rate of foreclosure is over 2 times higher •
among the unemployed compared to those
working full-time or part-time.
Of those who are working, the rate of foreclo-•
sure is nearly 3 times higher among the un-
deremployed (as measured by those who are
working and yet seeking additional work)
Joan Phillips has lived in
her East Oakland home
for the past 55 years. She
was forced to take a job
with a lesser salary last
year and continues to
fight to get a loan modifi-
cation from her bank.
Kimberly Isaac fought
illegal eviction, water
shut-offs, mold, and
persistent vector
issues when a bank
took over the West
Oakland duplex where
she and her children
were tenants.
8 | Rebuilding Neighborhoods, Restoring Health
Psychological distress: the Heavy
emotional toll of Foreclosures
Experiences of foreclosure—as well as worry
about foreclosure risk—can have crippling effects
on the emotional wellbeing of individuals and
families. According to our survey:
Residents currently/recently experiencing •
foreclosure are 2 times more likely to report
that their mental/emotional health has become
worse over the past 2 years.
Foreclosed residents are over 2 times as likely •
to report that they’ve experienced problems
of stress, depression, or anxiety over the past
month (compared to those not foreclosed on).
Besides actual experiences of foreclosure, •
worry about personal and neighborhood risk
of foreclosure is associated with greater rates
of emotional health decline.
mass displacement: Uprooting Residents
from neighborhoods and schools
Homes root people in strong networks of com-
munity ties and neighborhood resources, and
foreclosures can disrupt these health-promoting
social connections. Among those currently experi-
encing foreclosure:
More than one-half have been long-standing res-•
idents of the neighborhood—33% for 10 or more
years and another 19% for 5 to 10 years.
Almost two-thirds report that they have ac-•
cess to family or friends, a school their chil-
dren go to, or church they attend in their
neighborhood.
Foreclosures can decrease social cohesion (i.e.,
levels of trust, interaction, and willingness to
help and work together to solve problems) and
increase isolation within communities. In ad-
dition, central community institutions, such
as schools, can be destabilized by mass dis-
placement and homelessness resulting from
foreclosures.
Vacant Foreclosed Properties: spawning
Blight, crime, and neighborhood decay
The foreclosure crisis has left behind vacant, ne-
glected properties that are blighting neighborhoods
and introducing community health risks. In addition
to being an eyesore and visual threat to stability,
vacant properties can become magnets for pests,
vandalism, trespassing, drug dealing, and other il-
legal activities. According to our survey:
43% of residents report that the amount of •
drug activity in their neighborhood has in-
creased over the past 2 years
39% report that the amount of violence has •
risen, and 47% of residents feel their neighbor-
hood is not a safe place to live.
economic Fallout: Plummeting Property
Values and city Revenue
Foreclosures, particularly when concentrated in
a particular area, can have a depressing effect on
property values. Property value decline dimin-
ishes tax revenue streams that fund municipal
services essential to community health. Declining
property values (and neighborhood conditions)
can spur neighborhood disinvestment or invite
property speculation by investors from outside
the community—which have long-term impacts
on community composition, stability, and health.
In our surveyed communities:
65% of residents report that property values •
have declined in their neighborhood over the
past 2 years.
“Foreclosures are depressing. They de-
crease morale and leave people with no
sense of ‘home’”.
“People who have been in the neighbor-
hood for years are getting kicked out.”
“Foreclosed properties are abandoned
and falling apart. Trash has built up and
yards are overgrown. People are squat-
ting in them. Drug dealers have made
territories.”
Rebuilding Neighborhoods, Restoring Health | 9
Improve the current federal Home Affordable 5.
Modification Program (HAMP).
Address housing instability and health
Support collaborations between schools and 6.
health/housing/community organizations to
develop comprehensive programs for mitigat-
ing the impact of foreclosures.
Increase referrals across housing and health 7.
agencies and co-locate housing and health ser-
vices so households facing foreclosure can get
needs met in one stop.
Enact state-level legislation that prohibits utility 8.
shut-off in foreclosed tenant buildings.
Pass a local foreclosure registration ordinance 9.
that applies to both vacant and tenant-
occupied properties.
Reuse foreclosed properties for affordable 10.
housing, using models such as the Oakland
Community Land Trust.
keep the foreclosure crisis from repeating
Enact federal legislation that will tighten regula-11.
tion of banks so as to prevent predatory, high-
risk lending and increase accountability.
Key Recommendations
A combination of community organizing and pol-
icy/practice solutions are needed to mitigate and
prevent further health impacts of the foreclosure
crisis. Causa Justa :: Just Cause continues to ad-
vance neighborhood organizing around foreclo-
sures using a variety of methods, such as:
Creating a foreclosure prevention “clinic” •
where homeowners and tenants get peer sup-
port to advocate and negotiate with banks and
financial institutions around their individual
loans;
Supporting neighbors to defend each other •
against the threat of tenant or homeowner
evictions through “home defense” actions;
Engaging residents in foreclosure policy efforts •
and mobilizations beyond the local level (state
and federal) that are being led by other commu-
nity, policy, labor, or faith organizations.
Changes in policy and practice are also essential
to prevent foreclosures, address housing insta-
bility and health, and keep the foreclosure crisis
from repeating. Below are examples of policies
and practices that could be implemented at the
federal/state/local levels:
Prevent foreclosures
Federal legislation should include foreclosure 1.
relief for families that have experienced sudden,
unavoidable unemployment or suffered a
significant loss of income.
Enact a statewide mandatory loan mediation 2.
program that requires banks to go to court
mediation with borrowers before allowing the
property to go into foreclosure.
Increase the availability of loan counseling for 3.
homeowners at risk of foreclosure, as well as
for tenants in foreclosed buildings.
Implement an Alameda County-wide eviction 4.
moratorium for households whose banks will
not attempt loan modifications and for tenant-
occupied foreclosed housing where tenants con-
tinue to pay rent.
“Oakland is going bankrupt. Foreclosures
are affecting loss of the city’s tax base
and services in the city.”
Signs like the one above have been posted on lawns on almost every
other block in the areas of East and West Oakland where we surveyed.
10 | Rebuilding Neighborhoods, Restoring Health
The suburbs grew and the inner cities rapidly de-
clined, as a result of government policies that sub-
sidized suburbanization and disinvested in inner
city communities. Population loss through white
flight, falling property values, and out-migration
of manufacturing and retail jobs from the cities to
the suburbs contributed to a severely weakened
economic base.2 Further complicating issues in
California was the passage of Prop 13 in 1978. Prop
13 lowered property taxes on both residential and
commercial property, contributing to the long-
standing fiscal problems facing cities and the state.
States’ and cities’ declining tax base coincided with
the rise in need for services. As jobs left the cities,
poverty increased. Additionally, cities’ population
loss contributed to an inability to maintain com-
munity assets, such as schools, grocery stores, and
local businesses. With city governments unable to
meet the growing demand for services, conditions
in inner city neighborhoods fell into steep decline.
Historically working class communities went from
being economically, politically, and socially vibrant
places to depressed, blighted areas.
Government urban renewal policies and real estate
speculation contributed to further instability and
displacement in the urban core. The Housing Act of
1949 provided federal funding to cities to acquire
and redevelop areas perceived as slums, widely
known as “urban renewal.” Beginning in the 1940s
and continuing until the 1970s, urban renewal
programs displaced whole communities of color,
further weakening community bonds and increas-
ing segregation.3 Real estate speculators were able
to take advantage of depressed property values by
buying up lots of land, reselling the housing at sub-
stantially higher prices, and eventually pricing long-
term homeowners out of their neighborhoods.
Until the current foreclosure crisis began sweep-
ing the nation in 2006 and 2007, homeownership
was widely regarded as the cornerstone of the
American Dream – symbolizing economic security,
status, and the pathway to a better future. The per-
vasiveness of this view implies that opportunities
to own a home have been equally available to all,
obscuring the fact that people of color have faced
and continue to face discriminatory policies and
practices that are barriers to homeownership. In
order to contextualize this report’s discussion of the
impact of the foreclosure crisis on health, we must
begin by recognizing the crisis’ roots in this nation’s
long history of policies that privileged some neigh-
borhoods and homebuyers over others.
Historically, federal housing policy increased ac-
cess to homeownership among whites, while
increasing housing instability and displacement
in communities of color. For instance, the Federal
Housing Authority (FHA), established in 1934, and
the GI Bill, passed in 1944, made homeownership,
and thus entry into the middle class, a reality for
millions of Americans. However, discriminatory
lending practices such as redlining – a govern-
ment-condoned practice where banks refused
to grant home-purchase loans in certain areas
based on their ethnic/racial composition – de-
nied many people of color from accessing these
government-supported homeownership opportu-
nities. Furthermore, until the 1960s, FHA-backed
loans were biased toward funding for suburban
housing, facilitating “white flight” from cities to
the suburbs, while under-funding loans for home
improvement and construction in urban areas.1
This directed housing resources away from urban
centers with large communities of color to the
burgeoning, almost exclusively white, suburbs.
baCKgRounD:
Roots of the foreclosure Crisis
RebuIlDIng neIgHboRHooDs,
ResToRIng HealTH:
a Report on the Impact of foreclosures on Public Health
Rebuilding Neighborhoods, Restoring Health | 11
As people of color, particularly African
Americans and Latinos, continued to
experience discrimination in the hous-
ing lending industry, the subprime
loan market exploded. Subprime
loans are loans that carry a higher
interest rate than prime loans because
the borrower is considered at higher
risk of non-repayment. Government
failure to strongly regulate the prac-
tices and actions of banks contributed
to the targeting of sub-prime loans
for home purchase, improvement and
refinancing to these same popula-
tions.6,7 In fact, evidence shows that
a majority of higher-cost subprime
loans made in the few years before
the start of the foreclosure crisis were
made to African American and Latino
borrowers who could have qualified
for lower-cost prime loans.25 While
subprime loans are not necessarily
predatory, the widespread practice of combining
subprime loans with features like adjustable rates
and balloon payments made these loans preda-
tory, as they made it very unlikely that the borrower
would be able to repay the loan. Since subprime
loans are more likely than prime loans to end in
foreclosure, the current foreclosure crisis is particu-
larly impacting these communities.
The foreclosure crisis is further devastating com-
munities of color in urban areas that have suffered
from decades of policies rooted in discrimination.
Nationally, foreclosures due to sub-prime loans are
expected to result in a loss of wealth for people of
color amounting to between $164 billion and $213
billion. This is considered the greatest loss of wealth
to communities of color in modern U.S. history.7 On
the other hand, by 2006, subprime loans generated
almost $1 trillion for the banking industry nation-
ally.8 Foreclosed communities are experiencing
another wave of decline, as houses sit vacant and
blight spreads. Households who have owned their
homes for decades – people who are the foundation
of the community – are being forced out through
foreclosure and speculation. Interrupting the cycle of
disinvestment and decline, and making stable hom-
eownership equally available to all, is critical to re-
build these neighborhoods and restore their health.
