Item 11 2023-01010 2022 Audit of City Board, Committee, and Commission Diversity

City of Sacramento
City Council - 5PM Report
915 I Street Sacramento, CA 95814
www.cityofsacramento.org
File ID: 2023-01010 8/15/2023 Discussion Item 11.
2022 Audit of City Board, Committee, and Commission Diversity File ID: 2023-01010
Location: Citywide
Recommendation: Pass a Motion approving the City Auditor’s 2022 Audit of City Board, Committee, and Commission Diversity.

Contact: Farishta Ahrary, Assistant City Auditor, (916) 808-7266, [email protected], Office of the City Auditor
Presenter: Farishta Ahrary, Assistant City Auditor, (916) 808-7266, [email protected], Office of the City Auditor
Attachments:
1-Description/Analysis
2-2022 Audit of City Board, Committee, and Commission Diversity Description/Analysis
Issue Detail: This report was approved as part of the City Auditor’s 2022-23 Audit Plan and documents the City Auditor’s 2022 Audit of City Board, Committee, and Commission Diversity.

Policy Considerations: The City Auditor’s presentation of the 2022 Audit of City Board, Committee, and Commission Diversity is consistent with the Mayor and City Council’s intent to have an independent audit function for the City.

Economic Impacts: None.

Environmental Considerations: None.

Sustainability: None.

Commission/Committee Action: On July 25, 2023, the City Council voted to temporarily suspend (Ch. 1, D.) Council Rules of Procedure Chapter 15, B. 1. to bypass the Budget and Audit Committee

Page 1 of 2 ends

File ID: 2023-01010 8/15/2023 Discussion Item 11.
and to continue the item at a later City Council meeting.

Rationale for Recommendation: This staff report provides the City Council with information that may be used to meet its responsibility to provide oversight and supervision of the City Auditor and other City departments.

Financial Considerations: The cost of the City Auditor’s 2022 Audit of City Board, Committee, and Commission Diversity was funded out of the FY2022/23 Office of the City Auditor budget.

Local Business Enterprise (LBE): None.

Page 2 of 2 ends

Research and Analysis Division
2022 Audit of City Board, Committee, and
Commission Diversity
Report# 2023/24-01|July 2023

Disassociating Demographic Data from Board, Committee, and Commission Applications in the New OnBoard System Created Audit Limitations
Jorge Oseguera, City Auditor
Farishta Ahrary, Assistant City Auditor
Chevelle Jackson, Fiscal Policy Analyst

Office of the City Auditor
2 July 2023

The City of Sacramento’s Office of the City Auditor can be contacted by phone at 916-808-7270 or at the address below:

915 I Street
MC09100
Historic City Hall, Floor 2
Sacramento, CA 95814

Suggest an Audit
The Office of the City Auditor conducts performance audits of the City of Sacramento's operations to determine whether these operations and programs are operating efficiently and effectively. If you would like to offer ideas for audits to save the City money, increase revenues, or improve the efficiency and effectiveness of City operations and programs, please fill out our online form:

https://forms.cityofsacramento.org/f/Suggest_an_Audit_Form

Whistleblower Hotline
In the interest of public accountability and being responsible stewards of public funds, the City has established a whistleblower hotline. The hotline protects the anonymity of those leaving tips to the extent permitted by law. The service is available 24 hours a day, 7 days week, 365 days per year. Through this service, all phone calls and emails will be received anonymously by third party staff.

Report online at http://www.cityofsacramento.ethicspoint.com or call toll-free: 888-245-8859.

Office of the City Auditor
3 July 2023
Table of Contents
Audit Fact Sheet .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 4 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 5 Background ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 5 City of Sacramento Boards, Committees, and Commissions .................................................................................................................................. 5 Process for Collecting Demographic Information ................................................................................................................................................... 9 Process for Appointing Board, Committee, and Commission Members ................................................................................................................ 9 Objectives, Scope, and Methodology ......................................................................................................................................................... 11 Scope Limitation ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 11 Finding: Disassociating Demographic Data from Board, Committee, and Commission Applications in the New OnBoard System Created Audit Limitations................................................................................................................................................................................................ 13 The Limited Nature of the Data Provided by the City Clerk’s Office Eliminated Our Ability to Conduct Data Reliability Testing ....................... 14 The Reports Provided by the City Clerk’s Office Limited Our Ability to Conduct Detailed Analyses of the Diversity of Board, Committee, and Commission Applicants and Appointed Members ............................................................................................................................................... 16 Chapter 1: Demographics of City of Sacramento Residents ......................................................................................................................... 20 Chapter 2: Analysis of Board, Committee, and Commission Applicants ....................................................................................................... 23 Chapter 3: Analysis of Board, Committee, and Commission Members ........................................................................................................ 29 Department Response............................................................................................................................................................................... 34 City Auditor’s Comments on the Response from the City Clerk ................................................................................................................... 38

Office of the City Auditor
5 July 2023

Introduction
In accordance with the City Auditor’s 2022/23 Audit Plan, we have completed the 2022 Audit of City Board, Committee, and Commission Diversity. We believe this report meets our objective of providing an informative overview of the current composition of the board, committee and commission applicants and appointed members, in accordance with Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards Section 8.116 and

8.128. We did not seek to test internal controls, such as those related to the City’s recruitment, development, and retention of board, committee, and commission members.

We conducted this performance audit in accordance with Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. As required by auditing standards, we limited our work to those areas specified in the Objectives, Scope, and Methodology section of this report and disclosed our scope limitations.

The City Auditor’s Office would like to thank the City Clerk’s Office for their cooperation during the audit process.

Background
We published the first City Auditor’s Diversity Assessment of Boards, Committees, and Commissions in April 2017 under the direction of the City Council. The report assessed the diversity of City of Sacramento boards, committees, and commissions and compared them to the demographics of the City of Sacramento’s residents. The initial report included the City’s board, committee, and commission members’ demographics related to age, ethnicity, gender, and sexual orientation. The City Council expressed a desire for the Office of the City Auditor to regularly report on the gender and ethnic diversity of City board, committee, and commission members. We released our second report on the diversity of City board, committee, and commission members in December 2019 and this is our third report. As we continue to assess the diversity of board, committee, and commission members, we will review trends over the years.

City of Sacramento Boards, Committees, and Commissions
Article XV section 230 of the City of Sacramento Charter states, “The city council shall provide by ordinance for such boards and commissions as may be required by law or deemed desirable, shall prescribe their functions, and may prescribe qualifications and conditions of service on such

Office of the City Auditor
6 July 2023

boards and commissions….” As of September 2022, there were a total of 31 boards, committees, and commissions for the City of Sacramento1.

The City has 25 boards that are required by the Sacramento City Charter or City Code or are established by resolution or ordinance of the Sacramento City Council. We refer to these legislative bodies as “City Boards” in that the board seats are comprised entirely of appointments confirmed by the City Council or by virtue of their position (for example, the seat is for the City Manager or Finance Director). The City participates and makes appointments to six other multi-jurisdictional boards. These boards are comprised of members appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the City Council in addition to members that are appointed by other authorities. The City has little or no authority over the selection process of the other, non-City members or their selection.

City Staff provides administrative support to the following boards, committees, and commissions that are considered City boards:

1. Active Transportation Commission

2. Administration, Investment, & Fiscal Management Board

3. Aggie Square Public Financing Authority

4. Animal Care Services Citizens Advisory Committee

5. Ann Land and Bertha Henschel Memorial Funds Commission

6. Board of Plumbing Examiners

7. Civil Service Board

8. Compensation Commission

9. Construction Code Board of Appeals

10. Ethel MacLeod Hart Trust Fund Advisory Committee

11. Housing Code Advisory and Appeals Board

12. Measure U Community Advisory Committee

13. Parks and Community Enrichment Commission

14. Planning and Design Commission

15. Preservation Commission

16. Retirement Hearing Commission

17. Sacramento Arts, Culture, and Creative Economy Commission

18. Sacramento Community Police Review Commission

1 Boards, committees, and commissions consisting solely of the Mayor and/or City Councilmembers were excluded from this analysis.

