LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.

'U DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE
20112
00

      
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

# T
L mi L

MSU ie An Affinnetlve ActionlEquei Opportunity Institution
chG-ot

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BLACK AND FEMALE REPRESENTATION IN MICHIGAN MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENTS

By

Craig A. Minnick

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Geography and Urban Studies

1991

55‘7— ow

ABSTRACT

BLACK AND FEMALE REPRESENTATION IN MICHIGAN MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENTS

By

Craig A. Minnick

The purpose of this thesis is to determine whether blacks and
females are making annual progress in eleven Michigan municipal work
forces. The percentage of black males, white females, and black females
in the municipal work force was compared with their respective
percentages in the city’s labor force to analyze the representativeness
of the work force. The study also utilized several methods to measure
the extent to which blacks and females are entering the more prestigious
and remunerative municipal occupations. The study was able to reveal
that blacks and females are underrepresented in the majority of
municipal work forces. Blacks and females were also underrepresented in
the high-prestige occupations. However, the study did reveal that
blacks and females made some quantitative and qualitative progress

during the first half of the 19808.

Copyright by

CRAIG ALAN MINNICK
1991

Dedicated to

My parents, to whom I am forever indebted.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Several persons were instrumental in the development of this
thesis. I would like to thank the members of my committee, Dean Joseph
Darden and Drs. Bruce Pigozzi and Richard Thomas for their help and
direction with this project. A special thanks to my committee chair,
Dean Darden, for his unparalleled insight and devotion. I‘would also
like to thank Dr. Richard Hurst for his invaluable computer assistance.
Appreciation must also be extended to Dr. Marvel Lang for his insightful
comments and Mrs. Cathy M. Chubb for her professional job in typing this
text. I am also indebted to the numerous individuals who offered
encouragement throughout this project. Finally, I am indebted to
Ms. Rebecca Rhodes who provided indispensable support from the inception

of this undertaking.

CHAPTER 18 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . .

CHAPTER 2: METHODS

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION . . . . .

APPEWICE s O O I O O O O I O O O O O I I O O O 0

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0

Employment Opportunities in the Private Sector
Employment Opportunities in the Public Sector
smary O O O O O C O O O O O O O O O O 0
Statement of Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Study Area . . .
Data Collection
Data Analysis .
Hypothesis . . .

CHAPTER 3: QUANTITATIVE REPRESENTATION IN THE MUNICIPAL WORK FORCE

Black.Ma1e Quantitative Progress . . . . .
White Female Quantitative Progress . . . .
Black Female Quantitative Progress . . . .
Representation and the Change in.Work Force 812
Interminority Competition in the MMncipal'Work

O
a O 0
Force

CHAPTER 4: QUALITATIVE REPRESENTATION IN THE MUNICIPAL WORK FORCE

Occu ational Distribution . . . . . . . . . .
Blac s and Females in the Occupational Hierarchy .
Occupational Segregation . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ad in 8a lary O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O

smry O O O O O I O 0
Interpretation of the Results
Future Research . . . . . . .

Appendix I - Racial and Sexual Makeup of Population
Appendix II - Labor Force Composition . . . . . . .
Appendix 111- Description of Occupations . . . . . .
Appendix IV - Municipal work Force Size . . . . .
Appendix Va - Quantitative Representation of Black Males f
Ann Arbor O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C C O O O O O O O O O
Ap endibeb — Quantitative Representation of White Females of
r or O C O C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0
Appendix Vc - Quantitative Representation of Black Females of
m Arbor O O O O O C O O O O O C O O O O C O O O O O O O O O

Oeeeee

vi

ix

r—u—
J-‘l-‘O‘NH

15
15
16
22

24
24
28
32

39

42
42
45
S4
58

61
61
66
70

72
72
73
74
76

77
78
79

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont’d).