This history of housing discrimination, urban de-
cline, and neighborhood instability and displace-
ment is the context for the current foreclosure
crisis. While some of the most discriminatory
government policies were outlawed decades ago,
practices have not changed and de facto racism
continues. For instance, racial discrimination
in the housing lending industry was outlawed
through the Fair Housing Act of 1968 and the
Home Mortgage Disclosure Act of 1975, which
mandated bank disclosure of lending practices by
race and location of loan applications for home
purchasing, refinancing, or improvements.
Evidence indicates that people of color continue
to experience discrimination as they attempt to
access home purchase loans. Data in Alameda
County, from as recently as 2006, shows that 34%
of African American loan applicants in the high-
est income category were denied home mortgage
loans, while only 29% of White applicants in the
lowest income category were denied. Latinos and
low-income Asians were also much more likely
than Whites overall and high-income Asians to
be denied home purchase loans.4 Though there is
evidence of discrimination in home lending, fed-
eral enforcement of existing laws is insufficient for
holding banks accountable and ensuring equitable
access to home mortgage lending opportunities.5
CJJC’s “Can Oakland Trust Wells Fargo?” Campaign, Summer 2009
12 | Rebuilding Neighborhoods, Restoring Health
that foreclosures are having on individual resi-
dents and neighborhoods, we provide recom-
mendations to help mitigate and prevent further
health impacts in this report.
Through our community-based work, we recog-
nize the seriousness of this crisis and have seen
first-hand the depth of its impacts. We realize
that complex factors and conditions created
this unnatural disaster, and that creative and
holistic solutions are needed to address it. Most
clearly of all, we see the need to act quickly and
decisively to address the various aspects of the
problem before it gets any worse. This report is
our attempt to make sense of this troubling mo-
ment and hopefully begin to take steps towards
creating a brighter tomorrow for our families,
communities, and city.
While often viewed as an economic or housing
problem, mass foreclosures are, in fact, a public
health crisis. Foreclosures create devastating
health impacts – not only for those individu-
als and families undergoing the process, but
also whole communities that are reeling from
its ripple effects and aftershocks. This report
examines how the foreclosure epidemic is tak-
ing toll on individual and community health in
Oakland’s hardest hit neighborhoods.
Many of the neighborhoods experiencing the
highest foreclosure rates already bear the bur-
den of the poorest health outcomes countywide,
with the life expectancy in these areas being up
to 10 years less than other areas of the county.9
Current research indicates that these differ-
ences are driven primarily by social and eco-
nomic conditions, such as access to housing,
jobs, wealth-building opportunities, education,
parks, and grocery stores.10 The potential loss of
health, wealth, and stability in these communi-
ties presents an acute public health crisis that
must be mitigated.
This report describes in detail the pathways by
which foreclosures are threatening individual and
community wellbeing. Everything from physical
and emotional health, to school stability, to neigh-
borhood cleanliness, to property values and com-
munity safety are being affected. Important social
bonds and relationships between neighbors are
being torn apart as people are forced from their
homes. Foreclosures are changing the very make-
up and nature of Oakland neighborhoods and not
in positive, healthy ways.
This report is a critical product of a ground-
breaking partnership that has been forged
between Causa Justa :: Just Cause (CJJC) and
the Alameda County Public Health Department
(ACPHD) to assess and help alleviate health
impacts of the foreclosure crisis in some of
Oakland’s most vulnerable neighborhoods. In
addition to describing the multitude of impacts
InTRoDuCTIon:
foreclosures as a Public Health Crisis
Rebuilding Neighborhoods, Restoring Health | 13
Our sampling plan focused on high-risk census
block groups that scored 9 or 10.
To narrow the sample areas, we then overlaid 2.
the Foreclosure Abandonment Risk Score map
with a Notice of Default map.
Notices of Default (NOD) are legal notices
from the lender giving the homeowner 3
months to make up past payments. NODs are
widely considered the first publicly recorded
step in the foreclosure process. We included
the NOD data to ensure that the sample area
would include places where there were a high
percentage of households actually begin-
ning the foreclosure process. The NOD and
Foreclosure Abandonment Risk Score areas
combined gave us an indication of communi-
ties facing the greatest foreclosure risks and
displacement pressures.
To further hone our sample area, we consid-3.
ered crime rates. Crime rates were used as a
proxy for neighborhood disorder or distress.
Since CJJC would continue organizing resi-
dents in the areas we chose to sample, we
wanted to make sure the sample plan covered
some of Oakland’s neighborhoods with the
highest need for mobilization in response to
foreclosures as well as broader neighborhood
disorder/distress.
The location of other neighborhood-based 4.
initiatives was also taken into consideration.
For instance, in an effort to leverage Mayor
Dellums’ investments in specific East and
West Oakland neighborhoods through the
California Urban Communities Collaborative
(CUCC), we made sure that the survey
sampling areas overlapped with the CUCC
boundaries.
To arrive at the final target neighborhoods, 5.
we took into account current concentrations
of CJJC’s Oakland membership by voting
In an effort to reach out to highly affected com-
munities, begin to mobilize residents, provide
resources and assistance when possible, and in-
vestigate the health impacts of foreclosure, CJJC
went door-to-door during the summer of 2009 to
conduct an in-depth, semi-structured survey. The
survey included questions about housing and
neighborhood conditions, experiences with and
worry about foreclosure, individual and commu-
nity-level impacts of foreclosure, and health and
work status. CJJC also asked questions to plan
and prioritize its on-the-ground organizing efforts
in these neighborhoods to meet their greatest
needs. The findings of this survey, supplemented
by local data and recent secondary research, are
presented in this report.
The neighborhoods we surveyed were selected
using the following methodology:
We examined maps of foreclosure rates by 1.
census tract for Oakland and identified the
most highly impacted areas. However, these
areas were too large for the purposes of this
survey, so we decided to use the Department
of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD)
Foreclosure Abandonment Risk Scores, which
were at the Oakland census block group level.
HUD created the Foreclosure and
Abandonment Risk Score to make sure it tar-
geted Neighborhood Stabilization dollars to
areas with the highest level of risk for foreclo-
sure. This score uses a combination of fore-
closure risk factors and vacancy rates to rank
census blocks groups from 1-10, with 1 being
the lowest risk and 10 being the highest risk.
Foreclosure risk is estimated based upon:
The extent to which loans have been high •
cost or highly leveraged,
If home values in the metropolitan areas •
have fallen and by how much, and
The unemployment rate in 2008 and •
change between 2007 and 2008.
ReseaRCH sCoPe & MeTHoDology
14 | Rebuilding Neighborhoods, Restoring Health
precinct. These particular areas were selected
to strategically align CJJC’s general commu-
nity outreach with its civic engagement (voter
education and mobilization) and foreclosure
prevention work. As such, neighborhoods
were selected where CJJC had a sufficient
base of members to build upon, effectively or-
ganize, and fight against foreclosure and other
unjust housing conditions in these areas.
Here is a map that shows the target neighborhoods
where door-to-door surveying was conducted.
surveyed neighborhoods in West and east oakland
West Oakland East Oakland
Rebuilding Neighborhoods, Restoring Health | 15
We surveyed a total of 388 residents in East and
West Oakland target neighborhoods. As shown
in Figure 1, the survey sample was largely female,
but males were also substantially represented.
More than half of those surveyed included adults
(between ages 25-49), but youth, older adults, and
seniors also responded to the survey. The sample
was predominantly comprised of people of color,
most of whom were African Americans (63%) as
well as Latinos (18%).fig1
Ra
c
e
/
E
t
h
n
i
c
i
t
y
*
6%
1%
2%
3%
3%
8%
18
%
63
%
0%
10
%
20
%
30
%
40
%
50
%
60
%
70
%
Mixed Race
Arab/Middle Eastern
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander
American Indian/
Alaskan Native
Asian
White
Latino/Hispanic
Black/AfricanAmerican
% of respondents
Gender
Female
61%
Male
39%
Age
Seniors 65+9%Youth 18-2412%
Adults 25-4955%
Older Adults
50-6424%
*S
o
m
e
r
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
w
i
t
h
m
o
r
e
t
h
a
n
o
n
e
r
a
c
i
a
l
/
e
t
h
n
i
c
c
a
t
e
g
o
r
y.
fig1
Ra
c
e
/
E
t
h
n
i
c
i
t
y
*
6%
1%
2%
3%
3%
8%
18
%
63
%
0%
10
%
20
%
30
%
40
%
50
%
60
%
70
%
Mixed Race
Arab/Middle Eastern
Native Hawaiian/
Pacific Islander
American Indian/Alaskan Native
Asian
White
Latino/Hispanic
Black/African
American
% of respondents
Gender
Female61%
Male
39%
Age
Seniors 65+9%Youth 18-2412%
Adults 25-4955%
Older Adults
50-6424%
*S
o
m
e
r
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
w
i
t
h
m
o
r
e
t
h
a
n
o
n
e
r
a
c
i
a
l
/
e
t
h
n
i
c
c
a
t
e
g
o
r
y.
Ra
c
e
/
E
t
h
n
i
c
i
t
y
^
6%
1%
2%
3%
3%
8%
18%
63%
0%10%20
%
30
%
40
%
50
%
60
%
70
%
Mixed Race
Arab/Middle Eastern
Native Hawaiian/
Pacific Islander
American Indian/
Alaskan Native
Asian
White
Latino/Hispanic
Black/African
American
% of respondents
Gender
Female61%
Male
39%
Age
Seniors 65+9%Youth 18-2412%
Adults 25-49
55%
Older Adults
50-6424%
fig1
^S
o
m
e
r
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
w
i
t
h
m
o
r
e
t
h
a
n
o
n
e
r
a
c
i
a
l
/
e
t
h
n
i
c
c
a
t
e
g
o
r
y.
figure 1: sample Demographics by gender, age, and Race/ethnicity
suRvey saMPle
The sample included residents who have lived in
the neighborhood for varying lengths of time, with
the largest proportions of residents having lived in
their neighborhood for 1 to 5 years and 20+ years.
Tenants renting from private landlords or living in
public/section 8 housing represented two-thirds of
the sample, and home owners comprised much of
the remaining one-third. (Figer 2, next page).
Most of those surveyed lived in households with 3
or more people, and a majority (60%) had children
living with them. (Figure 3, next page).
Race/Ethnicity^
6%
1%2%3%3%
8%
18
%
63
%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40
%
50%
60 %
70
%
Mi
x
e
d
R
a
c
e
Ar
a
b
/
M
i
d
d
l
e
E
a
s
t
e
r
n
Na
t
i
v
e
H
a
w
a
i
i
a
n
/
Pa
c
i
f
i
c
I
s
l
a
n
d
e
r
Am
e
r
i
c
a
n
I
n
d
i
a
n
/
Al
a
s
k
a
n
N
a
t
i
v
e
As
i
a
n
Wh
i
t
e
La
t
i
n
o
/
H
i
s
p
a
n
i
c
Bl
a
c
k
/
A
f
r
i
c
a
n
Am
e
r
i
c
a
n
%
o
f
r
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s
Ge
n
d
e
r
Fe
m
a
l
e
61
%
Ma
l
e
39
%
Ag
e
Se
n
i
o
r
s
6
5
+
9%
Yo
ut
h
1
8
-
2
4
12
%
Ad
u
l
t
s
2
5
-
4
9
55
%
Ol
d
e
r
A
d
u
l
t
s
50
-
6
4
24
%
fi
g
1
^Some respondents identified with more than one racial/ethnic category.
