2018 Issue

64 from other states committed to and leading in boards’ and commissions’ gender diversity efforts. Connecticut, North Dakota, and Texas exceed 40% female representation on state boards, while Idaho and Alaska exceed 30%. 6 Table 1 (see next page) lists the 34 agencies that adminis- ter the state boards and commissions and the overall gen- der breakdown of all boards and commissions overseen by each agency. As is shown, Human Resource Manage- ment (50%), Health (45%), State Office of Education (42%), Human Services (41%), and Heritage and Arts (40%) top the list for the agencies that have the highest percentage of female appointees. The agencies that have the lowest percentages are the National Guard (0%), Agriculture and Food (8%), Veteran Affairs (9%), and Natural Resources (9%). Both the Governor’s Office and the Public Service Commission have 10%. The number of boards and commissions overseen by each agency ranges from 1 (Human Resource Management and the National Guard) to 55 (Commerce/ DOPL). A compre- hensive list of agencies and their boards and commissions (with hyperlinks to webpages), along with the number of current appointees by gender and the number of open seats (August 10, 2016) can be found in the appendix. Some boards and commissions have special membership require- ments, where a Code calls for a representation by an elect- ed official or specific agency executive (as in multi-state compacts). We have marked these (*) and have not included them in our counts of current open seats. In digging deeper, we found that, of the 295 boards and commissions we analyzed, 84 (28%) have no female appoin- tees, 8 (3%) have equal numbers of men and women, and 39 (13%) have a female-member majority. Not surprisingly, we found that these 39 had a stereotypical “female” focus, such as the Board of Nursing, the Certified Nurse Midwife Board, and the Cosmetologist/Barbering Board. Likewise, stereotypical “male” industries (e.g., Utah Motor Vehicle Franchise Advisory Board or Electricians Licensing Boards) have predominantly male appointees. Other states have found that their “power” boards or commissions tend to be predominantly male, so we closely examined Utah’s “power” boards and commissions, as de- fined in the literature. We found that Utah “power” boards were substantially below the overall percentages compared with other states in terms of female representation: Natural Resources (9%), Governor’s Office (10%), Governor’s Office of Economic Development (18%), Legislative Branch (15%), Financial Institutions (19%), and Governor’s Office of Man- agement and Budget (22%). Although a similar pattern has been shown in other states, there are yet other states that have strategically and successfully increased the represen- tation of women on these powerful boards. Table 1: Utah State Boards and Commissions by Agency and Gender Agency F M Human Resource Management 50% 50% Health 45% 55% State Office of Education 42% 58% Human Services 41% 59% Heritage and Arts 40% 60% Workforce Services 36% 64% Lt. Governor’s Office 35% 65% Utah System of Higher Education 35% 65% Commerce/DOPL 34% 66% Administrative Services 33% 67% Commission on Criminal & Juvenile Just. 33% 67% Utah Retirement System 29% 71% Administrative Office of the Courts 28% 72% Independent 27% 73% Technology Services 27% 73% Governor’s Office of Mgmt. & Budget 22% 78% Environmental Quality 21% 79% State Treasurer 20% 80% Financial Institutions 19% 81% Governor’s Office of Economic Dev. 18% 82% Labor Commissions 16% 84% Insurance 15% 85% Legislative Branch 15% 85% Attorney General 14% 86% Tax Commission 14% 86% Commerce 13% 87% Public Safety 12% 88% Transportation 12% 88% Governor’s Office 10% 90% Public Service Commission 10% 90% Natural Resources 9% 91% Veteran Affairs 9% 91% Agriculture and Food 8% 92% National Guard 0% 100% Average: All Boards/Commissions 28.1% 71.9%