Appendix VIa - Quantitative Representation of Black Males of
Bay City. 0 O O O O O O O O O O C O O O O O O O O C O O C O 0
Appendix VIb - Quantitative Representation of White Females of
Bay City C I O O C O I O O O O O O O O O O C O C O O O C C O 0
Appendix VIc - Quantitative Representation of Black Females of
Bay City . . . . .
Appendix VIIa - Quantitative Representation of Black Males of
Battle Creek . . . . .
Appendix VIIb - Quantitative Representation of White Females of
Battle Creek . . . . .
Appendix VIIc - Quantitative Representation of Black Females of.
Battle Creek. . . .
Appendix VIIIa - Quantitative Representation of Black Males of
Detr°1t . O O O O O O O O O O C O O O O O C O C O O C O C O 0
Appendix VIIIb Quantitative Representation of White Females of
DetrOit O O O O O O O O O O O C O O O O C O O O O C C O I C 0
Appendix VIIIc - Quantitative Representation of Black Females of
DetrOit O O O I O O O O O C O O O O O C O O O O O O O O O O 0
Appendix IXa - Quantitative Representation of Black Males of
Flint O O O O O C O O O C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C C C 0
Appendix IXb - Quantitative Representation of White Females of

F 1 int 0 O O O O I O O O O O C O O O O O
Appindix IXc - Quantitative Representation of Black Females of
F int 0 O O O O O O O C O 0
Appendix Xa - Quantitative Representation of Black.Males of
Grand Ra ids . . . .
Appendix Quantitative Representation of White Females of
Grand Rapids . . . .
Appendix Xc - Quantitative Representation of Black Females of
Grand Rapids . . . . .
Appendix XIa - Quantitative Representation of Black Males of
Jackson . . . . . .

Appendix XIb - Quantitative Representation of White Females of

JaCkson O O C O O O O O O C C O O O C O O C O C C O O C O O .
Appendix XIc - Quantitative Representation of Black Females of

Jackson . . . .
Appendix XIIa - Quantitative Representation of Black.Males of

Kalamazoo . . . . .
Appendix XIIb - Quantitative Representation of White Females of

Kalamazoo . .
Appendix XIIc - Quantitative Representation of Black Females of

Kalamazoo . . . . . . . .
Appendix XIIIa - Quantitative Representation of Black Males of

Lane ing 0 O O O O O O O C O O O C O O O O C O C C O C C O C 0
Appendix XIIIb - Quantitative Representation of White Females of

Lane ing 0 O O O O O O O O O O C O O O O O O O O O O C O C O C
Appendix XIIIc - Quantitative Representation of Black Females of

Lansing . . . . . . . .
Appendix XIVa - Quantitative Representation of Black.Males of

Muskegon . . . .
Appendix XIVb- Quantitative Representation of White Females of.

Muskeg on . . . .
Appendix XIVc - Quantitative Representation of Black Females of

makegon O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O I

vii

80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont’d).

Appendix XVa - Quantitative Representation of Black Males of

Saginaw

Appendix XVb

Saginaw

Appendix XVc

Saginaw

Appendix XVI

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Quantitative Representation of White Females of
Quantitative Representation of Black Females of

fieaién. s;1;ry O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0

viii

107
108
109
110

112

3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
4.1
4.2
4.3

LIST OF TABLES

Black Male Representation in the Municipal Work Force
White Female Representation in the Municipal Work Force

Black Female Representation in the Municipal Work Force

Representation and the Change of
Interminority Competition . . .
Stratification Ratios . . . . .
Occupational Segregation . . . .

Advantage Ratios . . . . . . . .

Work Force Size .

25
29
33
37
40
46
55
S9

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

The primary legislation ensuring equal employment opportunity is
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Act prohibits
discrimination in employment with respect to recruiting, hiring,
training, promotion, salaries, and other conditions of employment on the
basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Title VII also
established the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to
monitor compliance with its provisions. During the early years, The
EEOC processed complaints, acted as a conciliator, occasionally
recommended cases to the attorney general and filed as a "friend of the
court" in civil actions (Smith and Welch, 1984). However, the role of
the EEOC was rather limited since it could not initiate litigation
against employers who discriminated on the basis of one of the five
protected categories.

The Act did not apply to state and local governments who were
found to consciously discriminate on the basis of hiring, promotion, and
recruitment policies according to a 1969 report published by the U.S.
Commission on Civil Rights (1969). Numerous class action suits were
brought against state and local governments in the early 1970s as a
result of their hiring and promotion practices. Congress concluded that
deep-seated and pervasive employment discrimination existed in the
public sector and passed the Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Act of
1972 which extended coverage of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964 to include state and local governments in an effort to halt
discriminatory policies (Days, 1984). The law also required state and

local governments to adopt affirmative action programs. The 1972 Act

was as important to the public sector as the 1964 law was to the private
sector.