Race/Ethnicity^
6%
1%2%3%3%
8%
18
%
63
%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60 %
70 %
Mi
x
e
d
R
a
c
e
Ar
a
b
/
M
i
d
d
l
e
E
a
s
t
e
r
n
Na
t
i
v
e
H
a
w
a
i
i
a
n
/
Pa
c
i
f
i
c
I
s
l
a
n
d
e
r
Am
e
r
i
c
a
n
I
n
d
i
a
n
/
Al
a
s
k
a
n
N
a
t
i
v
e
As
i
a
n
Wh
i
t
e
La
t
i
n
o
/
H
i
s
p
a
n
i
c
Bl
a
c
k
/
A
f
r
i
c
a
n
Am
e
r
i
c
a
n
%
o
f
r
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s
Ge
n
d
e
r
Fe
m
a
l
e
61
%
Ma
l
e
39
%
Ag
e
Se
n
i
o
r
s
6
5
+
9%
Yo
ut
h
1
8
-
2
4
12
%
Ad
u
l
t
s
2
5
-
4
9
55
%
Ol
d
e
r
A
d
u
l
t
s
50
-
6
4
24
%
fi
g
1
^Some respondents identified with more than one racial/ethnic category.
16 | Rebuilding Neighborhoods, Restoring Health
figure 3: sample Demographics by
Household size
fig3
Number of Persons in Household
1-2 persons
29%5-7 persons26%
7+ persons
5%
3-4 persons
40%
Number of Children in Household
0 children
40%
1-2 children43%
3-4 children
15%
5+ children2%
figure 2: sample Demographics by
length of Residence and Housing Tenure
fig2
Length of residence:
How long have you lived in this neighborhood?
Less than 1 yr
17%20+ yrs23%
10-19 yrs14%
5-9 yrs17%
1-4 yrs
29%
Housing Tenure
Rent
67%
Other living arrangements
4%
Own29%
Type of Tenant
58%
21%19%
0%
15%
30%
45%
60%
75%
Private
landlord
Public housing Section 8
%
o
f
r
e
n
t
r
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s
fig2
Length of residence:
How long have you lived in this neighborhood?
Less than 1 yr17%20+ yrs
23%
10-19 yrs
14%
5-9 yrs
17%
1-4 yrs29%
Housing Tenure
Rent67%
Other living
arrangements
4%
Own
29%
Type of Tenant
58%
21%19%
0%
15%
30%
45%
60%
75%
Private
landlord
Public housing Section 8
%
o
f
r
e
n
t
r
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s
fig2
Length of residence:
How long have you lived in this neighborhood?
Less than 1 yr17%20+ yrs23%
10-19 yrs14%
5-9 yrs
17%
1-4 yrs
29%
Housing Tenure
Rent67%
Other living arrangements
4%
Own
29%
Type of Tenant
58%
21%19%
0%
15%
30%
45%
60%
75%
Privatelandlord Public housing Section 8
%
o
f
r
e
n
t
r
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s
fig3
Number of Persons in Household
1-2 persons29%5-7 persons26%
7+ persons
5%
3-4 persons
40%
Number of Children in Household
0 children
40%
1-2 children
43%
3-4 children
15%
5+ children
2%
Rebuilding Neighborhoods, Restoring Health | 17
Our survey data underscores how foreclosures
have been hard-hitting and far-reaching in East
and West Oakland neighborhoods. Not all notices
of default end in foreclosure. Survey respondents
were asked if they are currently experiencing or
have experienced a foreclosure within the past
2 years. 13% of residents report that they have
experienced a current or recent foreclosure. 39%
of residents report that they have a family mem-
ber or neighbor that has recently undergone
foreclosure. A majority of residents (59%) report
that some or many homes in their neighborhood
have been foreclosed upon over the past 2 years
(Figure 5, next page).
An epidemic of foreclosures has struck Alameda
County, and Oakland in particular. The Oakland-
Fremont-Hayward Metropolitan Statistical Area
(MSA) ranks #24 out of 378 MSAs in terms of pro-
jected foreclosure rates for subprime loans origi-
nated in 2006.11 Figure 4 illustrates that:
In Alameda County, the highest rates of no-•
tices of default have been concentrated in
West and East Oakland, as well as parts of San
Antonio/ Fruitvale, Ashland, Hayward, and
Berkeley12.
Between 2006-2009, about 1 in 4 mortgages in •
Oakland began to enter into foreclosure (i.e.,
owner received a notice of default).
ReseaRCH fInDIngs
oakland’s low-income Communities of Color Hardest Hit
figure 4: Rates of notices of Default in alameda County, 2006-2009^
^Rates are calculated based on the number of notices of default issued between 2006-2009 divided by the approximate number of mortgages as of 2008.
18 | Rebuilding Neighborhoods, Restoring Health
over 1 in 10 residents are currently
experiencing a foreclosure or have been
foreclosed on in the past 2 years.
nearly 4 in 10 residents have a family
member or neighbor that has recently
experienced a foreclosure.
Almost 6 in 10 residents report that some or
many homes have undergone foreclosure in
their neighborhood over the past 2 years.
For some homeowners, particularly those with
adjustable rate mortgages (ARMs), the threat of
foreclosure looms. There are likely to be more
foreclosures on the horizon in these communi-
ties, as ARMs reset, homeowners face difficulty
refinancing underwater loans, and unemployment
continues to strain homeowners’ ability to cover
mortgage costs. Figure 6 shows that 22% of sur-
veyed homeowners report that they have an ad-
justable rate mortgage. A majority of homeowners
with ARMs report that they are having trouble pay-
ing their monthly mortgage (58%), difficulty with
increased or increasing mortgage payments (71%),
or are stuck in an undesirable home loan (71%).
figure 5: Widespread experiences of
foreclosure in surveyed neighborhoods
fig6
Type of Mortgage
42%
22%
9%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Fixed rate
mortgage
Adjustable rate
mortgage
Don't know
Financial Difficulty by Type of Mortgage*
21%
9%7%
58%
71%71%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
Trouble paying
monthly mortgage
Difficulty with
increased or soon-to-
be increasing
mortgage payments
Being stuck in an
undesirable home loan
%
o
f
h
o
m
e
o
w
n
e
r
r
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s
Fixed rate mortgage Adjustable rate mortgage
2.8 times
more likely
7.6 times
more likely
10.2 times more
likely
%
o
f
h
o
m
e
o
w
n
e
r
r
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s
fig6
Type of Mortgage
42%
22%
9%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Fixed rate
mortgage
Adjustable rate
mortgage
Don't know
Financial Difficulty by Type of Mortgage*
21%
9%7%
58%
71%71%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
Trouble paying
monthly mortgage
Difficulty with
increased or soon-to-
be increasing
mortgage payments
Being stuck in an
undesirable home loan
% o
f
h
o
m
e
o
w
n
e
r
r
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s
Fixed rate mortgage Adjustable rate mortgage
2.8 times more likely
7.6 times more likely
10.2 times
more likely
%
o
f
h
o
m
e
o
w
n
e
r
r
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s
figure 6: Threat of More foreclosures
on the Horizon
Over 1 in 5 homeowners has an adjust-
able rate mortgage. This puts them at
increased risk of being unable to pay their
mortgage, afford increased payments
once loans reset, or modify loans to more
desirable terms.
*Statistically significant relationships and differences between groups based on chisquare
testing (p ≤ 0.05) are denoted with an asterisk here and throughout the report.
Rebuilding Neighborhoods, Restoring Health | 19
disrupting social bonds and resource connections;
undermining school stability and performance;
spawning blight, crime, and other deleterious
neighborhood conditions; and diminishing eco-
nomic capital within communities—all of which
have negative health consequences.
Below is a pathway diagram illustrating these
individual and community-level health impacts.
More in-depth findings on each pathway will be
subsequently presented. (Figure 7).
This survey identifies multiple pathways by which
foreclosures are taking toll on individual and com-
munity health in Oakland. Individual households
and families undergoing foreclosure are suffering
from physical and emotional health impacts as a
result of financial instability, unhealthy housing
conditions, and overwhelming stress.
Moreover, foreclosed households/families are not
the only ones experiencing health impacts of fore-
closure; whole communities are reeling from the
shock of foreclosure’s ill effects. Foreclosures are
Multiple assaults on Individual and Community Health
figure 7: Pathway Diagram of Individual and Community Health Impacts of foreclosure
20 | Rebuilding Neighborhoods, Restoring Health
effects on future loan borrowing, home owner-
ship, and wealth-building potential. When indi-
viduals/families are stripped of their accumulated
and potential wealth, it can have long-lasting and
multi-generational consequences. The health im-
plications are profound, since wealth is a primary
portal through which the prerequisites for good
health are obtained.
One of the most direct ways that foreclosure is
impacting health is through its crushing effects
on the financial stability of individuals and house-
holds. Beyond causing the loss of homes, foreclo-
sures lead to a loss of equity that is highly signifi-
cant since this constitutes the greatest financial
asset held by many homeowners. In addition, a
foreclosure is a credit-killing event—it has lasting
financial Instability:
loss of Wealth and struggles to Make ends Meet
Wealth is strongly linked to better health.
Wealth provides a buffer during hard times
so that a family can still meet its basic need
for housing, food, and transportation, even
when income is temporarily disrupted, such
as with the loss of a job. Limited wealth, on
the other hand, forces families to make un-
healthy trade-offs, such as deciding between
purchasing nutritious food, medical care,
or child care. Wealth also allows families
to make investments in the areas of educa-
tion or training, which in turn improves their
job prospects and increases their incomes.
Additionally, wealth allows families to secure
housing in neighborhoods where they are
less likely to be exposed to crime and envi-
ronment hazards, such as diesel pollution,
and have access to quality schools—all of
which are essential for good health.
The intergenerational transfer of wealth—the
passing of wealth from parents to children—is
one way families not only maintain economic
security, but improve their economic status with
each passing generation. For example, young
adults whose parents help them pay for col-
lege enter into life with less debt and are more
competitive in the job market, improving their
chances for long-term economic health. In this
country, homeownership is a primary way fami-
lies build and transfer wealth from one genera-
tion to the next.
According to United for a Fair Economy’s report,
Foreclosed: State of the Dream13, the total loss of
wealth for people of color due to subprime
loans taken out in the last eight years is esti-
mated between $164 billion and $213 billion.
United for a Fair Economy asserts that this is the
greatest loss of wealth for people of color in mod-
ern US history. Specifically, African American sub-
prime loan borrowers will lose between $71 and
$92 billion and Latino borrowers will lose between
$75 billion and $99 billion due to subprime loans.
