City of Sacramento
City Council - 2PM Report
915 I Street Sacramento, CA 95814
www.cityofsacramento.org
File ID: 2024-01024 5/28/2024 Discussion Item 14.
2022 Audit of City Board, Committee, and Commission Diversity File ID: 2024-01024
Location: Citywide
Recommendation: Pass a Motion approving the City Auditor’s 2022 Audit of City Board, Committee, and Commission Diversity.
Contact: Farishta Ahrary, Interim City Auditor, (916) 808-7266, [email protected], Office of the City Auditor
Presenter: Farishta Ahrary, Interim 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 and 2023-24 Work Plans and documents a revised version of the City Auditor’s 2022 Audit of City Board, Committee, and Commission Diversity.
Policy Considerations: The City Auditor’s presentation of the revised 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 by two-thirds vote to
File ID: 2024-01024 5/28/2024 Discussion Item 14.
temporarily suspend (Ch. 1, D.) Council Rules of Procedure Chapter 15, B. 1. to bypass the Budget and Audit Committee. On August 15, 2023, the City Council voted 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 Office of the City Auditor budget.
Local Business Enterprise (LBE): None.
Research and Analysis Division
2022 Audit of City Board, Committee, and
Commission Diversity
Report# 2023/24-14|May 2024
Farishta Ahrary, Interim City Auditor
Chevelle Jackson, Fiscal Policy Analyst
Office of the City Auditor
2 May 2024
The City of Sacramento’s Office of the City Auditor can be contacted by phone at 916-808-1166 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 per 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 May 2024
Table of Contents
Audit Fact Sheet .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 4 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 5 Background ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 5 City of Sacramento Boards, Committees, and Commissions .................................................................................................................................. 6 Process for Collecting Demographic Information ................................................................................................................................................... 9 Process for Appointing Board, Committee, and Commission Members ................................................................................................................ 9 Objectives, Scope, and Methodology ......................................................................................................................................................... 10 Discovery of Insufficient Evidence After Report Release ...................................................................................................................................... 10 Chapter 1: Demographics of City of Sacramento Residents ......................................................................................................................... 12 Chapter 2: Analysis of Board, Committee, and Commission Applicants ....................................................................................................... 15 Chapter 3: Analysis of Board, Committee, and Commission Members ........................................................................................................ 21
Office of the City Auditor
5 May 2024
Introduction
In accordance with the City Auditor’s 2023/24 Audit Plan, we have completed the 2022 Audit of City Board, Committee, and Commission Diversity.
After initially publishing this report in July 2023, we realized our analysis had overlooked an initial dataset provided by the City Clerk’s Office in March 2022 that contained enough detail to render our finding and recommendation of our published report inaccurate. As a result, the audit report released in July 2023 should not be relied upon for assessing the diversity of the City’s Boards and Commissions. As required by auditing standards, we removed the previously released audit from our public website, posted a notification of its need for revision, and have disclosed details of the discovery of insufficient evidence after report release in the Objectives, Scope, and Methodology section of this updated report.
We regret this oversight, and sincerely apologize to the City Clerk, the City Council, and the public for having issued a report with inaccurate information.
Having updated the report, we believe this update to be in accordance with Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards. We believe this report meets our objective of providing an informative overview of the 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. 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.
The City Auditor’s Office would like to thank the City Clerk’s Office for their cooperation during the audit process and their review of this updated report.
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
Office of the City Auditor
6 May 2024
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 boards and commissions….” As of September 2022, there were a total of 32 boards, committees, and commissions for the City of Sacramento1.
The City has 26 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
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 May 2024
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
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. Stadium Area Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District Public Financing Authority2
26. 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 the number of City and non-City seats on each as of September 2022.
2 Also known as the Stadium Area Public Financing Authority.
Office of the City Auditor
8 May 2024
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
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
Sacramento Area Public Financing Authority 5 0 5 0 5
Utilities Rate Advisory Commission 6 1 7 0 7
Grand Total 204 37 241 41 282
Source: Auditor compiled with data gathered from the City of Sacramento website at https://boards.cityofsacramento.org/.
Office of the City Auditor
9 May 2024
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 City Clerk’s office uses a software program called OnBoard to manage the applications. 3 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.
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).