The legislative intent of the 1964 Act was for the EEOC to seek
voluntary compliance. The 1972 amendment greatly enhanced the power of
the EEOC which was now empowered to prevent any person, including state
and local governments, from engaging in discriminatory employment
practices. The EEOC will continue to attempt to resolve a complaint
through conciliation. However, the Commission can now file a civil suit
against a nongovernmental employer. The EEOC can also refer any state
or local government to the Attorney General of the United States who can
bring suit in a federal district court. Clearly, the primary goal of
this anti-discrimination legislation is to increase the employment
opportunities for minorities and females.

The primary purpose of this study is to determine whether
employment opportunities in the public sector have increased for

minorities and females during the 19803.

Emplozpent Opportunities in the Private Sector

Much of the literature over the past few decades has been devoted

 

to explaining the employment opportunities of blacks in the private
sector. A number of studies have attempted to explain the connection
between the relative size of the minority population and their
occupational opportunities (Blalock, 1956, 1957; Frisbie and Neidert,
1977; LaGory and Magnani, 1979; Jiobu and Marshall, 1971; and‘Wilcox and
Roof, 1978). Blalock studied the extent to which a positive
relationship existed between the percentage of minorities in the
population or their rate of increase and economic discrimination. The
units of analysis for the first study were 88 non-Southern Standard
Metropolitan.Areas (SMA’s). Blalock found that a positive correlation
did not exist between the rate of a nonawhite increase and various

indices of job-related discrimination against blacks. The follow-up

study was conducted on a random sample of 150 Southern counties. The
correlation between the increase of the nondwhite percentage of the
population and occupational discrimination'was nonsignificant. Blalock
concluded that the relationship between the rate of minority increase
and discrimination was relatively weak.

Frisbie and Neidert (1977) examined the effects of the relative
size of the black and Mexican American population on.majority~minority
occupational and income differentials. Income and occupational
inequalities between whites and both minority groups were significantly
related to minority percentages.

LaGory and Magnani (1979) analyzed 50 Standard Metropolitan
Statistical Areas (SMSAs) to determine the effects of the percentage of
blacks in the SMSA, and black population growth on occupational
differentiation. The index of dissimilarity was used to measure
occupational differentiation. The percentage of blacks‘was found to be
a strong determinant of the level of occupational differentiation.
Metropolitan areas experiencing the most rapid rate of black population
growth tended to have low levels of occupational differentiation. The
impact of black population growth was greater in non-Southern
metropolitan areas.

Jiobu and Marshall (1971) performed a similar study on 74 central
cities in the United States. This study also indicated that
occupational differentiation is positively related to the percentage of
blacks and negatively related to black population growth.

‘Wilcox and Roof (1978) examined the patterns of racial inequality
in southern and non-southern metropolitan areas. Racial inequalities in
occupation were positively associated with the percentage of blacks in
both areas. White status levels increased where the percentage of
blacks in the population is relatively large. At the same time, a

tendency exists for black status levels to be lower where the percentage

of blacks is relatively high. The high white status levels contribute a
greater extent to the southern racial inequality.

Spatial segregation of the black from the white population may
impact the occupational assimilation of the black population. John Kain
(1968) published an important study concerning residential segregation
and employment opportunities for blacks. Kain hypothesized that racial
segregation in housing markets effects the distribution of black
employment and reduces job opportunities for blacks. A large number of
blacks living in the central city ghettos would have less information on
jobs outside the ghetto. These blacks would also experience
difficulties in commuting to these jobs. Indeed, part of the recent
high unemployment for blacks has been attributed to the suburbanization
of employment. Kain tested the hypotheses by analyzing data from the
Chicago and Detroit metropolitan areas. He concluded that residential
segregation affects the distribution of black employment and may reduce
the level of black employment.

Mooney (1969) also performed a study that attempted to measure the
impact of housing segregation on employment opportunities for blacks.
The 25 metropolitan areas with the largest black populations were chosen
for analysis. Mooney found that residential segregation may reduce
black job opportunities to some extent. However, aggregate demand
conditions such as the rate of unemployment in a particular SMSA play a
more important role.

Another study examined the effect of accessibility on the
distribution of low skilled, inner city black employment (Davies and
Huff, 1972). The researchers found that unfilled job opportunities in
Indianapolis were very close to the disadvantaged and easily accessible
by public transportation. However, "the spatially restricted nature of
the ghetto so limits the environmental experiences of the black that

their ability to collect and assimilate information on the location of

suitable job opportunities within an urban area is severely diminished."
(Davies and Huff, 1972). The researchers suggested that improved
methods of disseminating employment information, the disadvantaged needs
for increased knowledge of the urban environment, and the existence of
supportive services are possible methods to improve the unemployed’s
knowledge of the existence and location of jobs.

