Gender Analysis of San Francisco Commissions and Boards

December 2011

1. Introduction

The central question of this report is whether women and minorities appointed to public policy bodies in San Francisco is reflective of the population at large.

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. Based on these findings, a city charter amendment was developed by the 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 2011 gender analysis documents the number of women and minorities currently serving on San Francisco commissions and boards appointed by the Mayor, Board of Supervisors, and in some cases, other commissions.
 

2. Methodology and Limitations

In early 2011, the 311 Information Directory Department launched a website, the first of its kind in the nation, to collect and disseminate information about City appointments to policy bodies. [4] A commission or board member’s name, gender, ethnicity, and disability status were among questions posed. The gender analysis in this report reflects data from commissions and boards that provided information to 311.

Of the 51 commissions and boards who reported information, 16 had one or more members with missing gender information that was subsequently filled in by the Department based on an Internet search on the specific commission or board member.

The ethnicity information is based on the 38 commissions and boards that provided information to 311 San Francisco. Because 311 captures ethnicity information differently from the U.S. Census, comparison data in this report is classified as follows:

The 2010 U.S. Census information used in this report are from two different sets of data. Appendix 1, Chart 1 shows the population breakdown by race and ethnicity. Appendix 1, Chart 2 shows the population breakdown by gender and race. The numbers on the two charts are different because gender data by race and ethnicity was unavailable.

Unfortunately, available data on disability status and transgender appointees was limited and/or incomplete. Improved data collection will be required for a more complete picture of the City’s appointments.

 

3. San Francisco Population Demographics

According to the 2010 U.S. Census Bureau, 49% of the population in San Francisco are women and 58% of residents identify themselves as a racial minority. [5] 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. Unlike the 2008 American Communities Survey, the 2010 Census shows that most races have comparable representation by men and women in San Francisco.

 

4. Gender Analysis Findings

Generally, Commission appointments are made by the Mayor and Board appointments are made by members of the Board of Supervisors but, in some cases, the appointments are divided between the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors. Commissions tend to be permanent policy bodies that are, in some cases, part of the City Charter. Boards tend to be policy bodies created legislatively to address specific issues.

Since the Department began analyzing the gender breakdown of the City’s Commissions and Boards, there has been a consistent increase in the number of female Commissioners, and an overall increase in the number of female Board Members (see chart below).

Commission appointments are generally reflective of the demographic makeup of San Francisco and have increased steadily since the 2007 analysis. Although the percentage of women and minorities in Board positions increased by 6% since 2007, these appointments are still less representative of the population.

Data from 38 commissions show:

• 303 of a possible 321 seats are currently filled
• 51% of appointees are female
• 48% of appointees are identified as a racial minority.

Data from 13 boards show:

• 126 of a possible 137 seats are currently filled
• 44% of appointees are female
• 38% of appointees are identified as a racial minority.

The appendices of this report contain the data breakdown for the findings of this gender analysis report. What follows are highlights from the data.

 

1. Race

Although 58% of San Francisco residents are identified as minorities (this includes people of multiple race, but excludes people who identified themselves in the 2010 Census as “Other Race”), only 45% of commission and board appointees identify as such.

There is a higher representation of African American residents on commissions (14%) than in the general population (6%). In contrast, Asian Pacific Islanders are underrepresented (22% appointees vs. 33% population) as are Latinos (8% appointees vs. 15% population).

In general, racial minorities are underrepresented on boards, except for the African American population (15% appointees vs. 6% population). There are over 19% fewer Asian Pacific Islanders appointed to boards than there are represented in the larger population. Latinos are also underrepresented on these bodies by 10%.

Of the 30 commissions that provided race information, 15 had at least 50% of 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 6 have below 30%. Of the 38 commissions, only the Animal Control and Welfare Commission had zero minority representation.

Of the 8 boards that provided race information, 3 (or 38%) had at least 50% of appointees of color.

 

2. Disability

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, roughly 11% of San Franciscans have a disability. This would suggest that 11% of all Commissions and Boards should be composed of appointees with a disability. At a minimum, most policy bodies should have at least one representative. However, only 12 policy bodies provided complete information about disability status, while 11 others provided disability information on only one or more of its members (For more details, please see Appendix II). Of the 23 commissions and boards that provided disability information, only 2, the Mental Health Board and the Municipal Transportation Authority Board reported having any members with a disability (1 on each of these 2 boards). Clearly, the information is incomplete. Greater effort must be invested in identifying appointees with disabilities and appointing individuals with disabilities to commissions and board.

 

3. Gender

The charts below demonstrate that the gender breakdown of commission appointments generally mirrors the city’s population distribution. However, the percentage of female board appointments is still lower than the percentage of women in the population. The 3-year comparison indicates that the percentage of female commission appointees has steadily increased; whereas, although the percentage of female board appointees has increased 10% from 2009 and 6% from 2007, it is still 5% below the overall female population in San Francisco.