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 April 2024, the P&PE Committee was made up of four City councilmembers and consisted of Lisa Kaplan, Caity Maple, Karina Talamantes, 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 demographic information on the application is voluntary, the demographic information of some members of City boards, committees, and commissions was unavailable.
3 OnBoard is an online hosted web portal for the administrative management and tracking of boards, committees, and commissions; applications; board members; and term expirations.
Office of the City Auditor
10 May 2024
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 applications submitted for board, committee, and commission seats between January 1, 2020, and July 7, 2022. Our analysis also assessed the diversity of City-appointed members of City boards, commissions, and committees as of March 2022. We also analyzed the sexual orientation and transgender status of appointed members as of July 2022 (the March 2022 dataset did not have this data available). 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. 4
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.
Discovery of Insufficient Evidence After Report Release Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards (GAGAS) developed by the Government Accountability Office require that auditors reissue the audit report if it is discovered that auditors did not have sufficient, appropriate evidence to support the reported findings or conclusions.
Specifically, the standards state:
Section 9.68: If, after the report is issued, the auditors discover that they did not have sufficient, appropriate evidence to support the reported findings or conclusions, they should communicate in the same manner as that used to originally distribute the report to those charged with governance, the appropriate officials of the audited entity, the appropriate officials of the entities requiring or arranging for the audits, and other known users, so that they do not continue to rely on the findings or conclusions that were not supported. If the report was previously posted to the auditors’ publicly accessible website, the auditors should remove the report and post a public notification that the report was removed. The auditors should then determine whether to perform the
4 We did not conduct data reliability testing on applicant information , transgender status, or sexual orientation information as identity information was not available.
Office of the City Auditor
11 May 2024
additional audit work necessary to either reissue the report, including any revised findings or conclusions, or repost the original report if the additional audit work does not result in a change in findings or conclusions.
As stated in the introduction section of this report, in July 2023, we issued a report that contained the following finding: “Disassociating Demographic Data from Board, Committee, and Commission Applications in the New OnBoard System Created Audit Limitations.” Subsequent to the report’s publication and presentation, we realized that we had not taken into consideration a dataset we had received in March 2022 that contained enough detail to render the finding and recommendation of our published report inaccurate. Having taken this information into consideration, we have removed the finding and recommendation made in the original report and used the March 2022 data to conduct our analysis in Chapter 3. We regret this oversight, and sincerely apologize to the City Clerk, the City Council, and the public for having issued a report with inaccurate information.
Office of the City Auditor
12 May 2024
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:
• 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.
Office of the City Auditor
13 May 2024
Figure 2 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. 5 Figure 2: Estimated Population of Sacramento Residents by Ethnicity/Race (525,028 Total)
Note: Percentages may not precisely total 100% due to rounding.
Source: 2021 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates Data Profiles.
5 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 3 shows Sacramento’s household income statistics based on the 2021 American Community Survey.
Figure 3: 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 4: 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 5: 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
15 May 2024
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. As previously noted, we did not conduct data reliability testing on the data used to conduct the analysis in this chapter as the identity of applicants was not available.
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, 2022.6 Figure 6 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 6: 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.
6 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, we were not able to analyze the number of duplicate applications that may have been submitted by the same person. 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
16 May 2024
Figure 7 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 7: Ethnic/Racial Composition of Applicants Compared to City Residents
Note: Percentages may not precisely total 100% due to rounding.
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.
32%
13%
10%
20%
12%
2% 1% 1% 1%
8%
30% 29%
16%
11%
7%
3%
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
17 May 2024
Figure 8 below analyzes the gender and ethnic/racial composition of applicants.
Figure 8: 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 9 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
18 May 2024
Figure 9: 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
Note: Percentages may not precisely total 100% due to rounding.
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 10 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
19 May 2024
Figure 10: 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 Note: Percentages may not precisely total 100% due to rounding.
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
20 May 2024
Figures 11 and 12 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 4 in Chapter 1.
Figure 11: Sexual Orientation of Applicants
Source: Auditor generated from City board, committee, and commission applicant data provided by the City Clerk’s Office.
Figure 12: Transgender Status of Applicants
Note: Percentages may not precisely total 100% due to rounding.
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
21 May 2024
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 March 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 202 appointed members to the City’s board, committee, and commission seats as of March 2022. Figure 13 below compares the gender composition of appointed members in 2017, 2019, and 2022 with the composition of the City’s residents.