The discriminatory lending practices that resulted in
communities of color being targeted for sub-prime
loans are directly responsible for the fact that this
loss of wealth is disproportionately concentrated in
Latino and African American communities. United
for a Fair Economy reports, “If subprime loans had
been distributed equitably, losses for white people
would be 44.5% higher and losses for people of
color would be about 24% lower. This is evidence of
systemic prejudice and institutional racism.”
Even before the foreclosure crisis began, United
for a Fair Economy estimated that, based on the
rate of wealth accumulation between 1982 and
2004 among Euro-Americans, as compared to
African Americans, it would take 594 years before
both racial groups had equal access to wealth.
Given the current massive loss of wealth in the
African American community, it will probably
take much longer.
foreclosures and loss of Wealth for People of Color
Rebuilding Neighborhoods, Restoring Health | 21
Besides long-term effects on wealth and health,
foreclosures can create immediate financial hard-
ship in households struggling to make ends meet
on a daily basis. In our survey, only 12% of those
currently or recently experiencing foreclosure felt
their income is enough to cover all their living
expenses compared to 41% of residents that have
not experienced foreclosure (Figure 8).
fig8
Income Sufficiency by Foreclosure Status:*
Do you feel like your current income is enough to
cover all of your expenses?
12%
41%
88%
59%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Currently or recently
foreclosed on
Not foreclosed on
%
o
f
r
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s
No, income not enough to cover expenses
Yes, income enough
In the face of income constraints, the foreclosed
are highly likely to have to make difficult choices
like paying for food, housing, or healthcare
(Figure 9). The inability to meet these most basic
needs directly impacts health through hunger,
malnutrition, uninhabitable or unstable living con-
ditions, and untreated medical problems.
figure 8: lack of Income to Cover basic
needs of the foreclosed
figure 9: unhealthy Tradeoffs in
foreclosed Households
fig9
Foregone Household Expenses:
What needs do you give up when you don't have enough money to cover expenses?
42%40%
31%
22%
33%
26%24%
13%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Household maintenance/utilities Food*Medical care Childcare
%
o
f
r
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s
Currently or Recently Foreclosed On Not Foreclosed On
Our survey reveals that:
About 4 in 10 residents currently or recently •
experiencing foreclosure report that they limit
spending on food and household mainte-
nance/utilities when they lack money.
Over 3 in 10 foreclosed residents report that •
they forego medical care.
Risks are particularly dire since over three-•
fourths of those currently or recently expe-
riencing foreclosure have children in their
household.
The foreclosed are 3.4 times less likely
to feel they can make ends meet.
22 | Rebuilding Neighborhoods, Restoring Health
figure 10: High Rates of unemployment
and underemployment in foreclosed
Communities
fig10
Current Work Status^
6%
11%
12%
14%
22%
22%
26%
0%5%10%15%20%25%30%
Homemaker
Unable to work
Student
Retired
Unemployed
Parttime
Fulltime
% of respondents
Looking for Work or Additional Work
28%
69%66%
21%
0%
15%
30%
45%
60%
75%
Working full-
time
Working part-
time
Unemployed Other
%
o
f
r
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s
fig11
Main reasons for Trouble Paying Rent/Mortgage
50%47%45%
24%21%
14%13%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Job loss/loss of wages Low pay/wages Too many otherexpenses Increased rent ormortgage
payments
Medicalexpenses/health
problems
Increase innumber of
dependents to
support
Other tenantshave moved out
%
o
f
r
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s
unemployment and underemployment:
Intensifying the foreclosure Crisis
Job or wage loss and low pay are the main rea-
sons reported for why residents have trouble pay-
ing their rent or mortgage. Among those having
difficulty paying monthly rent or mortgage, 50%
say the problem is due to job/wage loss and 47%
attribute low pay (Figure 11, below). This sug-
gests that unemployment and underemployment
are key drivers of the continued foreclosure crisis
in these communities.
^Some respondents identified with more than one work status category.
Problems of financial instability and the foreclo-
sure crisis are exacerbated by unemployment
and underemployment. Many of the communities
hardest hit by foreclosure are also suffering from
the highest rates of joblessness. While predatory
lending drove the initial waves of foreclosure,
unemployment is increasingly compounding the
problem for many residents. In the surveyed com-
munities, 22% of residents report they are unem-
ployed. Underemployment is also pervasive, with
28% of full-time workers and 69% of part-time
workers reporting that they are looking for work
or additional work (Figure 10, on right).fig10
Current Work Status^
6%
11%
12%
14%
22%
22%
26%
0%5%10%15%20%25%30%
Homemaker
Unable to work
Student
Retired
Unemployed
Parttime
Fulltime
% of respondents
Looking for Work or Additional Work
28%
69%66%
21%
0%
15%
30%
45%
60%
75%
Working full-
time
Working part-
time
Unemployed Other
%
o
f
r
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s
figure 11: Main Reasons for Trouble
Paying Rent or Mortgage
Over 1 in 5 residents are unemployed.
More than 1 in 4 full-time workers and
2 in 3 part-time workers are looking for
more or better work.
The top reasons why residents have
trouble paying rent or mortgage are
job/wage loss and low pay.
Rebuilding Neighborhoods, Restoring Health | 23
Our survey shows that the unemployed and un-
deremployed are at increased risk of foreclosure
(Figure 12, next page). The rate of foreclosure is
about 2.5 times higher among the unemployed
(23%) compared to those working full-time (9%)
or part-time (10%). Of those who are working, the
rate of foreclosure is 2.7 times higher among the
underemployed (as measured by those who are
working and yet seeking additional work).
Joan has lived in her East Oakland home for the past 55 years, her whole
life. She inherited her home from her parents, who passed it down to her
and her sister. Due to the current economic crisis, Joan had to change
jobs, and her salary was cut.
Since then, she has been trying to get the bank to modify her home loan. “We
need to make the banks more accessible to people—one person would say
one thing, then another something else. The banks would have me running
around, with different representatives telling me different things.”
After almost a year, Joan is still working to get her loan modified. “I had to do a lot of paperwork,
backtrack, and get a lot of check stubs, verifications, bank statements, and proof of ownership.
It’s taking lots of time—I started in June of 2009. There aren’t any laws that are strong enough to
make sure that banks are acting responsibly.”
“Banks need to be reasonable, listen to people’s stories, and have compassion for what they are
going through.” Often the loan officers that are in charge of modifying loans do not speak direct-
ly to the borrower. There needs to be laws that make the banks speak to borrowers before fore-
closure and transparency in the modification process. “One week they say it will take 6-8 weeks
and then you don’t hear from the banks for months, and during this time, you’re still expected to
be making payments.”
Joan continues to fight to get a loan modification from Bank of America so she can be granted
lower monthly payments that she can afford on her reduced income.
Joan Phillips
fighting foreclosure in the face of Wage loss
CJJC member since 2010
24 | Rebuilding Neighborhoods, Restoring Health
fig12
Foreclosure Rates by Work Status*
9%
10%
13%
23%
0%5%10%15%20%25%
Working fulltime
Working part-time
Other (homemaker, student,
retired, unable to work)
Unemployed
% who are currently or recently experiencing foreclosure
Foreclosure rates by Underemployment Status*
5%
14%
0%2%4%6%8%10%12%14%16%
Not looking for
additional work
Looking for
additional work
% who are currently or recently experiencing foreclosure
figure 12: Higher Rates of
foreclosure among the unemployed and underemployed
The underemployed are nearly 3 times
more likely to be undergoing foreclosure.
The unemployed are over 2 times more likely to be undergoing
foreclosure than the working.
fig12
Foreclosure Rates by Work Status*
9%
10%
13%
23%
0%5%10%15%20%25%
Working fulltime
Working part-time
Other (homemaker, student,
retired, unable to work)
Unemployed
% who are currently or recently experiencing foreclosure
Foreclosure rates by Underemployment Status*
5%
14%
0%2%4%6%8%10%12%14%16%
Not looking for
additional work
Looking for
additional work
% who are currently or recently experiencing foreclosure
As people lose their homes to foreclosure, de-
mand for rental properties tends to increase. In
Alameda County, declining vacancy rates and
rising rental prices suggest that demand for af-
fordable rental housing has exceeded its supply.
The rental vacancy rate has decreased from 7.4%
in 2004 to 1.8% in 2008, and the average rental
price has increased from $949 in 2004 to $1,108
in 2008. The increase in rental demand and pric-
ing has been dampened by foreclosed individuals
doubling up with roommates, friends, and family
(instead of moving to rentals) as well as unsold
condos and foreclosed homes being turned into
rentals. While these forces are softening the
rental market, affordable housing options for the
foreclosed continue to be in short supply.
In surveyed communities, 62% of residents cur-
rently or recently experiencing a foreclosure as-
sert that the availability of affordable housing in
their neighborhood has decreased over the past 2
years (Figure 13, on right).
Being without financial resources and afford-
able housing options, many of the foreclosed
are being forced to live in unstable, unafford-
able, or substandard living conditions that cre-
ate stress and health hazards. Figure 14 (below)
shows that many tenants in currently or recently
foreclosed buildings are now living in unstable
housing situations where they worry about be-
ing evicted or forced to move out, in spite of the
Just Cause for Eviction ordinance in Oakland.
Others are residing in places with unaffordable
rent or substandard living conditions like mold,
rodents, and cockroaches. Some report that basic
utilities like water or heat have been illegally shut
off or threatened to be shut off. Still others have
become homeless—doubling up with friends and
relatives and without a regular place to live.
Housing Instability: forced out of Homes and into
unhealthy living Conditions
Many tenants that have currently/recently
experienced foreclosure are now living
in unstable, unaffordable, or substandard
conditions.
figure 14: Problems of Housing
Instability among the foreclosed
fig14
43%
37%
31%29%
11%11%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Worry about being
evicted or forced to
move out
Trouble paying rent Unhealthy living
conditions (mold,
rodents,
cockroaches)
Having utilities shut
off or threated to be
shut off
Not having a regular
place to live
Overcrowded living
conditions
%
o
f
t
e
n
a
n
t
r
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s
fig13
Perceptions about affordable housing supply:
Increased20%
Decreased62%Stayed the same18%
Over the past 2 years, would you say the
availability of affordable housing has increased,
stayed the same, or decreased?
figure 13: lack of affordable Housing in
foreclosed Communities
Over 6 in 10 foreclosed residents report
availability of affordable housing has declined.
Rebuilding Neighborhoods, Restoring Health | 25
26 | Rebuilding Neighborhoods, Restoring Health
Kimberly Isaac
Right to stay and live in Habitable Conditions
CJJC member since 2000
In the summer of 2006, when Kimberly was 8 months pregnant with the
youngest of her 7 children, Countrywide Bank foreclosed on the West
Oakland Duplex she had been renting in for the past 10 years and tried to
illegally evict her. For 2 years, Kimberly and her family fought the bank’s
illegal eviction.
Over the period when the bank was their landlord, Kimberly and her fam-
ily experienced water shut-offs, mold, and persistent vector issues. “The
mold was making my kids sick….The kids were throwing up, they couldn’t
eat, and they would just lie around. It was kinda like the flu, but I knew it
wasn’t the flu because they kept getting sick month after month. I told the doctor about it, and
she actually wrote a note to the property owners.”