Bahr and Gibbs (1967) tested the hypothesis that ghettoization
increases income and occupational differentiation between blacks and
whites using a sample of 33 SMSAs. The study indicated that residential
segregation was not related to either measure of differentiation. Jiobu
and Marshall (1971) also found no evidence to suggest that residential
segregation effects occupational differentiation.

More recent research suggests that the occupational disparities
between whites and blacks are affected by the extent of residential
segregation (McDonald, 1981; Galster, 1987; and Leonard, 1987).

McDonald used an adaption of the standard gravity model of trip
distribution to measure the direct and indirect effects of housing
segregation on employment opportunities for blacks. The direct effect
refers to the notion that residential segregation.makes some jobs
physically inaccessible to black workers. The indirect effect is based
on the contention that the racial composition of an area influences the
racial composition of workers employed in the area by enhancing black
job opportunities. Both direct and indirect effects of residential
segregation on black employment opportunities were found to exist in the
Chicago SMSA.

Galster (1987) presented a simultaneous equation model of
metropolitan racial residential segregation and economic disparities.
The results revealed that the degree of segregation was significantly
correlated with occupational differentiation and that a more centralized

pattern led to lower black median incomes compared to white incomes.

Leonard (1987) examined the impact of residential segregation from
that of employment discrimination in determining the racial composition
of the work forces in Chicago and Los Angeles. The distance of the
‘workplace from the ghetto was found to be one of the strongest and most
significant determinants of the black employment share.

The results of these studies have provided contradictory evidence
on the importance of spatial segregation on employment opportunities for

minorities in the private sector.

Epploypent Opportunities in the Public Sector

Prior to the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972 researchers

 

had analyzed minority and female employment opportunities in the private
sector. The EEO Act of 1972 extended coverage to the public sector and
most of the research since that time has been devoted to the effects of
the Act on minority and female representation in state and municipal
governments.

A growing body of literature in the past decade has been directed
at the effects of the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972 on
minority representation in municipal governments. One common approach
to measure the impact of this law is to analyze an aggregation of
municipal employment data, in a single year, in terms of the demographic
representation of state and local government work forces. A constructed
mathematical benchmark is commonly used as a comparative standard in
this approach. For example, a representation ratio is computed by
dividing the black percentage of all state and local government workers
by the black percentage of the state labor force. This ratio, which can
be computed for any group, represents the extent to which the group is
proportionately represented in the municipal‘work force or any
occupation or employment function.

A.number of studies have manipulated aggregate data in this manner

to formulate a black representation ratio for each state (Sigelman and

Karnig, 1977; Meier, 1978; Hutchins and Sigelman, 1981). Sigelman and
Karnig found that blacks are underrepresented in executive-managerial
positions in 46 states. Meier discovered that the average state
underrepresents minorities by 14 percent in its state and local
bureaucracies. Hutchins and Sigelman found blacks to have entered state
and local government employment at least in proportion to their share of
the state’s population in over 75 percent of the states studied. In
addition, Hutchins and Sigelman measured the extent of salary advantage
of one group over another by dividing median salary of black employees
by median salary of white employees. This equation, by using white
males and white females in the denominator, actually exaggerates the
progress of blacks since white females themselves have suffered from
discrimination.

Sigelman (1976) calculated a representation ratio for females in
state and local government for each state. In this study, the ratio was
computed by dividing the female proportion of government employees by
the female proportion of the working-age population in the state. This
ratio underestimates the representation of females because not all
females of working age are represented in the work force. A female
stratification ratio was also calculated to determine whether females
‘were distributed evenly throughout the various occupation levels. The
ratio is the percentage of females in higher-level posts divided by the
percentage of females in lower-level posts. Sigelman revealed that
females are overrepresented in every state. However, females are
disproportionately employed in lower-level positions.

Dometrius and Sigelman (1984) compared the percentages of
minorities and females in all state and local governments with the
percentage in the private sector. The researchers also calculated
percentages in the two most prestigious occupation levels to determine

whether these groups were attaining greater occupational success in

state and local governments or in the private sector. In general, state
and local governments appear to have done better than the private sector
in providing employment opportunities for females and minorities.