Figure 13: Gender Composition of Appointed Members in 2017, 2019, and 2022 Compared to City Residents
Note: Percentages may not precisely total 100% due to rounding.
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.
Figure 14 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. However, it is important to note that during the 2022 period, the ethnic/racial composition of 32 percent of members was not disclosed. The high percentage of members with unknown ethnicity/race affects the ability to compare over the years.
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% 0%
Members in 2022 50% 46% 1% 2%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Office of the City Auditor
22 May 2024
Figure 14: Ethnic/Racial Composition of Appointed Members in 2017, 2019, and 2022 Compared to City Residents
Note: Percentages may not precisely total 100% due to rounding.
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.
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% 2%
Members in 2017 61% 10% 10% 13% 1% 5%
Members in 2019 53% 12% 8% 17% 3% 1% 6%
Members in 2022 24% 16% 9% 10% 4.5% 0.5% 1% 2.5% 0.5% 32% 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Office of the City Auditor
23 May 2024
Figure 15 below identifies the number of appointed members in March 2022 by gender and ethnicity/race.
Figure 15: March 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.
Figure 16 analyzes the gender of appointed members by board, committee, or commission compared to City residents as of March 2022.
Female Male Nonbinary or
Third Gender Prefer Not to Say
White (Non Hispanic or Latino) 27 20 2
Hispanic or Latino 18 14
Asian (Non Hispanic or Latino) 9 9
Black or African American (Non Hispanic
or Latino) 6 15
Two or More Ethnicities 7 2
Filipino 1
American Indian or Alaska Native (Non
Hispanic or Latino) 2
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
(Non Hispanic or Latino) 5
Middle Eastern or North African 1
Prefer Not to Say 26 33 5
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
Office of the City Auditor
24 May 2024
Figure 16: March 2022 Gender of Appointed Members 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 50% 50% 0% 0% 10
Administration, Investment, & Fiscal Management Board 20% 60% 0% 20% 5 Aggie Square Public Financing Authority (ASPFA) 40% 20% 0% 40% 5 Animal Care Services Citizens Advisory Committee 71% 29% 0% 0% 7 Ann Land and Bertha Henschel Memorial Funds Commission 57% 43% 0% 0% 7 Capitol Area Development Authority Governing Board 100% 0% 0% 0% 1 Civil Service Board 80% 20% 0% 0% 5
Compensation Commission 20% 80% 0% 0% 5
Ethel MacLeod Hart Trust Fund Advisory Committee 33% 67% 0% 0% 6 Housing Code Advisory and Appeals Board 0% 100% 0% 0% 5 Measure U Community Advisory Committee 71% 21% 7% 0% 14 Natomas Basin Conservancy Board of Directors 20% 80% 0% 0% 5 Parks and Community Enrichment Commission 58% 42% 0% 0% 12 Planning and Design Commission 46% 54% 0% 0% 13
Preservation Commission 29% 71% 0% 0% 7
Retirement Hearing Commission 67% 33% 0% 0% 3
Sacramento Arts, Culture, and Creative Economy Commission 64% 36% 0% 0% 11 Sacramento Community Police Review Commission 36% 64% 0% 0% 11 Sacramento Disabilities Advisory Commission 50% 50% 0% 0% 8 Sacramento Environmental Commission 67% 33% 0% 0% 3
Sacramento Ethics Commission 100% 0% 0% 0% 4
Sacramento Heritage, Inc. Board of Directors 63% 25% 0% 13% 8 Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Commission 25% 75% 0% 0% 4 Sacramento Independent Redistricting Commission 36% 64% 0% 0% 14 Sacramento Relocation Appeals Board 67% 33% 0% 0% 3
Sacramento Yolo Mosquito and Vector Control District 0% 100% 0% 0% 1 Sacramento Youth Commission 79% 14% 7% 0% 14
Stadium Area Public Financing Authority 0% 80% 0% 20% 5 Utilities Rate Advisory Commission 67% 33% 0% 0% 6
Grand Total 50% 46% 1% 2% 202
City Residents 51% 49% N/A N/A 525,028
Note: Percentages may not precisely total 100% due to rounding.
Source: Auditor generated from City board, committee, and commission appointed members data provided by the City Clerk’s Office.