Once banks foreclose on a tenant occupied property, they become landlords. “When they (the
banks) take over, they are the ones who are supposed to maintain it.” Kimberly’s story led our
fight to keep water on for tenants in foreclosed properties.
Oakland tenants are protected from being evicted in foreclosure by the Just Cause eviction law,
so when the banks foreclose on a property and stop paying the water bill, it’s an indirect method
to illegally evict people from their homes by making them inhabitable. “They (banks) need to be
held responsible, instead of tricking people and telling them they need to move. I didn’t let them—I
fought back. A lot of people right now are homeless because they didn’t know their rights.”
In our survey, over half (or 54%) of those current-
ly/recently experiencing foreclosure report they
are living with five or more persons compared
to just over one-fourth (or 27%) of residents not
foreclosed on—a 2 times greater risk of living in
more crowded living situations (Figure 15).
Housing instability and foreclosures are signifi-
cantly related to poorer health outcomes (Figure
16, next page). According to our survey:
Residents who have experienced foreclosure •
within the past 2 years are 1.6 times more
likely to report that their physical health has
declined over this time period.
Tenants experiencing greater problems of •
housing instability, like worry about eviction,
unaffordable rent, or crowded living condi-
tions—in general or as a result of foreclo-
sure—are also more likely to report physical
health decline.
fig15
Household size by foreclosure status*
31%20%
42%
26%
24%
43%
11%
3%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Not foreclosed on Recently/currently
foreclosed on
%
o
f
r
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s
7+ persons
5-7 persons
3-4 persons
1-2 persons
figure 15: Crowded living Conditions
among the foreclosed
The foreclosed are 2 times more likely to
live in housing with 5+ persons.
Rebuilding Neighborhoods, Restoring Health | 27
Unhealthy living conditions like mold, rodents and
cockroaches put children and adults at increased
risk of asthma and other respiratory problems.
The reported rate of asthma diagnosis is 1.8 times
higher among tenants in unhealthy rental condi-
tions and 4.3-5.0 times higher among homeown-
ers (Figure 18).
figure 18: Increased Risk of asthma in
unhealthy living Conditions
Tenants living in overcrowded, unhealthy (with
mold, rodents, or cockroaches), or unstable (in
terms of worry about eviction or forced move-out)
housing conditions are more likely to report poor
or fair health (as opposed to good, very good, or
excellent health) (Figure 17). Self-reported health
status is a widely used and reliable measure of
general physical well-being14.
fig16
Physical health status over past 2 years
by foreclosure status*
76%62%
24%38%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Not foreclosed on Currently/recently foreclosed on
Become worse
Improved or stayed same
Physical health status over past 2 years
by level of housing instability*
85%
65%60%
15%
35%40%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
No housing problems 1-2 housing problems 3+ housing problems
Become worse
Improved or stayed same
1.6 times more likely to report physical health
decline
%
o
f
r
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s
re
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
h
e
a
l
t
h
s
t
a
t
u
s
%
o
f
t
e
n
a
n
t
r
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s
re
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
h
e
a
l
t
h
s
t
a
t
u
s
figure 16: foreclosure and Physical
Health Decline
fig16
Physical health status over past 2 years
by foreclosure status*
76%62%
24%38%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Not foreclosed onCurrently/recently foreclosed on
Become worse
Improved or stayed same
Physical health status over past 2 years
by level of housing instability*
85%
65%60%
15%
35%40%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
No housing problems 1-2 housing problems 3+ housing problems
Become worse
Improved or stayed same
1.6 times more
likely to report physical health decline
% o
f
r
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s
re
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
h
e
a
l
t
h
s
t
a
t
u
s
%
o
f
t
e
n
a
n
t
r
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s
re
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
h
e
a
l
t
h
s
t
a
t
u
s
figure 17: negative Housing Conditions
and self-Reported Health status
fig17
Perceived Health Status by Housing Situation*
71%
43%
74%
50%
72%
52%
29%
57%
26%
50%
28%
48%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Not overcrowded Overcrowded
living conditions
Not unhealthy Unhealthy living
conditions
Not worried Worry about being
evicted or forced
to move out
Poor/fair health
Good/very good/
excellent health
1.9 times more likely to report
poor/fair health
1.9 times more likely to
report poor/fair health
1.7 times more likely to report
poor/fair health
%
o
f
t
e
n
a
n
t
r
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s
re
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
h
e
a
l
t
h
s
t
a
t
u
s
Asthma Diagnosis by Housing Situation*
29%
35%33%
38%
16%
20%
7%9%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
Asthma (self)Asthma (child inhousehold)Asthma (self)Asthma (other adult)
Risk of asthma nearly 2 times higher in unhealthy rental conditions Risk of asthma 4-5 times higher in unhealthy house conditions
Tenants Homeowners
%
w
i
t
h
a
s
t
h
m
a
d
i
a
g
n
o
s
e
d
Unhealthy living conditions (like mold, rodents, cockroaches)
Not unhealthy
Residents experiencing
foreclosure and housing
instability are more likely to
report physical health decline
over the past 2 years.
28 | Rebuilding Neighborhoods, Restoring Health
In addition to physical health impacts, foreclo-
sures can have crippling effects on the emotional
wellbeing and stability of individuals/families.
Experiences of foreclosure, as well as worry about
foreclosure risk, cause tremendous psychological
distress. Stress due to housing instability is associ-
ated with a greater likelihood of developing hyper-
tension, lower levels of psychological well-being,
and increased visits to the ER. Surveyed residents
described how foreclosures can lead to feelings of
depression, hopelessness, anxiety, overwhelming
stress, and anger (Figure 19).
Psychological Distress:
The Heavy emotional Toll of foreclosures
Our survey suggests that foreclosures are hav-
ing negative impacts on emotional/mental health.
Specifically:
Almost one-third (or 31%) of residents cur-•
rently/recently experiencing foreclosure report
that their mental/emotional health has become
worse over the past 2 years, compared to 16%
of residents not experiencing foreclosure—a
2-fold difference in risk (Figure 20, top right).
In addition, 44% of foreclosed residents report •
that they have experienced problems with stress,
depression, or anxiety over the past month,
compared to 20% of those not foreclosed on—a
2.2 times greater rate of mental/emotional health
problems (Figure 21, lower right).
figure 19: Residents speak out on
foreclosures and Psychological Distress
“Foreclosures are de-
pressing. they decrease
morale and leave people with no sense of ‘home’.”
“Personalities are
different with all these foreclosures. People are angry or frustrated.”
“our anxiety
is high
because we could be
kicked out at any time.”
“the neighborhood
is looking desolate.
It’s depressing and causes people to
worry.”
“stress levels
so high they’re causing suicide.”
fig20
Emotional/mental health status over past 2 years
by foreclosure status*
84%69%
16%31%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Not experiencing foreclosure Currently/recently experiencingforeclosure
Become worse
Improved or stayed same
%
o
f
r
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s
re
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
h
e
a
l
t
h
s
t
a
t
u
s
fig21
Frequency of Problems with Stress, Depression,
or Anxiety Over Past Month by Foreclosure Status:*
28%24%
52%
32%
20%
44%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Not experiencing foreclosure Currently/recently experiencingforeclosure
%
o
f
r
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s
re
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
h
e
a
l
t
h
s
t
a
t
u
s
Most/all of the time
Some of the time
None of the time
figure 20: emotional Health Decline
among the foreclosed
Problems of housing instability associated •
with foreclosure, like worry about eviction
from foreclosed buildings or not having a reg-
ular place to live, are contributing to reduced
emotional wellbeing (Figure 22, next page).
figure 21: emotional Health Problems
among the foreclosed
The foreclosed report 2 times higher
rates of emotional health decline over the
past 2 years.
The foreclosed report over 2 times
greater rates of stress, depression,
or anxiety in the past month.
Rebuilding Neighborhoods, Restoring Health | 29
figure 22: Housing Instability and emotional Health Problems
Problems of housing instability associated with
foreclosure are reducing emotional wellbeing
Frequency of Problems with Stress, Depression, or Anxiety
Over Past Month by Housing Situation:*
49%
20%
46%
23%
40%
22%
39%
20%
37%
22%
0%
20%
40%
60%
% o
f
r
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s
Wor
r
y
a
b
o
u
t
b
e
i
n
g
e
v
i
c
t
e
d
No
t
w
o
r
r
i
e
d
a
b
o
u
t
b
e
i
n
g
e
v
i
c
t
e
d
No
t
h
a
v
i
n
g
r
e
g
u
l
a
r
p
l
a
c
e
t
o
l
i
v
e
Ha
v
i
n
g
r
e
g
u
l
a
r
p
l
a
c
e
t
o
l
i
v
e
Ha
v
i
n
g
u
t
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
s
h
u
t
o
f
f
No
t
h
a
v
i
n
g
u
t
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
s
h
u
t
o
f
f
Tro
u
b
l
e
p
a
y
i
n
g
r
e
n
t
No
t
r
o
u
b
l
e
p
a
y
i
n
g
r
e
n
t
Un
h
e
a
l
t
h
y
l
i
v
i
n
g
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
No
u
n
h
e
a
l
t
h
y
l
i
v
i
n
g
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
Most/all of the time
30 | Rebuilding Neighborhoods, Restoring Health
figure 23: Worry about foreclosure and
emotional Health Decline
Karen Mims
The Wear and Tear of foreclosures on the Mind and body
CJJC member since 2009
Karen started to fight for her home in 2007, before her home was sold
in a foreclosure sale to Aurora Loan Services, a division of Lehman
Brothers. She fought the bank for 3 years but had to stop because the
stress and anxiety were getting to her. “I’ve been mentally exhausted,
and since I had to leave my home, I’ve been sleeping on my daughter’s
couch. I have back problems and an existing injury to my leg that has
gotten worse since this whole thing started.”
“The whole fight has been wearing on me financially and physically.
I’m a senior citizen on a fixed income. I couldn’t afford to keep fighting
this bank in court.” Karen has used every method to get to the bank—
phone calls, community support, direct actions, and a lawsuit. In addition to all of that, she has
worked with many organizations and lawyers to try to keep her home. “I spent a whole year sick,
in the bed, making calls to lawyers and to the bank to try to get a loan modification.”
This May, Karen dropped the lawsuit that she had against Lehman Brothers for foreclosing on
her home. “The whole process has been wearing on my body, since I was forced to leave my
home at the end of 2009. I have been having stomach problems from stress. It has been hard to
eat and hard to continue to fight.”
Emotional/mental health status over past
2 years by worry about foreclosure*
88%
65%
87%73%
35%27%13%13%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Not so worried Quite/
extremely
worried
Not so worried Quite/
extremely
worried
Become worse
Improved or stayed same
%
o
f
r
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s
re
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
h
e
a
l
t
h
s
t
a
t
u
s
Worry about self/familyexperiencing foreclosure
Worry about neighbors
experiencing foreclosure
and impacts on neighborhood
In addition to actual experiences of foreclosure,
worry about foreclosure at the individual and
neighborhood levels is affecting emotional well-
being. In the surveyed communities, those who
have felt quite or extremely worried about self/
family or neighbors experiencing foreclosure
are 2.0-2.8 times more likely to report that their
mental or emotional health has declined over the
past 2 years than those who were not so worried.