Most commissions and boards maintained approximately the same percentage of females between 2009 and 2011. Of the 45 commissions and boards with data for both years, 10 had no changes, 30 had a 25% or less change, and 5 had more than a 25% change in the number of female appointees. The 3 commissions and boards with the largest increase in the number of females were the Local Agency Formation Commission (26%), the Civil Service Commission (27%), and the Assessment Appeals Board No. 2 (36%); and the 2 with the largest decrease in the number of females were the Public Utilities Commission (-35%) and the Assessment Appeals Board No. 1 (-26%).

The two charts below illustrate the commissions and boards with the highest and lowest percentages of female appointees in 2011. The 2009 data for those commissions and boards is also included for comparison purposes.

Most commissions and boards have fewer than 10 commissioners. Thus, a large percentage shift may represent an actual change of only 1-3 people.

Of all of the reporting policy bodies, only 1, the Youth Commission, identified a transgendered appointee. Collecting complete data on transgendered appointees is an important goal for the next gender analysis.

 

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 48% of commission appointees and 37% of board appointees. The combined total of minority appointees is 45% for 2011. 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 21% men of color. However, on boards, men of color make up 21% of appointees while women of color make up 16%.

 

5. Budget Analysis

In addition to the raw data of representation by women and minorities 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 representative of the community.

Though the overall representation by women on commissions is 2% higher than 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. For example, there is a 9% difference in female representation between commissions with the highest (44%) and lowest budgets (53%).

However, when examining the commissions with highest and lowest minority representation, this pattern does not hold true. Although the minority representation in commissions is lower than the general San Francisco population, there is only a 1% difference in this groups’ representation on high and low budget commissions.

Below is a summary of commissions overseeing some of the City’s largest and lowest budgets, and the demographics of the commissioners serving on those bodies.

Of the 8 commissions that oversee a budget of more than $100 million, only the Aging and Adult Services Commission has more than a 50% female representation, with the overall female representation under 5% of the general female population of San Francisco. Although the minority representation is 52%, it is still 6% below the overall minority population. Another discerning analysis is that the percentages of minority representation range from a low of 20% to a high of 80%.

Demographics of Highest Budgeted Commissions

Commissions that oversee the lowest budgets (less than $10 million) has a 4% higher female representation rate than the general population, but its financial influence is significantly less than the commissions with the highest budget oversight.

Demographics of the Lowest Budgetd 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.

Consistent Data Collection. Commissions and boards should collect gender, race, and disability information of appointees on a consistent basis for the biennial gender analysis. Although by state law, data must be collected on a voluntary basis, systems should be put into place within the administration of every commission and board to track these statistics. The Commission Secretary should be the designated person to update this information on the 311 website every time a new member is sworn in or when a member leaves the post. This will ensure consistency in the gender analysis data collection, and will also support appointing officials in understanding the demographic make-up of bodies they oversee.

U.S. Census Data Collection. Since information on the demographic of the entire population in San Francisco was recently conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau for its 2010 Decennial Survey, more accurate data can be obtain on the race and ethnicity breakdown of the population. If the 2010 population data is to be used for future analyses based on race and gender, more specific data regarding a person’s ethnicity, race, and gender should be obtained by contacting the ethnicity office at the U.S. Census Bureau.

Reflecting San Francisco’s Diversity in its Appointed Bodies. Finally, per the 2008 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.

 

APPENDIX I. 2010 U.S. Census Data for San Francisco County

The following 2010 San Francisco population statistics was obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American FactFinder website: http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml.

Chart 1. 2010 U.S. Census, Total Population by Race

The total numbers in the yellow boxes are derived from the total number of the population by race minus the number of Hispanics identified as that race. For purposes of this report, general population ethnicity/race analyses will refer to this chart.

Chart 2. 2010 U.S. Census Total Population by Race/Ethnicity and Gender

 

Appendix II. Commission and Board Data from 311 San Francisco

Key

A=Asian/Pacific Islander, B=Black/African American, L=Latino, ME=Middle Eastern, M=Mixed Race, W=White/Caucasian, O=Other Yellow highlight = DOSW manually inputted one or more commissioner's gender information.

*Budget amounts are in millions and the information is from the Mayor's 2011-2012 Proposed Budget. 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 listed in the Mayor's Proposed Budget. Certain bodies oversee the work of divisions rather than departments, and specific budget information is unavailable.

¹Budget data is from DAAS's 2/9/11 memo: FY2011-12 DAAS Budget Proposal ²The budget amount is listed under General Services Agency as "Treasure Island."

³The sum of the number of female/male commissioners do not add up to 10 because one was classified as a Transgender Caucasian.