Gender Analysis of San Francisco Commissions and Boards

August 2009

1. Introduction

Are the number of women, minorities, and persons with disabilities appointed to public policy bodies in San Francisco reflective of the population at large? This is the central question of this report.

In 1998, San Francisco became the first city in the world to pass a local ordinance reflecting the principles of the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), also known as the "Women's Human Rights Treaty." [1] The Ordinance requires City government to take proactive steps to ensure gender equality and specifies “gender analysis” as a preventive tool to use against discrimination. [2] Since 1998, the Department on the Status of Women (Department) has used the gender analysis tool to analyze operations at 7 City departments.

In 2007, the Department used gender analysis to analyze the number of women appointed to city commissions, boards, and task forces. [3] Based on these findings, a city charter amendment was developed by the City and County Board of Supervisors for the June 2008 election. The amendment, which voters approved overwhelmingly, made it city policy that

1. Membership of commissions and board reflect the diversity of the San Francisco population;
2. Appointing officials be urged to support the nomination, appointment, and confirmation of these candidates; and
3. The San Francisco Department on the Status of Women is required to conduct a gender analysis of commissions and boards to be published every 2 years.

This 2009 gender analysis documents the number of self-identified women, minorities, and people with disabilities currently serving on the approximately 58 commissions and boards in San Francisco. The total number of commissions and boards is an approximation because, in a few cases, data sources did not verify the current existence and makeup of these bodies.

Commissions and boards are appointed by the Mayor, the Board of Supervisors, and, in some cases, other commissions. This analysis includes San Francisco's city-based bodies as well as regional and state-wide bodies, such as the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway, and Transportation District Boards. The latter reserves a certain number of seats for San Francisco appointees.

 

2. Methodology and Limitations

The Department conducted the 2009 gender analysis using data collected from commission and board websites and confirmed by email and phone contact with commission and board staff members to determine the demographic breakdown of the entities. Only commissioners and board members who voluntarily self-identified as a woman, transgendered, a minority, or a person with a disability are counted as such.

Commission or board staff members were asked how many males and females served on the respective policy body and whether any members identified as a racial minority, transgendered person, and/or as having a disability. Appointees may be counted as a minority without a specific racial category identified. Transgendered persons were included in the count of the gender with which they identify.

 

3. San Francisco Population Demographics

According to the 2008 U.S. Census Update, women account for 49% of the population in San Francisco. [4] The 2007 U.S. Census Update estimates that individuals with disabilities account for 14% of San Franciscans. [5] Approximately 42% of San Francisco residents identify as a racial minority. The racial breakdown of San Francisco is as follows:

 

A more nuanced view of the City’s population can be seen in the following chart that shows race by gender. Though most races have comparable representation by men and women in San Francisco, individuals of mixed heritage are more likely to be female, and over half the men in San Francisco identify as white, while only 39% of women identify as such.

 

IV.      Gender Analysis Findings

Commission appointments are generally reflective of the demographic makeup of San Francisco. However, the percentage of women and minorities in board positions is less representative. Neither commission nor board appointments are reflective of the disabled population in San Francisco.

There are 37 commissions in San Francisco, with data verified for 34. Of these 34 commissions:

• 280 of a possible 287 seats are currently filled, 49% of appointees are female,
• 53% of appointees identified as a racial minority,
• 4% of appointees identified as having a disability, and 1%, or 4 appointees, identified as transgendered.

There are 21 boards in San Francisco, with data verified for 14. Of these 14 boards:

• 121 of a possible 129 seats are currently filled, 34% of appointees are female, with 66% male,
• 32% of appointees identified as a racial minority,
• 6% of appointees identified as having a disability,
• and 0% of appointees identified as transgendered. 

The appendices of this report contain a full description of the findings of the gender analysis. What follows are highlights from the data.

 

1. Race

Though 42% of San Francisco residents identify as a minority, over 50% of commission appointees identify as such. There is a higher representation of African American residents on commissions (13%) than in the general population (7%). Asian Pacific Islanders make up 24% of commission appointees, 8% below the population representation for this group. All other minority groups are marginally underrepresented in the makeup of commissions.

 

In general, racial minorities are underrepresented on boards. There are over 21% fewer Asian Pacific Islanders appointed to boards than there are represented in the larger population. Latinos are also underrepresented on these bodies by about 10%.

 

Of the 33 commissions analyzed in this report, 17 boast at least 50% appointees of color. The commissions with the most minority representation are shown in the table below.

 

The remaining commissions fall below 50% appointees of color, though only 9 have below 30%. These can be seen in the following chart.

 

2. Disability

Five commissions and 3 boards have appointees with a disability, for a total of 17 individuals with a disability appointed to these entities. Compared to the percentage of persons with disabilities in the overall San Francisco population (14%), the percentage of persons with disabilities on boards was 9% lower and on commissions, 10% lower. It is important to note that the survey methodology may not capture all individuals with disabilities appointed to commissions and boards, as members may not have explicitly identified their disabilities to commission or board staff.

 

3. Gender

The data demonstrates that the gender breakdown of commission appointments generally mirrors the city’s population distribution. However, the percentage of female board appointments is 15% lower than the percentage of women in the population. The 2007 gender analysis revealed similar trends in the gender make-up of commissions and boards. Data on race and disability was not analyzed in 2007.