The studies using this approach summarize the improvements that
must be accomplished before minority and female representation is
achieved, and to some extent, assess the degree of past sexual and/or
racial discrimination. However, by using data from a single year, these
reports lack information on the progress of state and local governments
in regard to their equal employment/affirmative action efforts. The
utilization of aggregated data results in two additional problems for
studies using this approach. First, comparisons are made difficult by
including so many different governments. A second problem is that
results are sometimes skewed because one or more extremely large cities
have been included in the study.

The second approach analyzes individual governments at a single
point in time. In these studies, researchers must collect minority
employment reports directly from the individual cities. Stein (1986)
analyzed minority representation in 134 large cities across the United
States by comparing the proportion of minorities in the municipal‘work
force with the proportion of minorities in the city’s population. A
serious methodological flaw exists in this study since every citizen is
not included in the labor force. Hall and Saltzstein (1977) studied the
status of blacks and Spanish-surnamed individuals in 25 Texas cities in
1973. The study utilized a "use index," a measure that combines salary
levels and representation levels of a particular minority group. The
use index revealed that distinct intergroup and intercity differences
exist and that blacks are more disadvantaged than the Spanish-surnamed
minorities. The researchers also indicated that both groups were
underrepresented in the professional occupations. Marlin (1977)

computed a "parity index" for white, black and Hispanic males and

females to determine each group’s occupational status in 31 of the
largest U.S. cities. This index is a ratio of the percentage of
officials and administrators in the municipal work force to the
percentage of total officials and administrators in the Standard
Metropolitan Statistical Area. The index revealed that black and
Hispanic males fared better than females in these municipal occupations.

Studies that have made intercity comparisons are typically
concerned about testing hypotheses about the determinants or correlates
of work force representation, rather than assessing the quantitative and
qualitative representation of females and minorities. For example,
Stein examined the political, organizational, economic, and demographic
factors which effect minority representation in the municipal work
force. The proportion of the city’s minority population was found to be
the most significant predictor of minority municipal employment. Hall
and Saltzstein looked at city and minority group characteristics in an
attempt to explain the professional representativeness of the black and
Spanish-surnamed minority groups. Blacks seemed to fare better in large
central cities. Spanish-surnamed employment is higher in cities with
more stable residential patterns and a lower percentage of manufacturing
employment. The primary purpose of another study was to determine
whether increased minority representation on city councils is associated
'with increased minority employment in cities (Dye and Renick, 1981).
The study found minority membership on city councils to be an important
determinant of the minority share of municipal employment. These
studies were only slightly concerned'with performance assessment or the
attainment of a representative work force.

The studies in this approach overcome the problems of aggregating
city employment data found in the first approach. Intercity comparisons
can be made to evaluate the position of each city in terms of

representative employment in government. However, the progress each

10

city has made to attain a representative work force can not be
determined. For example, an assumption may be made that a particular
city with a high representation ratio has accomplished much more than a
city with a small ratio. But, in reality, the representation of that
municipal work force may have actually declined in the past few years.
Indeed, the primary problem of studies using this approach is the lack
of analyses on the progress that minorities and females have made to
obtain municipal employment positions.

The third approach analyzes an aggregation of government work
force data over a period of time. Several researchers have studied the
aggregated work forces of the majority of state and local governments in
the United States over a number of years (Henderson, 1978; Cayer and
Sigelman, 1980; Hammerman, 1985; Moore and Mazey, 1986). These studies
have used the 1973, 1975 and 1980 Statistical Summaries of the United
States as the sole sources of data. Henderson compared the
distributions of white and minority males and females in state and local
governments in 1973 with 1975. The researcher concluded that current
devices fail to properly assess the impact of the EEO Act on employment
of females and minorities in local government. Cayer and Sigelman
studied the progress of minorities and females in terms of their
composition, representation, median salary and function over the same
years. They found that gains made by minorities and females between the
two years were a result of an expanding public sector and the decrease
of white males in the work force. Moore and Mazey added data from 1980
to the study mentioned above and found that affirmative action efforts
became increasingly difficult in the end of the decade as the number of
jobs created dramatically decreased. In fact, the number of black.ma1es
in state and local government actually declined between 1975 and 1980.

Minorities continued to be overrepresented in the lowest status, lowest

11

paid employment functions such as public welfare, housing, and
sanitation and sewage.