Office of the City Auditor
7 July 2023

19. Sacramento Disabilities Advisory Commission

20. Sacramento Ethics Commission

21. Sacramento Heritage, Inc. Board of Directors

22. Sacramento Independent Redistricting Commission

23. Sacramento Relocation Appeals Board

24. Sacramento Youth Commission

25. Utilities Rate Advisory Commission
City Staff does not traditionally provide administrative support to the following boards, committees, and commissions that are non-City boards comprised of members appointed by the City and other authorities:

1. Capitol Area Development Authority Governing Board

2. Downtown/Riverfront Streetcar Policy Study Steering Committee

3. Natomas Basin Conservancy Board of Directors

4. Sacramento Environmental Commission

5. Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Commission

6. Sacramento Yolo Mosquito and Vector Control District Figure 1 below identifies the City’s boards, committees, and commissions and identifies the number of City and non-City seats on each.

Figure 1: City Board, Committee, and Commission Seats as of September 2022 Board, Committee, or Commission City Seats
Filled
City Seats
Vacant
Total City
Seats
Non-City
Seats
Total
Seats
Active Transportation Commission 11 0 11 0 11
Administration, Investment, & Fiscal Management Board 5 0 5 0 5 Aggie Square Public Financing Authority 4 1 5 0 5
Animal Care Services Citizens Advisory Committee 7 0 7 0 7 Ann Land and Bertha Henschel Memorial Funds Commission 9 0 9 0 9 Board of Plumbing Examiners 0 5 5 0 5
Capitol Area Development Authority Governing Board 2 0 2 3 5 Civil Service Board 5 0 5 0 5

Office of the City Auditor
8 July 2023

Compensation Commission 4 1 5 0 5
Construction Code Board of Appeals 0 5 5 0 5
Downtown/Riverfront Streetcar Policy Study Steering Committee 0 5 5 7 12 Ethel MacLeod Hart Trust Fund Advisory Committee 6 1 7 0 7 Housing Code Advisory and Appeals Board 5 0 5 0 5
Measure U Community Advisory Committee 13 2 15 0 15
Natomas Basin Conservancy Board of Directors 5 0 5 7 12 Parks and Community Enrichment Commission 12 0 12 0 12
Planning and Design Commission 11 2 13 0 13
Preservation Commission 7 0 7 0 7
Retirement Hearing Commission 3 2 5 0 5
Sacramento Arts, Culture, and Creative Economy Commission 12 0 12 0 12 Sacramento Community Police Review Commission 11 1 12 0 12 Sacramento Disabilities Advisory Commission 8 1 9 0 9
Sacramento Environmental Commission 3 0 3 6 9
Sacramento Ethics Commission 5 0 5 0 5
Sacramento Heritage, Inc. Board of Directors 9 2 11 0 11 Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Commission 5 0 5 6 11 Sacramento Independent Redistricting Commission 14 0 14 0 14 Sacramento Relocation Appeals Board 3 2 5 0 5
Sacramento Yolo Mosquito and Vector Control District 1 0 1 12 13 Sacramento Youth Commission 13 6 19 0 19
Utilities Rate Advisory Commission 6 1 7 0 7
Grand Total 199 37 236 41 277
Source: Auditor compiled with data gathered from the City of Sacramento website at https://boards.cityofsacramento.org/.

Office of the City Auditor
9 July 2023

Process for Collecting Demographic Information
Individuals interested in filling a City-appointed seat on a board, committee, or commission are required to submit applications to the City Clerk via the City’s website at https://boards.cityofsacramento.org/apply/. The application documents general information, such as name, address, and contact information. The application also includes questions regarding occupation, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and transgender status.

In our previous diversity audits of the board, committee, and commission members, we collected demographic information from data provided by the City Clerk’s Office and conducted surveys completed by members to gather information that was not captured by the City Clerk’s Office such as the sexual orientation and transgender status of members. However, in early 2020, the City Clerk’s Office switched to a new software program, OnBoard, that allows them to now ask the sexual orientation and transgender status of members in the application submitted by prospective members.2 Therefore, there is no longer a need to conduct a separate survey of the board, committee, and commission members to collect this information. However, as explained in the finding below, the manner in which the data is collected and reported by OnBoard created some audit limitations.

Process for Appointing Board, Committee, and Commission Members The City Charter Article XV, Section 230 states “except as otherwise expressly provided in this Charter, the mayor shall appoint all members of boards and commissions, subject to the concurrence of a majority of the city council.” According to the Office of the City Clerk, members are appointed to serve on City boards, committees, and commissions in one of the following ways:
• By virtue of their position (for example, the seat is for the City Manager or Finance Director); • Nominated by the Personnel and Public Employees Committee (P&PE), appointed by the mayor, and confirmed by the City Council; • Nominated by a councilmember, appointed by the mayor, and confirmed by the City Council; or • In a different manner outlined in the formation documents of the board, committee, or commission (for example, the seat may be jointly appointed by the City Council and another agency).

2 OnBoard is an online hosted web portal for the administrative management and tracking of boards, committee s, and commissions; applications; board members; and term expirations.

Office of the City Auditor
10 July 2023

According to the Office of the City Clerk, many applicants interview with the P&PE Committee that nominates members for the various boards, committees, and commissions. As of February 2023, the P&PE Committee was made up of four City councilmembers and consisted of Lisa Kaplan, Sean Loloee, Caity Maple, and Katie Valenzuela.

Once appointed, the member roster is updated on the City Clerk’s website for board, committee, and commission members appointed by the City. The City Clerk’s Office uses the data from OnBoard to update the member roster. Since disclosure of gender, ethnic, and sexual orientation information on the application is voluntary, the gender, ethnicity, and sexual orientation of some members of City boards, committees, and commissions was unavailable.

Office of the City Auditor
11 July 2023

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
The objective of this assessment was to review the diversity of City board, committee, and commission members over time as it compares to the diversity of City of Sacramento residents. The City Council expressed a desire to regularly report on the gender and ethnic diversity of City board, committee, and commission members. In addition, our objective was to analyze the diversity of applicants for City board, committee, and commission seats. Our analysis focused on applicants and City-appointed members of City boards, commissions, and committees as of July 2022. To conduct this assessment, we used applicant and appointed member demographic data provided by the City Clerk’s Office and board, committee, and commission information publicly available on the City of Sacramento’s website.

To determine the demographics for City of Sacramento residents, we used projections from the United States Census Bureau (Census). Since the Census did not have data on the sexual orientation of the City’s population, we used data from our 2022 Community Survey regarding the sexual orientation and transgender status of the City’s residents.

Scope Limitation
Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards (GAGAS) developed by the Government Accountability Office require that auditors obtain sufficient and appropriate evidence to address audit objectives in the following sections:

Section 8.114: Evidence has limitations or uncertainties when its validity or reliability has not been assessed or cannot be assessed, given the audit objectives and the intended use of the evidence. Limitations also include errors identified by the auditors in their testing.

Section 8.90: Auditors must obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for addressing the audit objectives and supporting their findings and conclusions.

Section 8.91: In assessing the appropriateness of evidence, auditors should assess whether the evidence is relevant, valid, and reliable.

