2013 Gender Analysis of Commissions and Boards
Gender Analysis of San Francisco Commissions and Boards
December 2013
Acknowledgements
The San Francisco Department on the Status of Women would like to thank the 311 Information Directory Department (“311”) and Nicole Wheaton, Director of Appointments from the Office of Mayor Edwin M. Lee, for collecting and providing the majority of the information necessary for the completion of this report.
We also want to thank the department secretaries, budget directors, and other administrative staff who provided information on their department’s FY 2012-2013 budget.
Initial data entry and analysis was done by Christine Wagner, summer 2013 intern at the Department on the Status of Women. Public Policy Fellow Iris Wong at the Department continued her work and finished the report later in the year.
- Introduction
The central question of this report is whether appointments to public policy bodies of the City and County of San Francisco are 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 this 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:
- Membership of Commissions and Boards reflect the diversity of the San Francisco population;
- Appointing officials be urged to support the nomination, appointment, and confirmation of these candidates; and
- 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 2013 gender analysis documents the number of women and minorities currently serving on San Francisco Commissions and Boards appointed by the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors.
- Methodology and Limitations
In early 2011, the 311 Information Directory Department (“311”) launched a website, the first of its kind in the nation, to collect and disseminate information about City appointments to policy bodies. [3]
A Commission or Board member’s name, gender, ethnicity, and disability status were among data elements collected on a voluntary basis. The gender analysis in this report reflects data from the majority of Commissions and Boards that provided information to 311.
Of the 52 Commissions and Boards that reported information, 6 had one or more members with missing gender and/or ethnic information that was subsequently filled in by the author based on an Internet search on the official Department website to which the specific member belongs. Every attempt has been made to reflect the information accurately in this report.
The ethnicity information is based on the 46 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.
Importantly, the U.S. Census does not categorize individuals of Middle Eastern descent as such and, instead, labels them “White.” Similarly, 311 does not collect data on American Indian/ Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians, or other Pacific Islanders.
Data on disability status, LGBT, and veteran appointees were limited, incomplete, and/or unavailable.
- San Francisco Population Demographics
According to the 2010 U.S. Census Bureau, 49% of the population in San Francisco is women and 58% of residents identify themselves as an ethnic minority. [4] The ethnic breakdown of San Francisco is shown below:
A more nuanced view of the City’s population can be seen in the following graph, which shows ethnicity by gender. The 2010 Census shows that most ethnicities have comparable representation of men and women in San Francisco. 
- Gender Analysis Findings
Generally, Commission appointments are made by the Mayor and Board appointments are made by members of the Board of Supervisors. For some policy bodies, however, 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 are generally policy bodies created legislatively to address specific issues.
Commission appointments are generally reflective of the demographic makeup of San Francisco and have increased steadily since the first gender analysis in 2007. This year’s analysis found a 1% decrease in the percentage of female Commissioners from the last report in 2011. Although the percentage of women and minorities in Board positions has increased by 11% since 2007, these appointments are less representative of the population.
Data from 34 Commissions show:
- 297 of a possible 419 seats are currently filled.
- 50% of appointees are female.
- 52% of appointees are identified as a racial minority.
Data from 11 Boards show:
- 122 of a possible 151 seats are currently filled.
- 47% of appointees are female.
- 49% of appointees are identified as a racial minority.
Appendix II contains the complete data used for this year’s gender analysis report.
The following sections are highlights from the information collected.
- Ethnicity
Although 58% of San Francisco residents are identified as minorities (this includes people of multiple races, but excludes those who identified themselves in the 2010 Census as “Other Race”), 48% of Commission and Board appointees identify as such.
There is a higher representation of African American residents on Commissions (15%) than in the general population (6%). In contrast, Asian Pacific Islanders are underrepresented (26% appointees vs. 33% population), as are Latinos (9% appointees vs. 15% population).
A similar pattern emerges for Boards appointees. In general, racial minorities are underrepresented on Boards, except for the African American population (12% appointees vs. 6% population). There are over 22% fewer Asian Pacific Islanders appointed to Boards than there are represented in the larger population. Latinos are also underrepresented on these bodies by 8%.
Of the 34 Commissions that provided information on ethnicity, 20 had at least 50% appointees of color.
Commissions with the highest minority representation are shown in the table below.
The remaining Commissions fall below 50% appointees of color. Four Commissions have below 30% representation, including two that have zero minority representation: Animal Control and Welfare Commission, and City Hall Preservation Advisory Commission.