Another group of researchers collected data from individual
cities, but aggregated the employment data only to show the
representativeness of each group (Eisinger, 1982a, 1982b; Welch 2p 21.,
1983a, 1983b; Karnig g; 31., 1984). The progress of these groups was of
little concern in some of these studies. The primary concern of the
researchers was to determine the correlates of minority and female
representation in local government. In each of his studies, Eisinger
compared black employment levels of professionals, administrators and
officials and the total municipal work force in 1973 with 1978. The
studies indicated that increases in black municipal employment were the
greatest in the most prestigious occupations. Eisinger was primarily
concerned with the affects of black political power and economic
conditions on black employment in municipal bureaucracies.

Karnig g5 g1. looked at the change in'white and minority female
distributions in the clerical, professional, and official and
administrative occupation levels in 46 southwestern cities between 1973
and 1978. The study revealed that females made modest gains in overall
work force representation and in the high prestige occupations. Welch
pp 51. completed two studies on municipal employment in the Southwest.
The first study (1983a) analyzed the white and minority female
employment patterns between 1973 and 1978. The researchers compared the
proportion of a given group in the municipal work force and the groups
proportion in the citywide work force and found that the employment of
females of a particular minority group is highly correlated to the
percentage of that minority in the city. The second study (1983b)
analyzed the changing Hispanic employment patterns between 1973 and
1978. The researchers discovered a zero sum gain, Hispanic employment

is higher when black male employment is lower. Hall and Saltzstern

12

(1975) conducted a study on interminority competition for employment in
urban governments and found similar results. Black and Hispanic
employment patterns were examined in 26 large Texas cities. The
researchers concluded that higher rates of employment for one group
occurs with the exclusion of the other.

The studies in the third approach were able to examine patterns of
minority and female employment over time. However, due to the
aggregation of many cities, some of the same problems arise that were
found in the first approach. The EEOC expects measurable gains in
minority and female municipal employment status in each city. The use
of aggregation conceals the extent to which this is occurring and makes
comparisons difficult. Aggregated data may cover up the fact that
minority and female employment status is actually worsening in some
cities.

The fourth and final approach includes studies which analyze
individual government work forces over a period of time. One particular
study examined the affirmative action efforts in ten Michigan cities
(Michigan Advisory Committee on Civil Rights, 1982). A minority group’s
proportion in the municipal work force was compared with the proportion
found in the city’s population, city’s labor force and the labor force
in the SMSA for the years 1973 and 1980. In addition, minority
percentages in several job classifications were listed to qualitatively
assess minority and female employment. Nine of the ten cities studied
showed an increase in minority and female employment. However, the
Advisory Committee indicated that affirmative action gains in some
cities have been lost due to reductions in the municipal work force.

Eisinger (1983) analyzed the black municipal employment trends for
individual cities from 1973 to 1980. He calculated a "fair share effort
score" to determine the extent that a city’s employment profile

reflected the population as a whole. The use of population is an

13

inadequate benchmark for determining representativeness since the courts
and the EEOC rely on labor force statistics. Eisinger also examined the
changing percentages of blacks in the administrative and professional
occupations. The high concentration of minority workers in the
low-prestige jobs accounts for the black overrepresentation in municipal
employment. The increasing percentages of blacks in the general work
force was negligible following 1978. However, the percentage of blacks
in the professional and administrative[managerial occupational
categories continued to increase through the end of the decade.
Eisinger’s primary concern was an attempt to explain black employment
growth. He found the presence of a black mayor is clearly significant
in explaining black employment growth in terms of both a change in
percentages and a change in the fair share effort score.

Saltzstein (1983) compared the female employment status in twenty
Texas cities in 1975 with 1980. The percentage of female representation
in the nonclerical, professional and official/administrative occupations
‘was computed for each year. However, these proportions were not
compared with the female proportion of the general population or the
city’s labor force. Saltzstein’s was primarily concerned‘with testing
the correlates of employment representation. She found that attitudes
of personnel directors do appear to exert an influence on female
employment representation.

The studies in the fourth approach allow one to make comparisons
of minority and female progress between municipal governments. However,
such studies are typically concerned with testing hypotheses concerning
the factors explaining work force representativeness rather than
assessing female and minority progress in city government. The EEOC
expects state and local governments to yield ”measurable 125311
improvements in hiring, training and promotion of minorities and females

in all parts of your organization." (EEOC, 1974). The researchers

14

utilizing this approach have only examined progress by comparing two or
more distant years and, therefore, have not adequately answered the
question of whether minorities and females are making annual progress in

municipal government work forces.