In addition, GAGAS requires auditors to report any limitation encountered during the course of an audit. Specifically, the following GAGAS sections state:

Section 9.12: Auditors should describe the scope of the work performed and any limitations, including issues that would be relevant to likely users, so that report users can reasonably interpret the findings, conclusions, and recommendations in the report

Office of the City Auditor
12 July 2023

without being misled. Auditors should also report any significant constraints imposed on the audit approach by information limitations or scope impairments, including denials of, or excessive delays in, access to certain records or individuals.

Section 9.20: Auditors should describe in their report limitations or uncertainties with the reliability or validity of evidence if (1) the evidence is significant to the findings and conclusions within the context of the audit objectives and (2) such disclosure is necessary to avoid misleading the report users about the findings and conclusions. Auditors should describe the limitations or uncertainties regarding evidence in conjunction with the findings and conclusions, in addition to describing those limitations or uncertainties as part of the objectives, scope, and methodology.

To meet GAGAS standards, we typically conduct data validation testing to ensure data reviewed and used during an audit are complete, accurate, and reliable. However, as further explained in the finding below, the new OnBoard system utilized by the City Clerk’s Office disassociates the demographic information of board, committee, and commission applicants and members from the rest of the application information. Therefore, the board, committee, and commission applicant and appointed members reports provided by the City Clerk’s Office did not have any identifiable information to conduct testing and could not be validated. Consequently, the reliability of the data is undetermined.

This compromised our ability to meet some of our audit objectives and analyze member demographic information by board, committee, and commission. However, given that this was the only data available regarding the demographic information of the City’s board, committee, and commission members, we have used the data to conduct the analysis in this report.

Office of the City Auditor
13 July 2023

Finding: Disassociating Demographic Data from Board, Committee, and Commission Applications in the New OnBoard System Created Audit Limitations
In February 2019, the City of Sacramento’s Government Alliance on Race and Equity (GARE) cohort adopted the following racial equity statement: “The City of Sacramento affirms racial equity as a core value in which race does not affect life outcomes. We acknowledge historical racial inequities and are committed to transparent, deliberate, and actionable solutions that will remedy those inequities and serve all our diverse communities.”3 In its report, Racial Equity: Getting to Results, GARE states “government has a key role in advancing racial equity, and therefore are modeling at the local level how it is truly possible for government to advance racial equity and to develop into an inclusive and effective democracy.” The report outlines GARE’s six-part strategic approach geared to address all levels of institutional change which includes using data for accountability. The GARE report suggests beginning with data and states “[t]he use and analysis of data are about empowering you to make good decisions – and to advance racial equity.” Our diversity analysis in this audit relies on the demographic information provided by individuals completing the City’s application to serve on boards, committees, and commissions. In our previous audits, the City Clerk’s Office used the Granicus software to receive applications and manage City boards, committees, and commissions. To conduct our audit, the City Clerk’s Office would provide us their Master Roster datasets from Granicus that contained all the information board, committee, and commission members provided on their applications including their name, board name, seat, address, gender, ethnicity, and sexual orientation. In November 2019, the City Clerk’s Office contracted with Clerkbase to switch from utilizing Granicus to the OnBoard software.

In July 2022, the Clerk’s Office provided us with reports from the new OnBoard system: one for applicants for board, committee, and commission seats and one for appointed members. The data provided was significantly limited compared to what we had received in previous years. The reports only contained demographic information such as date of birth, zip code, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and transgender status but it did not contain associating application information such as the name of the individual or, in the case of the appointed members report, the board name for which the member served. According to the City Clerk’s Office, they worked with the OnBoard software vendor to disassociate sensitive demographic information from the identifying information on applications because their concern has been the protection/privacy of the demographic information and they wanted to encourage applicants with being comfortable in reporting the data.

While it may have been successful in alleviating the concerns of some applicants, this change prevented us from replicating the types of analyses that we performed in prior years. Specifically, we found:
• The limited nature of the data provided by the City Clerk’s Office eliminated our ability to conduct data reliability testing; and

3 The Government Alliance on Race and Equity (GARE) is a national network of government working to achieve racial equity and ad vance opportunities for all.

The Alliance is a joint project of the new Race Forward and the Othering and Belonging Institute. https://www.racialequityalliance.org/

Office of the City Auditor
14 July 2023

• The reports provided by the City Clerk’s Office limited our ability to conduct detailed analyses of the diversity of board, committee, and commission applicants and appointed members.

As described in more detail below, disassociating the demographic information from the board, committee, and commission applications in the new OnBoard system compromised our ability to meet some of our audit objectives such as conducting data reliability testing on the reports provided by the City Clerk’s Office and more detailed analyses of the board, committee, and commission applicants and appointed members. In our opinion, it is important for data to be validated for completeness, accuracy, and reliability and analyzed in greater detail. We recommend the City Clerk’s Office work with the OnBoard vendor to capture the data elements needed to facilitate data reliability testing and more detailed analyses of board, committee, and commission member diversity.

The Limited Nature of the Data Provided by the City Clerk’s Office Eliminated Our Ability to Conduct Data Reliability Testing
The Sacramento Office of the City Auditor is required by City Code section 2.18.030 to conduct its audits in accordance with Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards (GAGAS). Those standards require that “[a]uditors must obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for addressing the audit objectives and supporting their findings and conclusions”. GAGAS further require that “[i]n assessing the appropriateness of evidence, auditors should assess whether the evidence is relevant, valid, and reliable.” According to the United States Government Accountability Office, the authors of GAGAS, “[i]n an audit environment, reliability of data means that data are applicable for audit purpose and are sufficiently complete and accurate.”4 To meet GAGAS standards, auditors design tests to assess the reliability of data used during an audit.

To conduct our analyses of gender and ethnic diversity of City board, committee, and commission members, we rely on reports provided by the City Clerk’s Office. As previously mentioned, to conduct our audit, the City Clerk’s Office would provide us their Master Roster dataset from Granicus that contained all the information board, committee, and commission members provided on their applications such as their name, board name, seat, address, gender, ethnicity, and sexual orientation. To assess the relevance, validity, and reliability of the data, we conduct data reliability tests such as comparing the names of the individuals on the Master Roster with a separate list of all board, committee, and commission members to ensure no members were missing from the Master Roster. This year, we received two relevant reports from the City Clerk’s Office: one for applicants for board, committee, and commission seats and one for appointed members. However, the data provided was

4 Applied Research and Methods; Kingsbury, N., Assessing Data Reliability (2019). United States Government Accountability Office. Retrieved September 28, 2022, from https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-20-283g.

Office of the City Auditor
15 July 2023

significantly limited compared to what we had received in previous years. The data we were provided by the City Clerk’s Office for this year’s analysis was stripped of key variables that would allow us to conduct our data reliability testing such as the name of the applicants/members and board name of the appointed members. Figure 2 below identifies all of the information provided in the two datasets for this year’s analysis.

Figure 2: Data Elements Contained in City Clerk’s 2022 Reports

Source: Auditor generated based on reports provided by the City Clerk’s Office.

As displayed in Figure 2 above, the reports provided by the City Clerk’s Office contained limited information about the demographics of board, committee, and commission seat applicants and appointed members and did not contain information such as the name of the applicants/members or unique identifiers, thereby eliminating our ability to conduct data reliability tests to assess whether the data provided to us were relevant, valid, and reliable for our audit objectives. For example, we can no longer ensure that all appointed members are included in the data as their names are not provided in the report. The reports also compromised our ability to conduct testing to assess whether application information for one person is duplicated in the report. In addition, although the date of birth of appointed members was included in the reports provided by the Clerk’s Office, the information for half of the appointed members was missing (this question was not required to be answered on the application until July 2021). Of the members whose date of birth was included, one of the members was identified with a birth year of 2020 – making them almost two-years-old at the time of our analysis. Since the OnBoard data does not contain key variables such as the name of the applicants/members and board name of the appointed members, we could not determine which commission member had entered an inaccurate birthdate. As a result, because the Date of Birth data was incomplete and did not appear to be reliable, we did not use it to conduct analysis in this audit. Although we use the rest of the data provided by the City Clerk’s Office to conduct analyses in subsequent Applicants Report
• Board Name
• Date of Birth
• Zip Code
• Gender
• Ethnicity
• What is your sexual
orientation?
• Would you describe yourself
as transgender?
Appointed Members Report
• Date of Birth
• Zip Code
• Ward/District
• Gender
• Ethnicity
• What is your sexual
orientation?
• Would you describe yourself
as transgender?