Of the 11 Boards that provided information on ethnicity, three have at least 50% appointees of color.
- Disability
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, roughly 11% of San Franciscans have a disability. While 18 policy bodies provided complete information about disability status, 10 others provided incomplete data on only one or more of its members (for more details, see Appendix II). Of the 28 Commissions and Boards that provided disability information, only the Airport Commission reported having a member with a disability.
- Gender
The 3-year comparison of gender breakdown in Commissions and Boards indicates that the percentage of female Commission appointees has steadily increased. The percentage of female Board appointees has increased dramatically from 34% in 2009 to 47% in 2013, but remains 5% below the overall female population in San Francisco.
Overall, most Commissions and Boards maintained approximately the same percentage of females between 2011 and 2013. Of the 50 Commissions and Boards with data for both years, 13 had no changes, 18 had a 25% or less change, and only the Immigrant Rights Commission had more than a 25% change in the number of female appointees. The 2 policy bodies with the largest decrease in the number of females were the Civil Service Commission (– 27%) and the City Hall Preservation Advisory Commission (– 40%).
Most Commissions and Boards have fewer than 10 members. Thus, a large percentage shift may represent an actual change of only 1-3 people.
Of all the reporting policy bodies, only the Health Commission identified a transgendered appointee.
The two charts on the next page illustrate the Commissions and Boards with the highest and lowest percentages of female appointees in 2013. The 2011 data for those Commissions and Boards is also included for comparison purposes.
- Ethnicity by Gender
It is important to compare the demographics of Commissions and Boards to the San Francisco population. Persons of color represent 52% of Commission appointees and 43% of Board appointees. The combined total of minority appointees in 2013 is 49%. Women of color are represented in greater proportion than men of color on Commissions: 57% women compared to 47% men of color. Similarly, there are more female Board appointees of color (44%) than there are males (42%).
- Policy Bodies by Budget Size
In addition to the raw data of representation by women and minorities on Commissions and Boards, this report also examines whether the demographic make-up of policy bodies with the highest budget (which is often proportional to the amount of influence over the public) are representative of the community.
Though the overall representation of women in Commissions is 1% higher than that of the City’s population, Commissions with the highest female representation also have fairly low influence as measured by budget size. For example, there is an 11% difference in female representation between Commissions with the highest (43%) and lowest budgets (54%).
Similarly, Commissions with higher budgets have a lower representation of minorities. Although the minority representation in Commissions is lower than the general San Francisco population, there is only a 1% difference in this group’s 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 policy bodies.
Of the 8 Commissions that oversee a budget of more than $100 million, the Health Commission has more than 50% female representation, and the overall female representation is 6% lower than the general female population of San Francisco. The average minority representation (52%) is 6% below the overall minority population (58%), and ranges from a low of 20% to a high of 75%.
Shading indicates ratios above those in the general population.
Demographics of Highest Budgeted Commissions
|
Commission |
FY12-13 Budget* (millions) |
Total Seats |
Filled Seats |
Male |
Female |
% Female |
# Minority |
% Minority |
|
Health Commission |
$ 1,675.0 |
7 |
7 |
3 |
4 |
57% |
5 |
71% |
|
Airport Commission |
$ 838.0 |
5 |
5 |
3 |
2 |
40% |
1 |
20% |
|
Public Utilities Commission |
$ 802.4 |
5 |
5 |
3 |
2 |
40% |
2 |
40% |
|
Human Services Commission |
$ 703.5 |
5 |
5 |
3 |
2 |
40% |
3 |
60% |
|
Planning Commission |
$ 489.9 |
7 |
7 |
4 |
3 |
43% |
4 |
57% |
|
Police Commission |
$ 445.5 |
7 |
7 |
4 |
3 |
43% |
3 |
43% |
|
Fire Commission |
$ 326.0 |
5 |
4 |
2 |
2 |
50% |
3 |
75% |
|
Recreation and Park Commission |
$ 137.0 |
7 |
6 |
4 |
2 |
33% |
3 |
50% |
|
TOTAL: |
$5,417.3 |
48 |
46 |
26 |
20 |
43% |
24 |
52% |
|
*Budget data comes from the Mayor's 2012-2013 Proposed Budget and the FY12-13 Annual Appropriation Ordinance (AAO) from the Controller’s Office. |
||||||||
Commissions that oversee the lowest budgets (less than $10 million) had a 5% higher female representation rate than the general population.