Summagy
The most important aspect of any equal employment/affirmative

action program in local government is its results. Prior research has
not adequately measured such results. Studies in the first approach
have used aggregated data from a single year. The second approach
analyzes individual governments at a single point in time. The studies
in the third approach analyze an aggregation of municipal'work force
data over a period of time. The utilization of data from a single year
conceals the progress each city has made to attain a representative work
force. Aggregated data conceals the extent to which measurable gains in
minority and female employment status are occurring in each city. The
studies in the fourth approach overcome these problems by utilizing data
from individual cities over time. However, annual progress was not

measured since the employment data was gathered from two or more distant

years.

Statement of Problep

This study will measure the annual quantitative and qualitative
(the extent to which employees have entered more responsible and
prestigious government positions) progress in employment status of

blacks and females in individual cities in the State of Michigan.

CHAPTER 2

METHODS

Study Area
This study focuses on the central city of eleven of the twelve

Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) of Michigan according to
the 1980 United States Census. The cities include Ann Arbor, Battle
Creek, Bay City, Detroit, Flint, Grand Rapids, Jackson, Kalamazoo,
Lansing, Muskegon and Saginaw. A list of those cities including
population and the percentage of blacks and females is located in
Appendix I. Benton Harbor is not included in this study due to the
inability to obtain the employment data of its municipal government.
The total population in these cities represents roughly 23 percent of
the overall population in Michigan. However, blacks in these cities
comprise nearly 79 percent of all blacks in the state. The black
percentage in these cities in 1980 ranged from 1.8 percent in Bay City

to 63.1 percent in Detroit.

Qgpg Collection

The Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972 established a
monitoring procedure to evaluate the employment status of minorities and
females in state and local governments. The law requires all state and
local governments with 100 or more employees to annually file
affirmative action reports (EEO—4) with the U.S. Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The EEO-4 reports contain the race,
ethnicity and sex of each employee, categorized by employment function,
occupation and salary. These reports have been used as the primary

basis for studies attempting to analyze minority and female

15

16

representation in state and local governments since the passage of the
EEO Act of 1972.

The EEO Act of 1972 prohibits the EEOC from disseminating
municipal employment records on individual cities. Therefore, letters
‘were sent to the twelve Michigan cities requesting copies of their EEO-4
reports for the years 1980 through 1986. Follow-up phone calls yielded
eleven responses. Copies of the EEO-4 reports were not obtained from
Benton Harbor. The law requires cities to retain their EEO-4 reports
for three years. Hence, only partial data were obtained from Ann Arbor,
Battle Creek, Detroit and Jackson. Data concerning demographic and
labor force characteristics of each city were gathered from the 1980

U.S. Census.

Data Analysis

This study analyzed the representativeness of municipal government
‘work forces for the eleven Michigan cities from 1980 through 1986 on a
yearly basis. Cities with partial data were analyzed during the years
for which the data were obtained. The EEO-4 reports contain employment
information on white, black, Hispanic, Asian or Pacific islander, and
American Indian males and females. The population of these groups, with
the exception of whites and blacks, are negligible in most of the cities
studied. Therefore, four groups of full-time employees will be
analyzed: white males, black males, white females and black females.

Considerable controversy has existed concerning the use of
population or labor force statistics as the appropriate benchmark to
measure minority and female representation in municipal governments.
Measures utilizing population figures tend to overrepresent the
availability of the female work force due to the large number of females
engaged in traditional roles who are not seeking employment. The
utilization of labor force statistics may underestimate the availability

of females and minorities since individuals who have ceased to pursue

17

employment opportunities are excluded from this group. However, labor
force statistics are important for two reasons. First, most cities use
labor force data to establish goals and time tables. The courts and the
EEOC have also relied on labor force statistics (Karnig g; 51, 1984).
Second, municipal governments must rely on the available labor force for
hiring. For these reasons, labor force statistics will be used in this
study as the benchmark to measure representation. A list of the labor
force composition for each city can be found in Appendix II.

Percentages were calculated for each group in terms of the groups
representation in the municipal work force for each year from 1980
through 1986. A corresponding representation ratio was calculated for
each group using the group’s representation in the city labor force as

the benchmark. For example,

 

Black Male = Black file percentage of Enicipal workers in 1980-1986
Representation Black nale percentage of the city labor force in 1980
Ratio

A representation ratio of less than 1.00 reveals that the group is
underrepresented in the municipal work force. A ratio of 1.00 would
signify that a group is equally represented in the labor force and the
‘work force. A ratio greater than 1.00 reveals that a particular group
is overrepresented in the municipal work force.