Office of the City Auditor
16 July 2023

chapters of this report, as discussed in the Objectives, Scope, and Methodology Section, the data is of undetermined reliability and care should be taken when relying on it to make policy and appointment decisions.

The City Clerk’s Office stated “[o]ur chief concern has always been the protection/privacy of demographic information. The vendor has made updates so that we can abide by our commitment that all information reports separate from the individual applicant/member. We state this commitment directly on the application to encourage applicants with being comfortable in reporting this important data.” However, an unintended consequence of this has led to our inability to validate the data provided by the City Clerk’s Office. Another consequence is that those that would have liked their demographic information known would not have that association accounted for during a diversity assessment such as this. While we understand the City Clerk’s concerns, in our opinion, there is significant value in conducting more detailed analyses of board, committee, and commission diversity with validated data.

The Reports Provided by the City Clerk’s Office Limited Our Ability to Conduct Detailed Analys es of the Diversity of Board, Committee, and Commission Applicants and Appointed Members In its report Racial Equity Toolkit, GARE stresses the importance of gathering and analyzing data and states “[u]sing data appropriately will allow you to assess whether you are achieving desired impacts.” The report further states “[j]ust as data was critical in analyzing potential impacts of the program or policy, data will be important in seeing whether the program or policy has worked. Developing mechanisms for collecting data and evaluating progress will help measure whether racial equity is being advanced.” In previous years’ audits, we conducted various detailed analyses of members by board, committee, and commission such as by gender, ethnicity/race, age, length of service, and by Council District.

However, as discussed in the previous section, the reports provided by the City Clerk’s Office for this audit contained limited information about the demographic information of board, committee, and commission applicants and appointed members thereby hindering our ability to conduct similar detailed analyses of the diversity of appointed members. Analyses of appointed members in this report are only done on a high-level and not on the board, committee, and commission level therefore limiting the information available for the City Council to assess the diversity of specific boards, committees, or commissions. Figure 3 below identifies analyses that we did not have the data to conduct in this report.

Office of the City Auditor
17 July 2023

Figure 3: Analysis of Applicants and Appointed Members that Were Precluded in this Audit Report

Source: Auditor generated from review of the 2019 Audit of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion of Boards, Committees, and Commissions and data provided by the City Clerk’s Office for this year’s analysis.

As mentioned above, the Appointed Members Report did not contain information on the board, committee, or commission that each member served which limited our ability to analyze members’ diversity by board, committee, and commission. For example, based on the information captured by the City Clerk’s office, we can no longer use the data provided to analyze what percentage of the members of the Sacramento Community Police Review Commission are Hispanic. Therefore, the City Council will no longer be able to assess whether the appointments they have made since 2019 have helped change the composition of boards, committees, and commissions to be more reflective of the communities they serve. Discussions in previous Personnel and Public Employees Committee (P&PE) meetings demonstrate that having this information is important for councilmembers in making appointment decisions. For example, during the February 13, 2018, meeting, one councilmember directed staff to come back with the demographic makeup of a board because the councilmember did not have the information on half of the members of the board for which they were making an appointment. In another P&PE meeting on September 23, 2020, when discussing appointment decisions on a board, the same councilmember stated, “I’m a little concerned about lack of representation on the commission…I have a real concern with making one board, a board completely male.” These examples demonstrate that more detailed analysis of the demographics of each board, committee, and commission is desired by some councilmembers.

Ethnicity/Race of Appointed Members by Board, Committee, and Commission Gender of Appointed Members by Board, Committee, and Commission Age of Appointed Members by Board, Committee, and Commission Length of Service of Appointed Members
Appointed Members by City Council District and Board, Committee, and Commission Applicants by City Council District
Visual Maps Identiyfing the Addresses of Appointed Members and Applicants, including by gender

Office of the City Auditor
18 July 2023

To illustrate the limitation in this audit, Figure 4 below identifies the boards, committees, and commissions that had more than half of the seats filled by one ethnicity/race in our 2019 report. Because the reports we were provided for this year’s audit no longer include the board, committee, or commission of the appointed members, we cannot conduct a similar analysis for 2022 to assess whether the appointments the City Council has made to these boards, committees, and commissions reflect the ethnic/racial or gender diversity of Sacramento residents. It is also no longer possible to track the changes in ethnic and gender composition over time. In addition, it is no longer possible to compare the demographics of the applicant pool with the composition of each board, committee, or commission.

Figure 4: Boards, Committees, and Commissions with More Than Fifty Percent of Seats Filled by One Ethnicity/Race in 2019 Board, Committee, and Commission White
Black or
African
American
Hispanic or
Latino Asian
Two or
more
Ethnicities
Filipino Native
American Unknown
Total
Seats
Filled
Total
Seats
Available
Animal Care Services Citizens Advisory
Committee 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3 7
Housing Code Advisory and Appeals Board 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 5 5 Retirement Hearing Commission 75% 25% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4 5 Preservation Commission 71% 14% 0% 0% 14% 0% 0% 0% 7 7
Utilities Rate Advisory Commission 71% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 14% 14% 7 7 Active Transportation Commission 64% 27% 0% 0% 0% 9% 0% 0% 11 11 Ann Land and Bertha Henschel Memorial
Funds Commission 63% 13% 13% 13% 0% 0% 0% 0% 8 9
Sacramento Heritage, Inc. Board of Directors 63% 13% 13% 0% 13% 0% 0% 0% 8 11 Administration, Investment, & Fiscal
Management Board 60% 0% 40% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 5 5
Paratransit Inc. Board of Directors 56% 11% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 33% 9 9 Sacramento Environmental Commission 56% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 44% 9 9 Sacramento Relocation Appeals Board 40% 60% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 5 5 Source: Auditor generated from review of the 2019 Audit of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion of Boards, Committees, and Commissions.

Office of the City Auditor
19 July 2023

As previously stated, according to the City Clerk’s Office, the Clerk’s Office worked with the OnBoard software vendor to disassociate the demographic information from the applications because they believed it could cause a chilling effect on people who were hesitant to disclose personal information in the applications. However, this has limited our ability to conduct detailed analyses of the diversity of the City’s boards, committees, and commissions. While we understand the City Clerk’s concerns, in our opinion, there is significant value in conducting more detailed analyses of board, committee, and commission diversity with validated data. As previously mentioned, some councilmembers expressed interest in having detailed analyses by boards, committees, and commissions during previous P&PE meetings. We recommend the City Clerk’s Office work with the software vendor to capture the data elements needed to facilitate data reliability testing and more detailed analyses of board, committee, and commission member diversity.

RECOMMENDATION:

We recommend the City Clerk’s Office:

1. Work with the software vendor to capture the data elements needed in order to facilitate data reliability testing and conduct detailed analyses of board, committee, and commission diversity.