(Figure 23).
Those who are quite/extremely worried
about foreclosure are 2-3 times more
likely to report emotional health decline.
Above and beyond threats to individual health,
foreclosures are impacting the health of whole
communities. Foreclosures can deplete social
networks, exacerbate blight and crime, and rob
neighborhoods of revenue and political power.
All of these things perpetuate poor physical and
emotional health of communities.
Rebuilding Neighborhoods, Restoring Health | 31
figure 24: Disruption of neighborhood
Ties to People and Resources
almost 7 in 10 of those who are currently ex-
periencing foreclosure have family and friends
they can rely on, a school their child/children
go to, or church they regularly attend in their
neighborhood.
nearly 4 in 10 of those who are currently ex-
periencing foreclosure have a doctor’s office or
clinic that usually go to for medical care, a com-
munity organization they rely upon for support
or services, or place where they work in their
neighborhood.
over 3 in 10 of those who are currently experienc-
ing foreclosure have lived in their neighborhood
for 10 or more years. another 2 in 10 have been
there for 5 to 10 years.
Homes root people in strong networks of com-
munity ties and neighborhood resources, and
foreclosures can disrupt these life-sustaining
social connections. Our survey underscores that
when residents are forced to leave their neighbor-
hoods, they can lose substantial ties to people
and institutions that are critical to their health and
wellbeing, like schools, churches, medical homes,
community-based organizations, and workplaces.
Figure 24 (right) illustrates that among those cur-
rently experiencing foreclosure, 67% report that
they have access to family or friends, a school
their children go to, or church they attend in their
neighborhood. More than one-third goes to a doc-
tor’s office or clinic (38%), community organization
for support or services (35%), or place where they
work in their neighborhood (37%). More than one-
half (52%) have been long-standing residents of
the neighborhood—33% for 10 or more years and
another 19% for 5 to 10 years. If displaced from
the neighborhood, they would lose many of these
health-protective ties to people and resources.
When asked about the impact of foreclosure on
their community, several residents described how
long-established ties are being disrupted and
how neighborhood stability and cohesion is being
threatened (Figure 25).
Our survey suggests that foreclosure is decreasing
levels of social cohesion and increasing isolation
within communities. Simply put, social cohesion is
about level of trust, interaction, and willingness to
help and work together with others within a com-
munity. In our survey, those currently or recently
experiencing foreclosure are significantly less likely
to feel that people in their present neighborhood
work together to get problems solved. They are also
less likely to feel that neighbors are willing to help
each other and more likely to disagree that they talk
or visit often with their neighbors, although these
trends were not statistically significant (Figure 26,
next page).
Mass Displacement: uprooting Residents from
neighborhoods and schools
figure 25: Residents speak out on
foreclosure-Related Displacement
“People who have been in
the neighborhood for years are getting kicked out.”
“the neighborhood feels less stable. People
talk with each other less
often.”
“People who know
the community are moving out. People
who move in don’t know about the community.”
32 | Rebuilding Neighborhoods, Restoring Health
figure 26: Reduced social Cohesion among the foreclosed
fig26 Measures of Social Cohesion by Foreclosure Status
23%27%37%24%35%
18%24%
21%
18%
16%
58%49%42%27%
60%59%
55%
6%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
%
o
f
r
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s
wh
o
a
g
r
e
e
/
d
i
s
a
g
r
e
e
Agree or strongly agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree or strongly disagree
People in my neighborhood are willing
to help their neighbors
When there is a problem in my
neighborhood, people work together
to get it solved*
I often talk or visit with my
neighbors
Not experie
n
c
i
n
g
f
o
r
e
c
l
o
s
u
r
e
Currently/r
e
c
e
n
t
l
y
e
x
p
e
r
i
e
n
c
i
n
g
f
o
r
e
c
l
o
s
u
r
e
Not experie
n
c
i
n
g
f
o
r
e
c
l
o
s
u
r
e
Currently/r
e
c
e
n
t
l
y
e
x
p
e
r
i
e
n
c
i
n
g
f
o
r
e
c
l
o
s
u
r
e
Not experienci
n
g
f
o
r
e
c
l
o
s
u
r
e
Currently/r
e
c
e
n
t
l
y
e
x
p
e
r
i
e
n
c
i
n
g
f
o
r
e
c
l
o
s
u
r
e
Evidence supports the relationship between
strong social cohesion and better physical and
mental health, and conversely, the association be-
tween social isolation and higher rates of disease
and death.15,16,17,18 Loss of social cohesion and col-
lective efficacy—or willingness of neighbors to
look for each other and intervene when problems
arise—can also diminish political power to band
together and fight for change and healthier living
conditions within communities19.
Children—and the schools they attend—are par-
ticularly hard hit when families are forced to leave
their homes and neighborhoods. In addition to
dealing with the stress of foreclosure and housing
instability on their families, children must leave
behind friends, teachers, and schools. Research
suggests that problem behaviors often emerge
and academic performance suffers when students
are uprooted from their schools. Students with
2 or more school changes are about 2 times less
likely to be proficient in reading or math than
their stable peers and more likely to be held back
and eventually drop out. In fact, frequent school
moves can reduce the likelihood that a student
will graduate by more than 50%20.
In addition to academic impacts, schools must ab-
sorb the shocks of mass displacement and home-
lessness resulting from foreclosures. A recent
study of Oakland Unified School District (OUSD)21
reveals that:
About 20-40% of all students during the 2007-•
2008 school year were at risk of foreclosure
at the top 10 OUSD schools with the greatest
percentage of students at risk. (Figure 27, next
page).
In addition, the number of homeless students •
(1,500 in 2008-2009) in OUSD has increased by
50% over the past year22.
Foreclosures are decreasing levels of
social cohesion within communities
Rebuilding Neighborhoods, Restoring Health | 33
figure 27: ousD schools with the
greatest Percentage of students at
Risk of foreclosure†
school students
at Risk
ousD 08-09
enrollment-Count Percentage
Webster Academy^29 72 40.30%
Lockwood Elementary^27 81 33.30%
Peralta Creek Middle
School^
16 68 23.50%
Whittier Elementary^16 72 22.20%
Business Information
Tech HS
68 340 20.00%
New Highland Academy 66 335 19.70%
EnCompass Academy 47 247 19.00%
RISE 58 310 18.70%
James Madison Middle
School
50 274 18.20%
Burckhalter Elementary 29 163 17.80%
† At Risk of Foreclosure is an indicator of the number of students
enrolled in each school in the 2007-2008 academic year who were
matched to properties currently in Default status or with highly un-
stable, adjustable mortgage products (often called opredatory loans)
that are scheduled to adjust between July 2009 and December 2010
and, therefore, likely to result in foreclosure of the home.
The movement or loss of so many students
within OUSD, as well as rising rates of homeless-
ness, could substantially affect school stability
and success. Longer-term impacts on health
could be severe, since educational performance
and attainment are such important determi-
nants and predictors of health outcomes23.
Additionally, schools with active community and
parents are more likely to thrive. Instability in the
community and student population can negative-
ly impact the quality of the school environment.
When this happens, all students, now and in the
future suffer—as do communities—since stable,
well-performing schools are an essential compo-
nent of thriving communities.
^ school scheduled for closure in 2009-10
34 | Rebuilding Neighborhoods, Restoring Health
vacant foreclosed Properties:
spreading blight, Crime, and neighborhood Decay
The foreclosure crisis has left behind many vacant,
neglected properties that are blighting neighbor-
hoods and introducing community health risks.
These properties are often ill-maintained, with
trash built up and yards overgrown. In addition
to being an eyesore and visual threat to stability,
vacant properties can become magnets for pests
(rodents and mosquitoes), vandalism, trespassing,
drug dealing, and other illegal activities. Studies
show that high foreclosure rates contribute to
higher levels of violent crime24. Community safety
is further threatened and blighted conditions
persist when foreclosures displace homeowners
and leave behind fewer concerned residents with
watchful eyes or tidying hands.
In the surveyed communities, residents identified
how conditions in their neighborhoods have declined
over the past 2 years in the face of foreclosures.
43% of residents report that the amount •
of drug activity in their neighborhood has
increased.
39% report that the amount of violence has •
risen.
47% of residents assert that their neighbor-•
hood is not a safe place to live.
figure 28: Residents speak out on
Deteriorating neighborhood Conditions
“Vandalism, drug activity, and crime
rates have all increased. Foreclosed
properties are abandoned and falling apart. trash has built up and yards
are overgrown. People are squatting in them. drug dealers have made
territories. neighborhoods are unsafe.”
“there are a lot more abandoned buildings
and they’re not taken
care of. links to poverty, robberies,
murders. there’s a mindset change. People
become more greedy,
and there is an increase in home invasions and
desperation.”
“Foreclosures make the neigh-
borhood look bad. the banks
don’t take care of foreclosed properties.”
“Houses are boarded up, no
upkeep; more drug activity;
more loitering; more stolen cars dumped in front of houses. It
looks like nobody cares.”
“there’s empty houses,
garbage on the street, abandoned cars, more
transient looking people,
people going through trash, and emotional depression
that everyone feels. It takes forever to see any
progress.”
Residents further described the deteriorating con-
ditions they are seeing in their neighborhoods,
including abandoned, run-down properties; un-
kempt lawns; squatting and loitering; trash and
vandalism; drug dealing and use; and crime and
violence (Figure 28).
Rebuilding Neighborhoods, Restoring Health | 35
Maria Ramirez
Rising blight and neglect in foreclosed neighborhoods
CJJC member since 2009
Maria Ramirez and her family have lived in their East Oakland
home for a little over 10 years. In 2009, Wachovia began to fore-
close on the family’s home. Maria fought back and won a loan
modification, but many of her neighbors have not been as lucky.
“I have a friend that got kicked out of their home. The property
is now empty—it’s used for selling drugs and violence happens
there.”
Maria and her family live in the 94621 zip code of East Oakland,
which has one of the highest concentrations of foreclosures in the
city. “People are scared to be in our neighborhood because they
see the deterioration.” Much of this is a recent phenomenon in
many parts of East Oakland. “The problem has gotten worse over
the last 3 years. The neighborhood is looking like a slum—a dump
with more drugs being brought in and sold.” Blight in her neighborhood and in many other parts
of Oakland has gotten increasingly worse since 2007.
“The banks should realize that it is better to negotiate than to turn our neighborhood into a
dump.” Banks must be held accountable—by the community, and by officials that we elect to pro-
tect our interests. Instead, “people are disillusioned, they’re deceived. We get no response from
the government. They don’t give us attention, they don’t listen to us. We need to unite, organize
our communities, and get the government and banks to listen to us.”
36 | Rebuilding Neighborhoods, Restoring Health
According to RealtyTrac data26:
Property values in east oakland zip •
codes 94605 and 94603—which include
some of oakland’s neighborhoods hard-
est hit by foreclosures—have declined
over 60%-70% between 2007-2009
(Figure 29, left).