 

While the percentage of female appointees to Commissions remains consistently near the number of women in San Francisco, in 2009 the percentage of females on boards was 15% lower than that of the females in San Francisco and 4% lower than in 2007. The charts below illustrate the commissions with the highest and lowest percentages of female appointees.

Most commissions maintained approximately the same percentage of females between 2007 and 2009. However, the percentage on the Public Utilities Commission increased from 20% to 75% (3 of the 4 currently filled seats house women; in 2007, 1 of the 5 filled seats was filled by a woman) and the Southeast Community Facility Commission jumped from 43% to 71% (n=7).

Between 2007 and 2009, the percentage of females on the Local Agency Formation Commission decreased from 50% to 14% (n=7). Most commissions have fewer than 10 commissioners. Thus, a large percentage shift may represent an actual change of only 1-3 people. The Commissions not represented in the charts maintained between 30-70% female representation in both 2007 and 2009.

 

4. Race by Gender

As with San Francisco population statistics, it is important to view the demographics of commissions and boards in light of both race and gender. Persons of color represent 50% of commission appointees 31% of board appointees. Looking more closely, we can see that women of color are represented in greater proportion than men of color on commissions, 27% women compared to 23% men of color. However, on boards, men of color make up 18% of appointees while women of color make up 12%.

 

5. Budget Analysis

In addition to the raw data of representation by women, minorities, and people with disabilities on commissions and boards, it is also important to determine if those policy bodies with the most power (often associated with having the most financial resources) are representing the community.

Though the overall representation by women on commissions is comparable to that of the City’s population, disparities arise when this data is examined based on commission budget size. The commissions with the highest female representation also have fairly low financial influence. The Public Utilities Commission, which recently rose from 20% female representation to its current 75%, has the largest budget of commissions with high female representation, at $ 677.3 million. All of the other commissions with 70% or more women oversee significantly smaller budgets ($22.9 million for the Children and Families Commission, $3.7 million for the Commission on the Status of Women, and $4 million for the Ethics Commission). The Housing Authority Commission, the Recreation and Parks Commission, the Fire Commission, and the Building Inspection Commission all oversee relatively large budgets, ranging from $50.1 million at the Building Inspection Commission to $277.7 million at the Fire Commission, and all have less than 30% female representation.

However, when examining the commissions with highest and lowest minority representation, this pattern does not hold true. For example, the Health Commission, Adult and Aging Commission, Human Rights Commission, and Library Commission all have relatively large budgets as well as over 70% representation by minority individuals.

Below is a summary of those commissions overseeing some of the City’s largest budgets, and the demographics of the commissioners serving on these bodies. The Department of Public Health has the largest budget of any City agency, and its corresponding commission, the Health Commission, has strong female and minority representation, though no individuals with a disability sit on this body. The same holds true for the Public Utilities Commission and the Airport Commission, which oversee 2 large enterprise departments.

Figure: Demographics of Highest Budgeted Commissions

 

6. Recommendations

Transparency. Basic information, including what commissions and boards exist and are active as well as the gender, race, and disability status of appointees to these entities, is challenging to access and often out of date. Transparency requirements should be created so that this public information is regularly maintained by each entity and made available to comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and good government practices.

Voluntary Data Collection. Commissions and boards should voluntarily collect gender, race, and disability information of appointees for the biennial gender analysis. Systems should be put into place within the administration of every commission and board to track these statistics. This will assist in the gender analysis data collection, and will also support appointing officials in understanding the demographic make-up of bodies they oversee.

Vacancy Announcements. The City must expand the transparency of seat vacancies. Currently, vacancy announcements for seats appointed by the Board of Supervisors are listed on the Board of Supervisors website, but are not regularly or consistently updated. Vacancies for Mayoral appointments are not widely announced. Qualified applicants who reflect demographics of San Francisco are not able to apply for vacancies unless they know such positions exist.

Reflecting San Francisco’s Diversity in its Appointed Bodies. Finally, per the charter amendment, the Mayor, Board of Supervisors, and commissions are encouraged to ensure that appointments to commissions, boards, and other policy bodies are reflective of the population of San Francisco. Special emphasis should be placed on appointing women, minorities, and persons with disabilities to serve on entities where they are not traditionally found.

 

Key:

AA = Black or African American, API = Asian/Pacific Islander, L = Latino, ME = Middle Eastern, MR = Mixed Race, NA = Native American, T = Total BOLD = 50% or more female commissioners

Italics = 50% or more commissioners of a racial minority

* Budgets listed in millions. Budgets are for the departments operating under the jurisdiction of the policy body. Column is left blank if the body is advisory only without a corresponding department/budget. Certain bodies oversee the work of divisions rather than departments, and specific budget information is unavailable
 

 

Key:

AA = Black or African American, API = Asian/Pacific Islander, L = Latino, ME = Middle Eastern, MR = Mixed Race, NA = Native American, T = Total BOLD = 50% or more female board members

Italics = 50% or more board members of a racial minority

* Budgets listed in millions. Budgets are for the departments operating under the jurisdiction of the policy body. Column is left blank if the body is advisory only without a corresponding department/budget. Certain bodies oversee the work of divisions rather than departments, and specific budget information is unavailable.