Office of the City Auditor
20 July 2023

Chapter 1: Demographics of City of Sacramento Residents In this chapter, we provide some demographic information such as the ethnicity/race, sex, and household income of City residents. To determine Sacramento residents’ demographics in this and subsequent chapters, we relied on data from the United States (U.S.) Census Bureau for 2021. The U.S. Census Bureau provides data on the nation’s people and economy. Its Population and Housing Census counts every resident within the U.S. every ten years. The U.S. Census Bureau also conducts other surveys, such as the American Community Survey and Current Population Survey, on a more regular basis to gather vital information about the United States and its residents. The following are some key statistics related to the City of Sacramento’s estimated population as of 2021 5:

• The total population is estimated to be 525,028 residents; • The three most populous ethnic/racial groups in the City population are White (30 percent), Hispanic or Latino (29 percent), and Asian, including Filipino (19 percent);
• Females comprise 51 percent of the City population, while males comprise 49 percent; • The median household income is $75,311 while the average household income is $97,415; and • The median age is 36.

This chapter provides ethnicity/race and gender demographics related to Sacramento residents that can be compared to City board, committee, and commission member demographics in the remaining chapters. This chapter also includes data regarding the City’s projected lesbian, gay, bisexual, and/or transgender populations as estimated by our 2022 City of Sacramento National Community Survey.

5 The U.S. Census Bureau’s 2021 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates Data Profiles was the most recent information available at the time of this audit.

Office of the City Auditor
21 July 2023

Figure 5 below shows Sacramento’s 2021 population estimate by ethnicity/race based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2021 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates Data Profiles. 6 Figure 5: Estimated Population of Sacramento Residents by Ethnicity/Race (525,028 Total)

Source: 2021 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates Data Profiles.

6 The U.S. Census Bureau does not have ethnic categories for M iddle Eastern or North African (MENA). In the data provided by the Census Bureau, MENA is combined with White.

Figure 6 shows Sacramento’s household income statistics based on the 2021 American Community Survey.

Figure 6: Estimated Population of Sacramento Residents by Household Income (202,093 Total Households)

Source: 2021 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates Data Profiles.

30% 29%
16%
11%
7%
3% 0.3% 2% 0.8%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
White Hispanic Asian Black or
African
American
Two or
More
Races
Filipino American
Indian or
Alaska
Native
Native
Hawaiian
or Other
Pacific
Islander
Other
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%
Less than $10,000
$10,000 to $14,999
$15,000 to $24,999
$25,000 to $34,999
$35,000 to $49,999
$50,000 to $74,999
$75,000 to $99,999
$100,000 to $149,999
$150,000 to $199,999
$200,000 or more
The Office of the City Auditor conducts community surveys of residents to understand how they feel about the quality of services provided, facets of livability, use of resources, and present and future needs of the community. The survey also includes demographic questions such as age, sex, sexual orientation, and transgender status. The 2022 National Community Survey report provided the opinions of a representative sample of 700 residents of the City of Sacramento. The survey had a 95 percent confidence level and margin of error of plus or minus four percentage points. The following figure identifies the sexual orientation of survey respondents of the City’s 2022 National Community Survey.

Figure 7: Sexual Orientation of the 2022 City of Sacramento National Community Survey Respondents Sexual Orientation Percent
Asexual 6%
Bisexual 3%
Gay/Lesbian 9%
Heterosexual 73%
Pansexual 3%
Questioning 1%
Other 5%
Source: 2022 City of Sacramento National Community Survey.

The following figure identifies the transgender status of survey respondents of the City’s 2022 National Community Survey.

Figure 8: Transgender Status of the 2022 City of Sacramento National Community Survey Respondents Transgender Status Percent
No 96%
Yes 4%
Source: 2022 City of Sacramento National Community Survey.

Office of the City Auditor
23 July 2023

Chapter 2: Analysis of Board, Committee, and Commission Applicants Our previous audits of the diversity of board, committee, and commission members did not analyze the diversity of the applicants for the boards, committee, and commissions. This is our first report that analyzes the diversity of applicants for the City’s boards, committees, and commissions and compares it to the diversity of City residents.

According to records provided by the City Clerk’s Office, the City received 558 applications for the City’s board, committee, and commission seats between January 1, 2020, and July 7, 2022.7 Figure 9 below compares the gender composition of the applicants to the gender composition of the City’s residents. At least 52 percent of the applicants were female, and 41 percent were male. The gender of five percent of applicants were not disclosed.

Figure 9: Gender Composition of Applicants Compared to City Residents

Source: Auditor generated from City board, committee, and commission applicant data provided by the City Clerk’s Office and City resident data from the 2021 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates Data Profiles.

7 Multiple applications may have been submitted by the same person, therefore one person may be analyzed as many times as they have submitted applications either for the seats on the same board, committee, or commission or on different boards, committees, or commissions. Due to limitations in the data provided by the City Clerk’s Office, we were not able to analyze the number of duplicate applications that may have been submitted by the same person.

In addition, as previously mentioned, the board, committee, and commission applicant and appointed members reports provided by the City Clerk’s Office did not have any identifiable information to conduct testing and could not be validated. Consequently, the reliability of the dat a is undetermined. 52%
41%
2% 5%
51% 49%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Female Male Nonbinary or
Third Gender
Prefer Not to
Say
Applicants City Residents

Office of the City Auditor
24 July 2023

Figure 10 below compares the ethnic/racial composition of the applicants to the ethnic/racial composition of the City’s residents. The largest variation between the applicants and City residents were the Hispanic or Latino category. As shown in the figure below, 13 percent of the applicants were Hispanic or Latino while 29 percent of the City’s residents are Hispanic or Latino. The ethnicity/race of 8 percent of the applicants were not disclosed.

Figure 10: Ethnic/Racial Composition of Applicants Compared to City Residents

0.3%
2%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
White (Non
Hispanic or
Latino)
Hispanic or
Latino
Asian (Non
Hispanic or
Latino)
Black or
African
American
(Non
Hispanic or
Latino)
Two or More
Ethnicities
Filipino American
Indian or
Alaska Native
(Non
Hispanic or
Latino)
Native
Hawaiian or
Other Pacific
Islander (Non
Hispanic or
Latino)
Middle
Eastern or
North African
Prefer Not to
Say
Applicants City Residents

Office of the City Auditor
25 July 2023

Figure 11 below analyzes the gender and ethnic/racial composition of applicants.

Figure 11: Gender and Ethnic/Racial Composition of Applicants

Source: Auditor generated from City board, committee, and commission applicant data provided by the City Clerk’s Office.

Figure 12 analyzes the gender of applicants by board, committee, or commission compared to City residents. As shown below, the applicants of some boards, committees, and commissions were more evenly split between the genders while others were not. In addition, some of the boards, committees, and commissions had a large number of applicants (such as the Sacramento Youth Commission) and others had a very small number of applicants (such as the Ann Land and Bertha Henschel Memorial Funds Commission). This may be due in part to the number of seats that were available to be filled on each board, committee, and commission during the timeframe of our audit: January 1, 2020, through July 7, 2022.