Demographics of Lowest Budgeted Commissions
|
Commission |
FY12-13 Budget* (millions) |
Total Seats |
Filled Seats |
Male |
Female |
% Female |
# Minority |
% Minority |
|
Youth Commission |
$ 0.2 |
17 |
16 |
5 |
11 |
69% |
12 |
75% |
|
Commission on Community Investment and Infrastructure |
$ 0.2 |
5 |
5 |
2 |
3 |
60% |
5 |
100% |
|
Civil Service Commission |
$ 0.9 |
5 |
5 |
3 |
2 |
40% |
2 |
40% |
|
Film Commission |
$ 1.3 |
11 |
11 |
7 |
4 |
36% |
4 |
36% |
|
Human Rights Commission |
$ 1.8 |
11 |
9 |
5 |
4 |
44% |
4 |
44% |
|
Housing Authority Commission |
$ 1.9 |
7 |
5 |
3 |
2 |
40% |
4 |
80% |
|
Status of Women Commission |
$ 3.8 |
7 |
6 |
0 |
6 |
100% |
4 |
67% |
|
Residential Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Board |
$ 6.0 |
10 |
9 |
6 |
3 |
33% |
3 |
33% |
|
Asian Art Commission |
$ 8.3 |
27 |
27 |
12 |
15 |
56% |
11 |
41% |
|
TOTAL: |
$ 24.40 |
100 |
93 |
43 |
50 |
54% |
49 |
53% |
|
*Budget data is from the Mayor's 2012-2013 Proposed Budget and the FY12-13 Annual Appropriation Ordinance (AAO) from the Controller’s Office. |
||||||||
- Conclusion
Since the first gender analysis of policy bodies in San Francisco, there has been a steady increase of female Commission and Board appointees. This year’s analysis found that the representation of women in Commissions and Boards are reflective of the percentage of women in San Francisco. The overall representation of minorities in policy bodies is below the City’s minority population by 5%, with Asian Pacific Islanders and Latinos as the main underrepresented ethnicities.
Generally, Commissions with higher budgets have been found to have a smaller representation of women. Comparatively, Commissions with lower budgets have an overall ratio above the City’s female population. Minorities are underrepresented regardless of the policy body’s budget size.
There is a low representation of people with disabilities and those in the LGBTQ community. This is partly due to incomplete data collection.
- Recommendations
Reflect San Francisco’s Diversity in its Appointed Bodies: Per the 2008 charter amendment, Mayor Edwin M. Lee and the Board of Supervisors are encouraged to ensure that appointments to Commissions, Boards, and other policy bodies are reflective of the population of San Francisco. While it is not realistic or beneficial to expect appointments to be made solely based on gender, sexual orientation, disability, or veteran status, an awareness of these factors is encouraged when appointing individuals to serve on entities where they are not traditionally found.
Consistent and Complete Data Collection: Ensuring consistency in the data collection for gender analyses will help appointing officials understand the overall demographic make-up of bodies they oversee.
The Department would like to work with the Mayor’s Office to update the forms that new appointees fill out. It is important to collect data on those who identify as American Indian/Alaska Native or Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islanders in order to ensure the inclusion and representation of all ethnicities. Similarly, collecting complete data on sexual orientation, veteran, and disability status is an important goal for future gender analyses.
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: https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml
Chart 1. 2010 U.S. Census, Total Population by Race
The total numbers in the light gray 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
*Because we were unable to obtain individual data on the number of male and female non-Hispanic Whites, non-Hispanic Blacks, non-Hispanic American Indians and Alaska Natives, non-Hispanic Asians, and non-Hispanic Native Hawaiians/Other Pacific Islanders, we used 927,009 (the sum of White, Black, American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander, Some Other Race, Two or More Races, and Hispanic/Latino) as the denominator to obtain the Race & Ethnicity Percentages.
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
*Budget amounts are in millions and the information is from the Mayor's 2012-2013 Proposed Budget and the FY 2012-2013 Annual Appropriations Ordinance. Budgets are for the departments operating under the jurisdiction of the policy body. Column is left blank if the body is advisory only and lacks a corresponding department/budget listed in the Mayor's Proposed Budget.
1 The Commission oversees the Office of Community Investment and Infrastructure (OCII). The Oversight Board oversees some projects in OCII, therefore no budget information is available.
2 Information on ethnicity was gathered from the official Department website. Every attempt has been made to accurately reflect the information provided.