Figure 17 analyzes the ethnicity/race of appointed members by board, committee, or commission compared to City residents as of March 2022.
Office of the City Auditor
25 May 2024
Figure 17: March 2022 Ethnicity/Race of Appointed Members 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 30% 40% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 30% 10 Administration, Investment, & Fiscal Management Board 40% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 60% 5 Aggie Square Public Financing Authority (ASPFA) 0% 40% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 60% 5 Animal Care Services Citizens Advisory Committee 86% 0% 0% 0% 14% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 7 Ann Land and Bertha Henschel Memorial Funds Commission 0% 14% 57% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 29% 7 Capitol Area Development Authority Governing Board 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 1 Civil Service Board 40% 0% 0% 20% 0% 20% 0% 0% 0% 20% 5 Compensation Commission 40% 20% 40% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 5 Ethel MacLeod Hart Trust Fund Advisory Committee 33% 17% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 50% 6 Housing Code Advisory and Appeals Board 20% 0% 0% 40% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 40% 5 Measure U Community Advisory Committee 14% 29% 7% 7% 14% 0% 0% 0% 0% 29% 14 Natomas Basin Conservancy Board of Directors 40% 0% 20% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 40% 5 Parks and Community Enrichment Commission 8% 17% 8% 0% 17% 0% 0% 0% 0% 50% 12 Planning and Design Commission 8% 15% 8% 15% 8% 0% 0% 8% 0% 38% 13 Preservation Commission 71% 14% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 14% 7 Retirement Hearing Commission 33% 0% 33% 33% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3 Sacramento Arts, Culture, and Creative Economy Commission 18% 18% 9% 18% 0% 0% 0% 18% 0% 18% 11 Sacramento Community Police Review Commission 9% 27% 0% 27% 9% 0% 9% 0% 0% 18% 11 Sacramento Disabilities Advisory Commission 25% 13% 13% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 50% 8 Sacramento Environmental Commission 67% 0% 0% 0% 33% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3 Sacramento Ethics Commission 50% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 50% 4 Sacramento Heritage, Inc. Board of Directors 25% 25% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 50% 8 Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Commission 0% 0% 25% 50% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 25% 4 Sacramento Independent Redistricting Commission 29% 14% 14% 21% 0% 0% 0% 0% 7% 14% 14 Sacramento Relocation Appeals Board 0% 0% 33% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 67% 3 Sacramento Yolo Mosquito and Vector Control District 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 1 Sacramento Youth Commission 7% 14% 7% 21% 7% 0% 7% 14% 0% 21% 14 Stadium Area Public Financing Authority 20% 20% 0% 20% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 40% 5 Utilities Rate Advisory Commission 33% 17% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 50% 6 Grand Total 24% 16% 9% 10% 4% 0% 1% 2% 0% 32% 202
City Residents 30% 29% 16% 11% 7% 3% 0% 2% N/A N/A 525,028 Note: Percentages may not precisely total 100% due to rounding.
Source: Auditor generated from City board, committee, and commission appointed members data provided by the City Clerk’s Office.
Office of the City Auditor
26 May 2024
Figure 18 below analyzes the sexual orientation of appointed members in July 2022 (the March 2022 data did not include sexual orientation or transgender status data). 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 4 in Chapter 1. Figure 19 below compares the transgender status of the appointed members in July 2022 with the City’s residents.
Figure 18: July 2022 Sexual Orientation of Appointed Members
Note: Percentages may not precisely total 100% due to rounding.
Source: Auditor generated from City board, committee, and commission appointed members data provided by the City Clerk’s Office.
Figure 19: July 2022 Transgender Status of Appointed Members
Note: Percentages may not precisely total 100% due to rounding.
Source: Auditor generated from City board, committee, and commission appointed members data provided by the City Clerk’s Office and the 2022 National Community Survey.
48%
18% 15%
4% 1% 1%
14%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
96%
4%
66%
0.5%
33.3%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
No Yes Prefer Not to Say
City Residents Members in 2022
Figure 20 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 20: Composition of Appointed Members in 2017, 2019, and 2022 with City Residents by City Council District
Note: Percentages may not precisely total 100% due to rounding.
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 some were appointed after the boundaries changed.
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 11% 6% 11% 29% 12% 9% 13% 6% 1%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
City Residents Members in 2017 Members in 2019 Members in 2022