P
age 1 of 24
CITY OF SANTA ROSA
2024 Report of Diversity of City Council Appointees
Section 11 of the City of Santa Rosa’s Charter requires an annual report on the diversity of Council appointments for boards, commissions, and committees. Additionally, Section 11 states, “The report shall contain, but is not limited to, the total number of appointments in a given year, the total number of applications in a given year, and relevant diversity information including geographic and ethnic diversity. Further, the report will evaluate the progress and success of increasing the diversity of appointments.” I
n addition to the specified requirements, this report includes data on gender diversity1 and at the recommendation of the City Council, includes data on age range of appointees, and gender and ethnicity of appointees by City Council district and by appointing authority.
T
he table below shows the bodies included in the report, along with the number of applications received and appointments made in 2024. Applicant and appointee demographics are based on self-reported data from within the 2024 calendar year. 2024 Boards, Commissions, Committees Applications
Received
Appointments
Made
Art in Public Places (APPC) 7 0
Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Board (BPAB) 4 1
Board of Building Regulation Appeals (BOBRA) 3 2
Board of Community Services (BOCS) 6 0
Board of Public Utilities (BPU) 5 2
Community Advisory Board (CAB) 16 5
Cultural Heritage Board (CHB) 3 0
Design Review Board (DRB) 2 1
Housing Authority 7 0
Public Safety and Prevention Oversight
Committee (PSAP)
1 0
Personnel Board 5 0
Planning Commission (PC) 11 1
Waterways Advisory Committee (WAC) 0 4
Total 81 16
1 Gender options include Male, Female, Non-Binary/Third Gender, Prefer to self-describe, or Prefer not to Answer.
Attachment 1
Applicants may submit multiple applications, therefore applications received are higher than the number of applicants.
Total applications received-reflected on lower bar chart (81), Total unique applicants-reflected on legend (52).
Applicants may submit multiple applications, therefore applications received are higher than the number of applicants.
Total applications received-reflected on lower bar chart (81), Total unique applicants-reflected on legend (52).
Applicants may submit multiple applications, therefore applications received are higher than the number of applicants.
Total applications received-reflected on lower bar chart (81), Total unique applicants-reflected on legend (52).
Applicants may submit multiple applications, therefore applications received are higher than the number of applicants.
Total applications received-reflected on lower bar chart (81), Total unique applicants-reflected on legend (52).
The following shows trends in Applicant gender diversity vs Appointee gender diversity from 2020 to 2024 (based on self-reports) collected through the Boards and Commissions on-line application portal.
The following shows trends in Applicant ethnicity diversity vs Appointee ethnicity diversity from 2020 to 2024 (based on self-reports) collected through the Boards and Commissions on-line application portal.
Ethnicity Appointees (2024) Community
2020 U.S. Census estimates for 2024
Caucasian 56% 51%
Hispanic 25% 35.8%
African American 0% 1.9%
Asian/Pacific Islander 6.25% 7.1%
American Indian or Alaskan Native 0% 1.4%
Other 6% 2.8%
1. Applicant & Appointee totals may not equal 100% due to non-disclosure
2. 2020 U.S. Census data may not total 100% due to unlisted or multiple ethnicities.
The following four Recruitment Response graphs present data from 40 unique participants, each of whom have selected multiple options. As a result, the total number of responses exceed the number of participants.
2024 Diversity Analysis & Conclusion:
1. Gender
• Applicants: 50% female | 48% male | 2% prefer-not to answer • Appointees: 19% female (3/16) | 69% male (11/16)
Women applied in equal measure but received half the appointment rate of men (11% vs. 44%). As a result, just 19% of appointments went to women, underscoring a need to examine selection criteria and recruitment channels for gender equity.
2. Ethnicity
• Applicants vs. Appointees vs. Community
o Caucasian: 69% → 50% (51% of community)
22% appointment rate (percentage of applicants who were appointed.) o Hispanic: 10% → 25% (35.8% of community)
80% appointment rate (percentage of applicants who were appointed.) o African American: 4% → 0% (1.9% of community)
0% appointment rate (percentage of applicants who were appointed.) o Asian/Pacific Islander: 4% → 6% (7.1% of community)
50% appointment rate (percentage of applicants who were appointed.) o Other: 6% → 6% (combined 2.8% of community)
Despite still being the largest group, Caucasian representation among appointees has moved 19 percentage points closer to the community baseline. Hispanic appointees (25% of total appointments) now exceed their share of applicants (10%), reflecting strong outreach and inclusion efforts and are emphasized by the high (80%) appointment rate; however, Hispanic appointees remain under the 36% community representation.