Female Male Nonbinary or Third
Gender Prefer Not to Say
White (Non Hispanic or Latino) 95 75 7 2
Hispanic or Latino 41 33 1
Asian (Non Hispanic or Latino) 26 29 1 1
Black or African American (Non Hispanic or
Latino) 47 57 5
Two or More Ethnicities 45 20 4
Filipino 3 5 1
American Indian or Alaska Native (Non
Hispanic or Latino) 6 2
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander (Non
Hispanic or Latino) 6
Middle Eastern or North African 2 1 1
Prefer Not to Say 17 8 17
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100

Office of the City Auditor
26 July 2023

Figure 12: Gender of Applicants by Board, Committee, or Commission Compared to City Residents Board, Committee, or Commission Female Male Nonbinary or Third Gender
Prefer Not to
Say
Grand
Total
Active Transportation Commission 56% 44% 0% 0% 16
Administration, Investment, & Fiscal Management Board 33% 56% 0% 11% 9 Aggie Square Public Financing Authority 60% 30% 0% 10% 10 Animal Care Services Citizens Advisory Committee 71% 17% 0% 12% 41 Ann Land and Bertha Henschel Memorial Funds Commission 67% 0% 0% 33% 3 Capitol Area Development Authority Governing Board 50% 50% 0% 0% 4 Civil Service Board 57% 43% 0% 0% 7
Compensation Commission 29% 71% 0% 0% 7
Ethel MacLeod Hart Trust Fund Advisory Committee 67% 33% 0% 0% 9 Housing Code Advisory and Appeals Board 22% 78% 0% 0% 9 Measure U Community Advisory Committee 45% 38% 10% 7% 29 Natomas Basin Conservancy Board of Directors 14% 86% 0% 0% 7 Parks and Community Enrichment Commission 49% 46% 0% 5% 39 Planning and Design Commission 40% 56% 0% 4% 25
Preservation Commission 33% 60% 0% 7% 15
Sacramento Arts, Culture, and Creative Economy Commission 57% 35% 4% 4% 51 Sacramento Community Police Review Commission 43% 45% 0% 12% 51 Sacramento Disabilities Advisory Commission 50% 42% 0% 8% 12 Sacramento Environmental Commission 50% 50% 0% 0% 12
Sacramento Ethics Commission 57% 36% 0% 7% 14
Sacramento Heritage, Inc. Board of Directors 50% 50% 0% 0% 8 Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Commission 42% 58% 0% 0% 19 Sacramento Independent Redistricting Commission 59% 41% 0% 0% 29 Sacramento Relocation Appeals Board 0% 100% 0% 0% 1
Sacramento Yolo Mosquito and Vector Control District 0% 100% 0% 0% 1 Sacramento Youth Commission 59% 32% 5% 3% 115
Utilities Rate Advisory Commission 47% 47% 7% 0% 15
Grand Total 52% 41% 2% 5% 558
City Residents 51% 49% N/A N/A 525,028
Source: Auditor generated from City board, committee, and commission applicant data provided by the City Clerk’s Office and 2021 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates Data Profiles.

Figure 13 analyzes the ethnicity/race of applicants by board, committee, or commission compared to City residents. Similar to the gender analysis of applicants, the ethnic/racial composition of applicants for some boards, committees, and commissions appeared more closely aligned with the ethnic/racial composition of City residents while others did not. The composition of boards, committees, and commissions with the higher number of applicants appear to be more ethnically/racially diverse.

Office of the City Auditor
27 July 2023

Figure 13: Ethnicity/Race of Applicants by Board, Committee, or Commission Compared to City Residents Board, Committee, or Commission White
Hispanic
or
Latino
Asian
Black or
African
American
Two or
More
Ethnicities
Filipino
American
Indian or
Alaska
Native
Native
Hawaiian
or Other
Pacific
Islander
Middle
Eastern or
North
African
Prefer
Not to
Say
Grand
Total
Active Transportation Commission 69% 13% 0% 13% 6% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 16 Administration, Investment, & Fiscal Management Board 56% 11% 11% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 22% 9 Aggie Square Public Financing Authority 20% 40% 0% 10% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 30% 10 Animal Care Services Citizens Advisory Committee 56% 7% 5% 0% 20% 0% 0% 0% 0% 12% 41 Ann Land and Bertha Henschel Memorial Funds Commission 33% 0% 0% 33% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 33% 3 Capitol Area Development Authority Governing Board 50% 0% 0% 25% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 25% 4 Civil Service Board 71% 0% 0% 14% 0% 14% 0% 0% 0% 0% 7
Compensation Commission 43% 14% 14% 14% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 14% 7 Ethel MacLeod Hart Trust Fund Advisory Committee 56% 22% 0% 11% 11% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 9 Housing Code Advisory and Appeals Board 33% 11% 0% 33% 11% 0% 0% 0% 0% 11% 9 Measure U Community Advisory Committee 28% 17% 3% 45% 7% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 29 Natomas Basin Conservancy Board of Directors 71% 0% 14% 14% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 7 Parks and Community Enrichment Commission 18% 21% 15% 18% 18% 0% 3% 0% 0% 8% 39 Planning and Design Commission 20% 24% 12% 24% 8% 0% 0% 4% 0% 8% 25 Preservation Commission 60% 20% 0% 13% 0% 7% 0% 0% 0% 0% 15 Sacramento Arts, Culture, and Creative Economy
Commission 24% 10% 12% 25% 16% 0% 2% 2% 2% 8% 51
Sacramento Community Police Review Commission 24% 18% 6% 22% 18% 0% 4% 0% 2% 8% 51 Sacramento Disabilities Advisory Commission 25% 17% 0% 17% 8% 8% 0% 0% 0% 25% 12 Sacramento Environmental Commission 67% 0% 17% 0% 17% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 12 Sacramento Ethics Commission 29% 7% 7% 36% 14% 7% 0% 0% 0% 0% 14 Sacramento Heritage, Inc. Board of Directors 75% 13% 0% 0% 13% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 8 Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Commission 26% 11% 5% 42% 11% 0% 0% 0% 0% 5% 19 Sacramento Independent Redistricting Commission 24% 21% 17% 21% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3% 14% 29 Sacramento Relocation Appeals Board 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1 Sacramento Yolo Mosquito and Vector Control District 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1 Sacramento Youth Commission 15% 10% 21% 18% 18% 3% 3% 3% 1% 6% 115 Utilities Rate Advisory Commission 73% 7% 0% 13% 7% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 15 Grand Total 32% 13% 10% 20% 12% 2% 1% 1% 1% 8% 558
City Residents 30% 29% 16% 11% 7% 3% 0.3% 2% N/A N/A 525,028 Source: Auditor generated from City board, committee, and commission applicant data provided by the City Clerk’s Office and 2021 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates Data Profiles.

Office of the City Auditor
28 July 2023

Figures 14 and 15 below analyze the sexual orientation and transgender status of applicants, respectively. Due to the different categories of sexual orientation between the application to be appointed to a board, committee, or commission and the City’s 2022 National Community Survey, we did not compare the sexual orientation of applicants with those of the City’s residents in one chart. For reference, the sexual orientation of City residents was analyzed in Figure 7 in Chapter 1.

Figure 14: Sexual Orientation of Applicants

Source: Auditor generated from City board, committee, and commission applicant data provided by the City Clerk’s Office.

Figure 15: Transgender Status of Applicants

Source: Auditor generated from City board, committee, and commission applicant data provided by the City Clerk’s Office and the City’s 2022 National Community Survey.

To ensure the confidentiality of City applicants, we did not analyze the sexual orientation or transgender status of applicants by board, committee, or commission.

68%
5% 4% 3% 2% 2% 1% 1%
14%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
94%
2% 5%
96%
4%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
No Yes Prefer Not to Say
Applicants City Residents

Office of the City Auditor
29 July 2023

Chapter 3: Analysis of Board, Committee, and Commission Members The Office of the City Auditor has previously conducted two assessments of the City’s board, committee, and commission members’ diversity:
one in 2017 and one in 2019. This chapter analyzes the diversity of the City’s board, committee, and commission members as of July 7, 2022 and compares it to the diversity of City residents and board, committee, and commission members reported in the 2017 and 2019 reports.

According to records provided by the City Clerk’s Office, the City had 192 appointed members to the City’s board, committee, and commission seats as of July 7, 2022, for which there were demographic information available. As previously mentioned, the board, committee, and commission applicant and appointed members reports provided by the City Clerk’s Office did not have any identifiable information to conduct testing and could not be validated. Consequently, the reliability of the data is undetermined. The following analyses rely on the reports provided by the City Clerk’s Office.

