evidoria

← Back to browse

Good practice Imported

San Francisco's Chapter 22J — a Mandatory, Annually Refreshed Public Inventory of City AI Systems

United States of America · San Francisco · See the United States of America profile · See the San Francisco profile

Top 74% 47/100 · Ask Evidence Copilot about this practice

Ordinance 288-24 (Dec 2024) obliges SF departments and vendors to answer 22 standardised questions on each AI tool; the inventory was first published on data.sf.gov on 15 Jan 2026 and is labelled preliminary.

Details

Promoter
City and County of San Francisco (Department of Technology; Board of Supervisors)
Period
2024-2026
Keywords
AI inventory, algorithmic transparency, municipal governance, open data

Description

In December 2024 San Francisco's Board of Supervisors passed Ordinance 288-24 (Administrative Code Chapter 22J), sponsored by Supervisor Hillary Ronen. It requires the city's Chief Information Officer to maintain a public inventory of AI the city uses. Departments and vendors must answer 22 standardised questions per AI technology; AI used solely for internal administration or cybersecurity is excluded.
Each department submits an inventory annually through a standard intake form; the Department of Technology reviews and consolidates the submissions. The result is published as open data on data.sf.gov (CSV, JSON, XML; one row per reported AI technology, 22 columns, public-domain licence). The dataset was first published on 15 January 2026 and last updated on 6 August 2026.
The context was a visibility gap: the sponsor said the Department of Technology 'had no idea what AI the city was using', because most departments run their own IT units. The Electronic Frontier Foundation's Saira Hussain warned that a self-reported survey is not independent analysis of tools that decide service eligibility.
Caveats: the city itself describes the dataset as preliminary and possibly incomplete, and the sources consulted do not give a count of systems, any measured effect on outcomes, or an independent audit of completeness. The practice is evidenced as a transparency mechanism, not yet as a proven change in results.

Read the full analysis: https://www.sfbos.org/sites/default/files/o0288-24.pdf

Implementation

Implementation detail (cost, timeline, staffing, conditions for success) is not yet available for this practice.

Do you run this practice? Claim it — verified implementers get a public contact pathway and can propose corrections.

Data sources

Where this practice's information was retrieved from, and when.

Similar practices you may find useful