African American candidates saw no appointments this cycle, signaling a potential gap to address. Applicants who identified as Asian or Pacific Islander saw a 50% appointment rate, which may reflect enhanced inclusion efforts.
3. District
District Breakdown (52 total applicants) (16 total appointments) o District 1: 7 applicants, 5 appointees (31% of total) 71% appointment rate (percentage of district’s applicants who were appointed.) o District 2: 6 applicants, 0 appointees (0% of total)
0% appointment rate (percentage of district’s applicants who were appointed.) o District 3: 14 applicants, 2 appointees (12.5% of total) 14% appointment rate (percentage of district’s applicants who were appointed.) o District 4: 14 applicants, 4 appointees (25% of total) 28% appointment rate (percentage of district’s applicants who were appointed.) o District 5: 7 applicants, 3 appointees (18.75% of total) 43% appointment rate (percentage of district’s applicants who were appointed.) o District 6: 4 applicants, 1 appointees (6.25% of total) 25% appointment rate (percentage of district’s applicants who were appointed.) o District 7: 0 applicants, 1 appointees (6.25% of total) Not applicable (Appointment start date in 2024 for an application submitted in 2023.) In previous years, geographic data had been reported using the CAB Boundaries Map rather than by district. The decision to transition to district-based reporting will allow more focused and consistent analysis moving forward. This change however has limited the identification of long-term trends affecting this year’s (2024) applicants and appointee pool. With those considerations in mind, it may be important to note that District 7, which falls within the former Southwest CAB Boundary, had no new applicants and only one appointee who applied in the previous year. District 2, which falls with the former Southeast CAB Boundary, also saw no new appointees. Historically, these areas have been under- represented in both total appointments and/or appointment rate when compared to other regions in the City.
4. Age
Applicants vs. Appointees vs. Community
• Applicant Age Breakdown (52 total unique applicants)
o Age 56+: 24 applicants (46%)
Overrepresented compared to 32% of the community (2023 U.S. Census). o Age 36–55: 18 applicants (34%)
Slightly overrepresented compared to 26.5% of the community. o Age 18–35: 7 applicants (13%)
Underrepresented compared to 21.5% of the community.
o Undisclosed: 3 applicants (6.7%)
• Appointee Age Breakdown (16 total appointees)
o Age 56+: 6 appointees (38% of total)
25% of applicants in this group were appointed.
o Age 36–55: 4 appointees (25% of total)
22% of applicants in this group were appointed.
o Age 18–35: 4 appointees (25% of total)
57% of applicants in this group were appointed.
o Undisclosed: 2 appointee (13% of total)
The number of older applicants (56+) continues to lead in both the applicant and appointee pools, though their appointment rate (25%) is only modestly higher than younger cohorts (36-55 at 22%). The 18–35 bracket saw a strong appointment rate relative to its applicant share, suggesting on-going efforts in youth representation, yet they still under-apply.
5. Conclusion
Reviewing the appointment rate helps assess how effectively applicants from each group or district are being selected. It may reveal whether certain demographics are fairly represented and highlights areas where efforts are needed to address inequities. A high appointment rate may indicate strong alignment with selection criteria or successful diversity outreach, while a low rate may suggest barriers or mismatches in the selection process.
The City may leverage the recruitment response data to better inform targeted outreach strategies, tailored to each group’s preferred communication style, to further enhance the diversity of The City of Santa Rosa’s Boards and Commissions.
Interactive Dashboard
New in this year’s report, is the interactive dashboard, which allows the public to dynamically explore and compare the data presented in the report’s static graphs. Council members can also use the dashboard to examine an active roster snapshot (as of April 2024) to identify diversity trends. The dashboard can be accessed via the link below.
City of Santa Rosa – 2024 Boards and Commissions Diversity Report