In our surveyed communities:
65% of residents report that property values •
have declined in their neighborhood.
56% report that it’s hard to sell a home in their •
neighborhood.
Falling property values diminish critical property
tax streams that fund essential municipal servic-
es, like public schools, building and park mainte-
nance, garbage collection, and police. Thus, fore-
closures can lead to cuts in city services that are
critical for public health and wellbeing. Declining
property values and neighborhood conditions
can spur continued neighborhood disinvestment
and loss of capital and services for those living in
hard-hit communities. It can also invite property
speculation by investors from outside the com-
munity who are looking to buy up bargain invest-
ment opportunities and sell or rent them out for a
profit—and with minimal investment or upkeep27.
This type of speculative activity has historically
hurt neighborhoods as long-time residents are
pushed out due to their inability to compete fi-
nancially with investors and new residents with
higher incomes.
Residents spoke about depressed economic con-
ditions and concerns with gentrification that are
arising from the foreclosure crisis (Figure 30,
next page).
economic fallout: Plummeting Property values
and City Revenue
Foreclosures, particularly when concentrated in
a particular area, can have a depressing effect on
property values. Research suggests that each fore-
closure within an eighth of a mile (essentially a city
block) of a single-family home results in a decline in
property value between 0.9% and 1.136%. In low to
moderate-income neighborhoods, the decline jumps
to between 1.44% and 1.8% for each foreclosure25.
Home value Trend in 94605
Home value Trend in 94603
figure 29: Property values in Hard-Hit
east oakland Zip Codes, 2007-2009
Rebuilding Neighborhoods, Restoring Health | 37
Declining property values, loss of tax base and
city services, persistent unemployment and pov-
erty, and more displacement—related to both new
foreclosures and gentrification—are certain to
have long-term, serious impacts on community
health and wellbeing.
Right to Stay action, August 2009, East Oakland.
figure 30: Residents speak out on economic
Decline and neighborhood gentrification
“oakland is going bankrupt. Foreclosures are affecting loss
of the city’s tax base and affecting services in the city.”
“with all these foreclosures and vacant
properties, it becomes a ghost town and drives
out business.”
“You see white
people com-ing in to buy
up foreclosed
homes and a racial shift in the
neighborhood.”
“People coming in and changing
the neighborhood – lots of investors
coming in and
buying up prop-erty and having
auctions.”
“gentrification is up dramatically
in the last year –
from 80% black to 30% or some-
thing like that.”
West Oakland: a house for sale, one that’s dilapidated, and a
neighboring house where the owner’s equity is being brought
down by the vacant and foreclosed properties on their block.
38 | Rebuilding Neighborhoods, Restoring Health
steep declines in property tax revenue as a result
of the foreclosure crisis, crippling its ability to pro-
vide essential, health promoting services.
Unfortunately, the foreclosure crisis is continuing
at record levels and is poised to get worse. About
60% of Pay Option Adjustable Rate Mortgages
issued in the US were issued in California,
and, nationally, 1 million of these mortgages
are scheduled to reset in the next four years.29
Furthermore, lenders are denying credit in com-
munities most impacted by foreclosure and in
need of refinancing loans and new investment.
For instance, the percentage of prime loans made
in Oakland’s neighborhoods of color dropped
from 45% in 2006 to 34% in 2008.30 There is also
evidence that subprime loans are still dispropor-
tionately being sold in neighborhoods of color, as
opposed to predominantly white neighborhoods.
Finally, with unemployment remaining steady
and in some places on the rise, more households
will continue to struggle to pay their mortgages.
There is a great need to act decisively and quickly
to address what will be another swelling tide of
foreclosures in our neighborhoods.
organizing solutions
The multi-faceted nature of the foreclosure crisis
requires a holistic and comprehensive approach
to solving it and preventing it from happening
again. While policy solutions that get to the heart
of the problem are critical, engaging local resi-
dents and organizations in coming together to
both understand and collectively take action is
equally important. Resident and neighborhood
organizing has to be a driving component of the
overall strategy to address the foreclosure crisis.
In addition to providing an opportunity to link res-
idents with much needed services and support,
direct outreach to individuals impacted by foreclo-
sure provides valuable insight. It is only through
this type of engagement that a real assessment
can be made of the scope of the problem and
ConClusIons & oRganIZIng, PolICy,
& PRaCTICe IMPlICaTIons
There is a housing crisis in Oakland driven most
recently by skyrocketing foreclosures. Low-income
African Americans and Latinos are the most se-
verely impacted by this crisis. These households
– some of whom have been in their houses for
decades and others who were just beginning to
realize the “American Dream” of homeowner-
ship – were targeted for predatory subprime loans.
Unable to keep up with ballooning payments,
or faced with unexpected loss of income due to
sudden unemployment, these families are being
forced to leave their homes, often times uncertain
of their next steps. Furthermore, various federal
efforts meant to address the foreclosure crisis have
not gone deep enough to provide true relief in
these communities.28 Not enough homeowners are
receiving loan modifications, and tenants remain
extremely vulnerable to evictions and displace-
ment as a result of foreclosures.
This report documents what happens to health
among those impacted by foreclosure. As hous-
ing instability increases, stress rises, and with
increased stress, health suffers. Households
are reporting declining physical and emotional
well-being, as well as being forced to make deci-
sions that will further put health at risk, such as
choosing between rent and food, or living in over-
crowded or substandard conditions in exchange
for affordable rent.
Additionally, the consequences of the foreclo-
sure crisis spreading most rapidly in low-income
communities of color extend well beyond indi-
vidual families being forced to leave their homes.
Neighborhoods pockmarked by vacant housing
are struggling with increased crime and violence.
Social bonds are broken as families leave the
neighborhood, leaving the entire community less
prepared to deal with problems. As attendance at
local schools decline when families are foreclosed
on and forced to move out and the numbers of
homeless students increase, school stability is
threatened. Local government is also experiencing
Rebuilding Neighborhoods, Restoring Health | 39
close to each other to meet and talk about the
problems caused by foreclosure in their com-
munity and how to respond to the crisis;
Supporting residents in meeting and advocat-•
ing with elected officials for specific policy
solutions
Engaging residents in foreclosure policy ef-•
forts and mobilizations beyond the local level
(state and federal) that are being led by other
community, policy, labor or faith organizations.
Through this work, we have learned that we must
broadly engage people in neighborhoods dispro-
portionately impacted by foreclosure – not just
the individuals directly experiencing the crisis. It
is only when everyone in the community under-
stands that their family’s health, the quality of
education at their local school, the value of their
home, and the safety of the neighborhood is be-
ing impacted by the foreclosure crisis and that
they all have an interest in addressing the prob-
lem that real, effective change can happen.
the solutions most needed to address it. Mass
foreclosures have threatened community bonds
and stability, and so we must respond by mobiliz-
ing, rebuilding, and empowering neighborhoods
to stop impacts of the foreclosure crisis and be
armed with tools to say “never again”.
Some of the methods that Causa Justa :: Just
Cause has utilized in advancing neighborhood or-
ganizing around foreclosures include:
Doing direct outreach in neighborhoods with •
high risk and rates of foreclosure;
Creating a foreclosure prevention “clinic” •
where homeowners and tenants get peer sup-
port around advocating and negotiating with
banks and financial institutions around their
individual loans;
Supporting neighbors to defend each other •
against the threat of tenant or homeowner
evictions through “home defense” actions;
Creating opportunities for neighbors who live •
40 | Rebuilding Neighborhoods, Restoring Health
support and increase the availability of 3.
loan counseling for homeowners at risk of
foreclosure, as well as for tenants in fore-
closed buildings. Such efforts can include
“Foreclosure Prevention Fairs,” housing
clinics, and other venues where housing ad-
vocates and loan officers from the big banks
are available to help households navigate the
loan modification process.
Implement an alameda County-wide eviction 4.
moratorium for households whose banks will
not attempt to negotiate loan modifications
and for tenant-occupied foreclosed housing
where tenants continued to pay rent even
after the building has gone into foreclosure.
Work with those responsible for approv-
ing and enforcing evictions to ensure that
banks are held accountable for attempting to
modify loans before foreclosing on a property.
Furthermore, allow tenants to continue to rent
foreclosed properties until the property is re-
sold, as it is better for the community and new
owners of the home if the property does not sit
vacant and contribute to blighted conditions.
Improve the current Home affordable 5.
Modification Program. The federal HAMP
program was created to help struggling hom-
eowners avoid foreclosure. However, HAMP is
not effectively reaching households in low-in-
come communities of color. It is necessary to
expand the current HAMP program to include
consequences for financial institutions who fail
to modify loans, to require clear appeals and
grievances processes, and to make loan modi-
fication and grievance data readily available,
among other changes.
address housing instability and health
support collaborations between schools and 6.
health, housing, and community organizations
to develop comprehensive programs for miti-
gating the impact of foreclosures on students,
parents, and communities.
Work with housing/community advocates •
to identify schools severely impacted
by foreclosures.
Policy and Practice solutions
Changes in policy and practice are essential to keep
families in their homes, mitigate impacts of foreclo-
sure, and prevent this crisis from repeating itself.
Policies that will tighten regulation of the lending
industry and improve the loan modification process
must be enacted at the federal and state levels. In
addition, there are local policies and practices that
can help prevent foreclosures and mitigate impacts
of foreclosure on individual and community health.
Examples of policies and practices that can help
prevent the spread and reoccurrence of the foreclo-
sure crisis are discussed below.
Prevent foreclosures
federal legislation should include foreclosure 1.
relief for families where one or more bread
winners have become suddenly and unavoid-
ably unemployed or suffered a significant loss
of income. This could include:
Temporary mortgage payment relief•
Immediate qualification for loan mediation •
and possibly modification
Guarantee that families with school-aged •
children and seniors receive special evic-
tion protections
Require state-wide loan mediation. 2. Increase the
number of loan modifications by requiring banks
and financial institutions to go to court mediation
with borrowers before allowing the property to
go into foreclosure. Several states have imple-
mented foreclosure mediation programs.
Rebuilding Neighborhoods, Restoring Health | 41
EE). This means that they cannot be evicted
from their rentals simply because the property
has gone into foreclosure. However, there
have been hundreds of cases across Oakland
of banks and landlords neglecting to pay for
water once the dwelling begins the foreclo-
sure process, despite the fact that the tenants
continue to pay rent. State-level legislation
that prohibits utility shut-off in foreclosed ten-
ant buildings in Oakland would allow the East
Bay Municipal Utilities District (EBMUD) to put
liens on the properties where the banks and
landlords refuse to pay water bills for their
tenants, as a way to illegally force them out
of their homes. Non-payment of water bills
create uninhabitable housing conditions for
tenants who have a right to stay in properties
after they have been foreclosed on.
Do outreach and education to parents •
around foreclosures.
Provide needed housing and health resourc-•
es and services to families both through
referrals and on-site school programs.