Figure 16 below compares the gender composition of appointed members in 2017, 2019, and 2022 with the composition of the City’s residents.

Figure 16: Gender Composition of Appointed Members in 2017, 2019, and 2022 Compared to City Residents

Source: Auditor generated from City board, committee, and commission appointed members data provided by the City Clerk’s Office; 2021 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates Data Profiles; and the City Auditor’s 2019 Audit of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion of Boards, Committees, and Commissions.

Female Male Nonbinary or Third
Gender Prefer Not to Say
City Residents 51% 49%
Members in 2017 40% 60%
Members in 2019 47% 51% 1% 1%
Members in 2022 51% 45% 1% 3%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%

Office of the City Auditor
30 July 2023

Figure 17 below compares the ethnic/racial composition of appointed members in 2017, 2019, and 2022 with the ethnic/racial composition of the City’s residents. The largest change in the ethnic/racial composition of members appears to be in the White (Non Hispanic or Latino) category. During the 2017 and 2019 reports, 61 percent and 53 percent of the members were in the White (Non Hispanic or Latino) category compared to only 26 percent in 2022. However, it is important to note that during the 2022 period, the ethnic/racial composition of 30 percent of members was not disclosed. The high percentage of members with unknown ethnicity/race affects the ability to compare over the years.

Figure 17: Ethnic/Racial Composition of Appointed Members in 2017, 2019, and 2022 Compared to City Residents

White (Non
Hispanic or
Latino)
Hispanic or
Latino
Asian (Non
Hispanic or
Latino)
Black or
African
American
(Non
Hispanic or
Latino)
Two or More
Ethnicities Filipino
American
Indian or
Alaska Native
(Non
Hispanic or
Latino)
Native
Hawaiian or
Other Pacific
Islander (Non
Hispanic or
Latino)
Middle
Eastern or
North African
Prefer Not to
Say
City Residents 30% 29% 16% 11% 7% 3% 0.3% 2%
Members in 2017 61% 10% 10% 13% 1% 5%
Members in 2019 53% 12% 8% 17% 3% 1% 6%
Members in 2022 26% 14% 10% 10% 6% 0.5% 0.5% 2.1% 0.5% 30% 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%

Office of the City Auditor
31 July 2023

Figure 18 below identifies the number of appointed members in 2022 by gender and ethnicity/race.

Figure 18: 2022 Appointed Members by Gender and Ethnicity/Race

Source: Auditor generated from City board, committee, and commission appointed members data provided by the City Clerk’s Office.

Female Male Nonbinary or Third
Gender Prefer Not to Say
White (Non Hispanic or Latino) 30 18 1
Hispanic or Latino 14 13
Asian (Non Hispanic or Latino) 9 10
Black or African American (Non Hispanic or Latino) 7 13 Two or More Ethnicities 9 3
Filipino 1
American Indian or Alaska Native (Non Hispanic or
Latino) 1
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander (Non Hispanic or Latino) 4
Middle Eastern or North African 1
Prefer Not to Say 23 30 5
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35

Office of the City Auditor
32 July 2023

Figure 19 below analyzes the sexual orientation of appointed members in 2022. Due to the different categories of sexual orientation between the board applications, the 2022 Community Survey, and our previous years’ audit reports, we did not compare the sexual orientation of the different data in one chart. For reference, the sexual orientation of City residents was analyzed in Figure 7 in Chapter 1. Figure 20 below compares the transgender status of the appointed members in 2022 with the City’s residents and members in 2019. Note that this data was not available in our audit report released in 2017.

Figure 19: Sexual Orientation of Appointed Members

Source: Auditor generated from City board, committee, and commission appointed members data provided by the City Clerk’s Office.

Figure 20: Transgender Status of Appointed Members

Source: Auditor generated from City board, committee, and commission appointed members data provided by the City Clerk’s Office, the 2022 National Community Survey, and the City Auditor’s 2019 Audit of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion of Boards, Committees, and Commissions.

48%
18% 15%
4% 1% 1%
14%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
96%
4%
46%

0.5%
53%
66%
1%

33.3%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
No Yes Prefer Not to Say
City Residents Members in 2019 Members in 2022
Figure 21 below compares the composition of appointed members by City Council district in 2017, 2019, and 2022 with the composition of the City’s residents by City Council district.

Figure 21: Composition of Appointed Members in 2017, 2019, and 2022 with City Residents by City Council District

Source: Auditor generated from City board, committee, and commission appointed members data provided by the City Clerk’s Office; data from a Sacramento Independent Redistricting Commission report; 2017 City Auditor’s Assessment of Boards, Committees, and Commissions; and the City Auditor’s 2019 Audit of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion of Boards, Committees, and Commissions.

In December 2021, the Sacramento Independent Redistricting Commission updated the City’s Council Districts based on the 2020 federal census data. Therefore, the district boundaries for City residents in the figure above do not reflect the same boundaries for members in the 2017 and 2019 report. In addition, the member data is mixed in 2022 as some members were appointed prior to the district boundaries changing and the district reflected in the report for them used the old district boundaries while the new district boundaries are used for members that were appointed after the district boundaries were updated.

District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 District 6 District 7 District 8 Outside of the City
City Residents 12% 12% 12% 13% 13% 13% 13% 13%
Members in 2017 10% 5% 16% 33% 15% 5% 9% 7%
Members in 2019 10% 6% 10% 28% 16% 8% 8% 4% 11%
Members in 2022 13% 6% 13% 31% 10% 8% 12% 5% 2%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%

Office of the City Auditor
34 July 2023

①
②
Department Response
Thank you for allowing the Office of the City Clerk to respond to the 2022 Audit of City Board, Committee and Commission Diversity. It is the goal of the City to have Boards, Committees, and Commissions (commissions) that are representative of our constituents.

The Office of the City Clerk is committed to ensuring there is a robust recruitment process for city commissions with the objective of ensuring that there is a diverse pool of candidates from which the Mayor and Council would be making nominations and appointments.

California Constitution, Article I, section 31, provides that government shall not discriminate against or grant preferential treatment to any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin in public employment, public education or public contracting. As such, demographic data cannot be used in decision making by the mayor, a councilmember, or Personnel and Public Employees (P&PE) committee in making nominations and appointments for city boards, commissions, or committee. Therefore, to insure the integrity of the appointment process, the Office of the City Clerks finds it necessary to disassociate demographic data from applications to appointments for city boards, commissions, and committees.

As part of our effort to recruit a diverse candidate pool, it was determined that the prior software used by the Office of the City Clerk did not have the capability to capture the demographic information needed to analyze the diversity of the applicants for the City’s commissions. The City Clerk also identified that some of the criteria of the commission seats may unintentionally create barriers to a diverse pool of candidates.

After collaborating with Office of Diversity and Equity, and the Office of the City Attorney, the City Clerk’s Office developed a comprehensive set of questions and responses that would be presented to persons applying to the serve on the City’s various commissions. The vendor in use by the City Clerk at the time did not have the functionality to support applications that would include these questions/responses and a new vendor was sought. In 2019, the City Clerk implemented a new solution which did the following:

• Allowed for the more robust collection of diversity data. • Easily reported the data diversity data.

Office of the City Auditor
35 July 2023

③
• Provided customizable language for the application introduction to state: providing demographic information would be used only for the purposes of recruitment.

Throughout the process a chief concern remained the protection of this confidential information. As the questions/responses were generated to encourage participation it was equally important for participants to feel comfortable providing this information to the city. This resulted in having the information the demographic information contained in two data sets:
applicants and appointed members.