Increase referrals across housing and health 7.
agencies and co-locate housing and health
services so that households facing foreclosure
can get their needs met in one-stop. This
could include convening housing/health fairs
and periodically stationing health service pro-
viders at foreclosure clinics. Health service
providers could include nurses, mental health
specialists, and benefits enrollment specialists
for Medi-Cal, food stamps, and other benefits
programs. Finally, this could include creating
toolkits that help housing and health providers
connect families impacted by foreclosure with
all of the resources they need.
enact state-level legislation that prohibits 8.
utility shut-off in foreclosed tenant build-
ings. Tenants in Oakland are protected by the
Just Cause for Eviction Ordinance (Measure
42 | Rebuilding Neighborhoods, Restoring Health
of affordable housing and prevent specula-
tion and displacement, support and expand
models such as the Oakland Community
Land Trust, created through the joint efforts
of Urban Strategies Council and Alliances of
Californians for Community Empowerment.
The Oakland Community Land Trust is trans-
forming 200 vacant foreclosed houses into
permanently affordable homes.
Keep the foreclosure crisis from repeating
enact federal legislation that will tighten regu-11.
lation of banks so as to prevent predatory,
high-risk lending, and increase accountability.
Support the creation of something like the pro-
posed Consumer Financial Protection Agency,
which would have the authority to enact con-
sumer protection rules for credit cards, bank
accounts and other financial products, monitor
for compliance, and penalize violators.
Pass and enforce a foreclosure registration 9.
ordinance that applies to both vacant and oc-
cupied buildings. The City of Oakland passed
a Foreclosure Vacancy Registration Ordinance
that requires banks to register their owner-
ship of properties they foreclose on and holds
them to maintaining compliance with habit-
ability codes. Additionally these institutions
are required to secure and maintain the prop-
erties that are vacant as a result of foreclo-
sure. This policy needs to be strictly enforced.
Additionally, the current ordinance only ap-
plies to vacant housing. This policy should
be expanded to include occupied foreclosed
buildings so that tenants are not forced to live
in uninhabitable conditions.
Reuse foreclosed properties for affordable 10.
housing. Real estate speculation is increasing
in neighborhoods heavily impacted by fore-
closure. In order to both expand the supply
Rebuilding Neighborhoods, Restoring Health | 43
because each household is approached to partici-
pate in the survey. However, there is some poten-
tial for non-response bias in the survey sample if
certain groups are unwilling or unable to partici-
pate in the survey. For example, some foreclosed
residents may be living in transient living situ-
ations (e.g., homeless, in shelters, with family
members in other neighborhoods) and thus they
were not available to participate in this door-to-
door household survey. Finally, there is some
risk of response bias, if respondents felt that they
should answer certain questions in particular
ways; although efforts were taken in terms how
questions were worded and asked to minimize
likelihood of this type of bias.
Analysis of survey data included descriptive sta-
tistics and chi-square testing with significance
threshold of p≤0.05 to examine relationships and
differences among variables under investigation.
SPSS software was used for statistical analyses,
and ArcGIS was used for spatial analysis and to
create maps.
lIMITaTIons & TeCHnICal noTes
This report examines the health impacts associ-
ated with foreclosure in select neighborhoods of
East and West Oakland. The survey method used
in this report does not establish causal links but
rather suggests associations between predictor
variables (e.g., foreclosure status, foreclosure
worry, housing instability) and outcome variables
(e.g., self-reported health status, physical health
decline, emotional health problems, reduced so-
cial cohesion). A one-time cross-sectional design
was used (with data collected at one point in
time rather than longitudinally), and there are no
comparison groups (e.g., communities in Oakland
with low foreclosure rates).
The overall sample size is fairly robust (N=388),
but some subgroup analyses involved smaller
numbers of respondents (e.g., n=51 for the re-
cently or currently foreclosed subgroup) that
could reduce reliability of findings. The door-to-
door method of recruitment helps to bolster the
extent to which the survey sample is representa-
tive of the population in the target neighborhoods
44 | Rebuilding Neighborhoods, Restoring Health
1 Jackson, K (1985). Crabgrass Frontier: The Suburbanization of the United States. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
2 Anthony, C (2010). Energy Policy and Inner City Abandonment. Race, Poverty and the Environment, 17(1): 51–53.
3 Fullilove, MT.(2004). Root Shock: How Tearing Up City Neighborhoods Hurts America and What We Can Do About It. New York,
NY: One World/Ballantine.
4 Beyers, M et al. (2009). Life and Death from Unnatural Causes: Health and Social Inequity in Alameda County. Alameda County
Public Health Department. Retrieved from http://www.acphd.org/AXBYCZ/Admin/DataReports/00_2008_full_report.pdf.
5 Cisneros, H et al. (2008). The Future of Fair Housing: Report of the National Commission on Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity.
National Commission on Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity. Retrieved April 28, 2010 from: http://www.nationalfairhousing.org/
Portals/33/reports/Future_of_Fair_Housing.PDF.
6 U.S. Housing Scholars and Research and Advocacy Organizations (2007). Residential Segregation and Housing Discrimination in
the United States: Violations of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. Retrieved
February 10, 2008 from: www.nationalfairhousing.org/resources/newsArchive/resource_08305276931793260067.pdf.
7 Rivera A, Cotto-Escalera B, Desai A, Huezo J, and Muhammad D (2008). Foreclosed: State of the Dream 2008. United for a Fair
Economy. Retrieved from: http://www.faireconomy.org/files/StateOfDream_01_16_08_Web.pdf.
8 Morgenson, G (2007, December 18). Fed Shrugged as Subprime Crisis Spread,” NY Times. Retrieved from: http://www.nytimes.
com/2007/12/18/business/18subprime.html?pagewanted=1&_r=3&hp.
9 Beyers M, et al. (2009). Life and Death from Unnatural Causes: Health and Social Inequity in Alameda County. Alameda County
Public Health Department. Retrieved from http://www.acphd.org/AXBYCZ/Admin/DataReports/00_2008_full_report.pdf.
10 Bell JE and Rubin V (2007). Why Place Matters: Building a Movement for Healthy Communities. PolicyLink. Retrieved from: http://www.
policylink.org/atf/cf/%7B97c6d565-bb43–406d-a6d5-eca3bbf35af0%7D/WHYPLACEMATTERS_FINAL.PDF.
11 Schloemer E, Li W, Ernst K and Keest K (2006). Losing Ground: Foreclosures in the Subprime Market and Their Cost to
Homeowners. Center for Responsible Lending. Retrieved from http://www.responsiblelending.org/mortgage-lending/research-
analysis/foreclosure-paper-report-2–17.pdf.
12 Urban Strategies Council (2008). HUD Neighborhood Stability Program Estimated Risk by Census Tract in 2008. Foreclosure Maps.
Retrieved from: http://www.urbanstrategies.org/foreclosure/Maps/.
13 Rivera A, Cotto-Escalera B, Desai A, Huezo J, and Muhammad D (2008). Foreclosed: State of the Dream 2008. United for a Fair
Economy. Retrieved from: http://www.faireconomy.org/files/StateOfDream_01_16_08_Web.pdf.
14 Fosse NE and Haas SA (2009). Validity and Stability of Self-Reported Health among Adolescents in a Longitudinal, Nationally
Representative Survey. Pediatrics, 123(3): e496–501.
15 Seeman TE and Syme SL (1987). Social networks and coronary artery disease: a comparison of the structure and function of social
relations as predictors of disease. Psychosomatic Medicine, 49: 341–354.
16 Uchino BN, Cacioppo JT, and Kiecolt-Glaser JK (1996). The relationship between social support and physiological processes: a
review with emphasis on underlying mechanisms and implications for health. Psychological Bulletin, 119(3): 488–531.
17 Stansfield, SA (1999). Social Support and Social Cohesion. In Marmot M and Wilkinson RG (Eds.), Social Determinants of Health
(pp. 155–178). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
18 Klinenberg, E (2001). Dying Alone: the Social Production of Urban Isolation. Ethnography, 2(4): 501–531.
19 Cohen, CJ (2001). Social Capital, Intervening Institutions, and Political Power. In Saegert S, Thompson JP, and Warren MR (Eds.),
Social Capital and Poor Communities (pp. 267–289). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
20 Lovell P and Isaacs J (2008). The Impact of the Mortgage Crisis on Children. First Focus: Making Children and Families the Priority.
Retrieved from: http://www.firstfocus.net/Download/HousingandChildrenFINAL.pdf.
21 Urban Strategies Council (2009). Factsheet: Oakland Unified School District Students at Risk of Foreclosure. Retrieved from: http://
www.urbanstrategies.org/foreclosure/documents/OUSD_StudentsForeclosureFactsheet11–17–09.pdf.
22 Fuentes, A (2009). Project to Aid Oakland Students Facing Foreclosure Fizzles. Retrieved from: http://news.newamericamedia.org/
news/view_article.html?article_id=7076c17b123416934775a00283670d4e.
RefeRenCes
Rebuilding Neighborhoods, Restoring Health | 45
23 Freudenberg N and Rugis J (2007). Reframing School Dropout as a Public Health Issue. Preventing Chronic Disease, 4(4): 1–11.
24 ACORN (2007). Foreclosure Exposure 2: The Cost to our Cities and Neighborhoods.
25 Immergluck D and Smith G (2007). The External Costs of Foreclosure: The Impact of Single-Family Mortgage Foreclosures on
Property Values. Housing Policy Debate, 17(1): 57–80.
26 Realty Trac (2009). Foreclosure Trends by Zip Code. Retrieved at: http://www.realtytrac.com/trendcenter/ca/oakland-trend.html.
27 Treuhaft S, Rose K, and Black K (2010. When Investors Buy Up the Neighborhood: Preventing Investor Ownership from
Causing Neighborhood Decline. Retrieved from: http://www.policylink.org/atf/cf/{97c6d565-bb43–406d-a6d5-eca3bbf35af0}/
WHENINVESTORSBUYUPTHENEIGHBORHOOD.PDF.
28 California Reinvestment Coalition (2010). From Foreclosure to Redlining: How America’s largest financial institutions devasted
California communities. Retrieved from: http://www.calreinvest.org/system/assets/214.pdf.
29 “California AG Wants Option ARM Answers,” HousingWire, 10/29/2009, as cited in California Reinvestment Coalition (2010). From
Foreclosure to Redlining: How America’s largest financial institutions devastated California communities. Retrieved from: http://
www.calreinvest.org/system/assets/214.pdf.
30 California Reinvestment Coalition (2010). From Foreclosure to Redlining: How America’s largest financial institutions devasted
California communities. Retrieved from: http://www.calreinvest.org/system/assets/214.pdf.
46 | Rebuilding Neighborhoods, Restoring Health
ALAMEDA COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH DEPARTMENT
Community Assessment, Planning and Evaluation
1000 Broadway, 5th Floor
Oakland, CA 94607
510.267.8020
SAN FRANCISCO 2301 Mission Street, Sute 201, San Francisco, 94110
tel 415.487.9203 f 415.487.9022
WEST OAkLAND 3463 San Pablo Avenue, Oakland, CA 94608
tel 510.763.5877 f 510.763.5824
EAST OAkLAND 9124 International Blvd., Oakland, CA 94603
MAILINg PO Box 3596, Oakland, CA 94609