The applicant information contained the applicants date of birth, zip code, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and transgender status and board name. This allows the City Clerk to examine the pool of candidates to identify any areas where different or greater inclusive recruitment could occur.

The appointee information contains date of birth, zip code, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and transgender status, but not the specific board they serve on. Several challenges were considered when making this decision:

• The Mayor and Council are not permitted to use demographic information when making appointments. • Some boards have very specific requirements (must be a veterinarian, engineer, etc.) that may limit diversity of applicants.
• Some board seats are appointed in the capacity of their employment and demographic data is not collected. • On commissions with few members, (either by size of commission or by the persons currently appointed) release of demographic information specific to a commission may inadvertently release demographic information or allow assumptions to be made about seated commissioners.

Other Barriers to a Diverse Candidate Pool

As the City Clerk examined ways to monitor the diversity of the candidate pool, another concern was identified for both general recruitment and possible diversity limitations. Some of the City’s commissions have specific employment or educational requirements, for example:

Office of the City Auditor
36 July 2023

④
⑤
• Member who is a licensed veterinarian, veterinary technician, or a person actively involved in the operation of an animal control/humane society agency.
• An architectural historian with training or experience in the architectural history of Sacramento, the Sacramento region, Northern California, or the West who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s qualifications for architectural historians (with preference to a city resident or owner of a business in the city) demonstrating knowledge of Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and the California Historical Building code. • A member who is a city resident; owns, is a principle of, or is employed in a full-time management position for, a business that receives utility service; and possesses expertise or has demonstrated leadership in one or more of the following areas: accounting, auditing, construction management, engineering, finance, law, sewage collection and treatment, solid waste collection and disposal, recycling, storm water collection and conveyance, water quality, or water supply and distribution.

These candidate pools are already significantly limited to a relatively small population of the City; further narrowed by the demographic standard of that specific community. For example, in situations where a specific field is dominated by one group that would be reflected in the candidate pool. A way to avoid these inherent demographic issues would broaden the criteria and seek nominations from each council district. Despite initial concerns this model has been successfully implemented in the City’s Planning and Design Commission. For years the commission had very specific employment requirements that often resulted in a homogeneous commission – a commission reflective of the employment pool of these professions rather than the demographic makeup of the city. In 2012, the seat requirements of the commission were changed to have a nomination from each council district; and a limited number of nominations requiring specific trade experience made by the P&PE committee. Since then, the City has either established several new commissions or shifted existing commissions to this model.

Conclusion

The City Auditor states that this data collection and reporting model has affected the ability of the City Auditor to complete their audit in the way that they have in the past. The Office of the City Clerk recommends the City Auditor amend their audit scope to safeguard commissioner confidential data. Figure 17 shows that Prefer Not to Say was 30% in 2022 as opposed to 5%

Office of the City Auditor
37 July 2023

⑥
⑦
and 6% in 2017 and 2019 which highlights the desire for commissioner applicant’s desire to maintain confidentiality of their demographic data.

As the City Clerk is specifically tasked with creating a pool of diverse candidates further direction from the city council could become part of the Clerk’s annual review; or if the audit is to continue then the scope should change to an examination of the diversity of the pool of candidates, not appointees. The auditor could still be able to compare the candidate pool to the total pool of appointed persons. As demographic information cannot be used to make appointments, the privacy concerns stated, and external factors that influence the applicant pool there are no compelling reasons to continue the audit under the original scope.

Office of the City Auditor
38 July 2023

①
②
③
④
City Auditor’s Comments on the Response from the City Clerk Government Auditing Standards state “[w]hen the audited entity’s comments are inconsistent or in conflict with the findings, conclusions, or recommendations in the draft report, the auditors should evaluate the validity of the audited entity’s comments. If the auditors disagree with the comments, they should explain in the report their reasons for disagreement.” In accordance with the standards and to provide clarity and perspective, we are commenting on the City Clerk’s response to our audit. The numbers below correspond to the numbers we have placed in the margin of the department’s response.

The City Clerk justifies disassociating demographic data for Board and Commission members by referencing California Constitution, Article I, section 31. While discrimination is prohibited, it is misleading to imply that gathering and analyzing demographic information is also prohibited. The Clerk’s assertion fails to acknowledge there are legal options afforded to the City Council that would allow them to encourage diversity within the limitations of the law. It is our understanding that ongoing data collection and analysis to determine where diversity metrics stand, as has been done for all City employees, does not violate the California Constitution. The decision to no longer collect and maintain identity and demographic information deprives the City Council of useful information that is needed to assess key diversity metrics regarding the composition of its boards and commissions.

The City Clerk states that they implemented a new solution which easily reported the diversity data of applicants for boards, committees, and commissions. What this statement fails to address is that the Clerk’s new method of disassociating demographic data also compromises the City’s ability to validate the data. As a result, the accuracy of the data is unknown and cannot be verified. For example, when an appointee was identified as a 2-year-old, due to the disassociation of data, the individual with the incorrect age could not be identified and a correction could not be made.

The City Clerk states that their chief concern remains the protection of confidential information. The Office of the City Auditor regularly audits and reviews confidential data and takes protection of confidential data very seriously. In all of our diversity assessments, we take great care to protect the confidentiality of protected information and work closely with the City Attorney’s Office when releasing reports to the public.

The City Clerk discusses an example of how the City’s Planning and Design Commission had very specific employment requirements that often resulted in a homogeneous commission. Although not intended by the Clerk to support why detailed

Office of the City Auditor
39 July 2023

⑤
⑥
⑦
diversity information is valuable, the City Clerk’s example illustrates how detailed data on the diversity of appointed members is valuable in assessing whether a diversity issue may exist. As shown in this example, once a diversity issue was identified, changes were made to reduce barriers to diversity. If the City Council is deprived of detailed information regarding the composition of a board or commission, they will be limited in their ability to identify where changes can be made to further reduce barriers to a more diverse commission.

The City Clerk asserts that an increased number of ‘Prefer Not to Say’ responses in this audit compared to our 2017 and 2019 audits highlights the desire for commissioner applicants to maintain confidentiality of their demographic data. We disagree with this assertion. The City Clerk does not explain that the reason for the lower percentages of respondents selecting ‘Prefer Not to Say’ in 2017 and 2019 were as a result of the City Auditor’s Office supplementing the Clerk’s data with a survey of appointed members. Specifically, we surveyed commission members asking them to provide their demographic information when it was previously not disclosed. We then used the results of the survey to fill in the missing demographic data in the City Clerk's dataset. This means that members were willing to provide their demographic data to our office in our survey (knowing that we were conducting a diversity assessment) even when they did not provide the information to the City Clerk's Office in their applications. Our office could not conduct this supplemental survey in 2022 to supplement the Clerk’s data.

The City Clerk states that our audit’s scope should change to an examination of the diversity of the pool of candidates, not appointees, and that we could still compare the candidate pool to the total pool of appointed members. We are compelled to express extreme caution with this recommendation. Using unvalidated data and only comparing the pool of candidates to the total pool of appointees aggregates the diversity data in a way that obscures whether there are variations in diversity across each individual board or commission, and whether the collected information is even accurate. This impairs the City Council’s ability to fully determine whether any diversity in the candidate pool is proportionately reflected in the outcome of the recruitment process and denies an opportunity to consider any changes.

We strongly disagree with the City Clerk’s assertion that there are no compelling reasons to continue the audit to assess the diversity of appointed members under the original scope. It is our understanding that the City Council has many valid reasons to be interested in gathering this data and it is presumptuous to conclude that the City does not have compelling reasons to request and obtain diversity metrics regarding the City’s boards and commissions.

Sacramento City CouncilAugust 15, 2023

Sacramento City Council
August 15, 2023