The changing ratios for the work force reveal the trends in the
quantitative positions of black and female employees in the municipal
‘work force and allow for comparisons between cities. The representation
ratios standardize the percentages and allow for intercity comparisons
to evaluate the position of each city in terms of representative
employment in.municipal government. One may argue that a serious
methodological flaw exists in this approach. The representation ratios
for each year are based on labor force statistics of a single year even

though the percentages of the black.males, white females and black

18

females in the labor force are likely to change from year to year.
Indeed, this is the case. However, municipal governments set goals and
base their efforts on labor force data and estimates from the 1980
Census. Therefore, it may only be appropriate to evaluate the progress
of blacks and females in municipal governments based on this criteria.

A‘word of caution is in order with regard to the representation
ratios from 1981 through 1986. A representation ratio of 1.00 for those
years does not necessarily signify that a group is representative in the
‘work force. The group’s percentage in the labor force may have
increased since 1980. Therefore, the group’s representation ratio would
be overestimated. A ratio may also underestimate the representation of
a group. For these reasons, the representation ratios should not be
regarded as perfect indicators of representation.

Two associations concerning the representation of black males,
‘white females and black females will be examined. The first concerns
the changing size of the municipal work force. Many municipalities have
experienced fiscal constraints during the 19808 which may have impacted
the municipality’s hiring practices. Some municipalities may have been
forced to reduce hiring and some may even have reduced the size of their
municipal work force. This section will determine whether an
association exists between the percent change in the size of the
municipal work force and the representation of black.males, white
females and black females. The representation‘will be measured by
combining the percentages of the three groups in the work force.

The second association pertains to the competition for employment
opportunities between black.males, white females and black females. The
percentages of each group in the work force should be equal to the
corresponding percentage in the labor force. Minority competition

occurs when a municipality gives priority to hiring one group at the

19

expense of one or more of the other groups. The representation of one
group is high while the representation of another group is low. The
percentages of black males, white females and black females in the work
force will be compared for each year. If each percentage does not
change in the same direction, minority competition is said to exist.
Minority competition could also exist if the percentages of each group
changed in the same direction. This would occur when the change of one
group was large while the change in one or more of the other groups was
small.

The qualitative progress of blacks and females in municipal
governments will be measured using several techniques. The EEO-4
reports contain eight occupational categories:
officials/administrators, professionals, technicians, protective
service, paraprofessionals, office/clerical, skilled craft and
service/maintenance. These occupations are ranked according to skill.
A description of these job categories can be found in Appendix III.

Theoretically, black males, white females and black females should
be evenly distributed throughout the eight occupational categories
according to their percentage of the work force. For example, black
males represented 12.33 percent of the 1986 Ann Arbor work force, while
white females accounted for 18.8 percent and black females 5.35 percent.
Thus, one would expect to find each occupation comprised of
12.33 percent black male, 18.8 percent white female, and 5.35 percent
black female. Deviations from these figures in any occupation would
denote an uneven occupational distribution. A distribution ratio was
calculated to determine whether a group is evenly distributed throughout

the occupational categories. For example,

 

White Female White female percentage
Distribution Ratio = of municipal professionals
for Professionals White female percentage of

the municipal work force

20

A ratio greater than 1.00 would signify that the group‘was
overrepresented in that particular occupation. A ratio less than 1.00
'would reveal the group to be underrepresented in that occupation. A
ratio of 1.00 would reveal that a particular group is equally
represented in the work force and the particular occupation.

A stratification ratio, similar to the one used by Sigelman
(1976), will be utilized to determine the qualitative progress of the
study groups. The ratio will measure the extent to which a group is
evenly distributed throughout the occupational hierarchies. The
occupations are distributed into two categories. Higher-level
occupations include officials/administrators, professionals, and
technicians. The lower-level occupations include employees in the
office/clerical, skilled craft, and the service/maintenance categories.
A group’s stratification ratio was calculated in each city for each year

using the following formula:

 

Black Female =, Black fepgjegpercent of higher-level occgpations
Stratification Black female percent of lower-level occupations
Ratio

A stratification ratio greater than 1.00 reveals that the group is
disproportionately overrepresented in higher prestige occupations. A
ratio less than 1.00 means that the group is disproportionately
concentrated in lower prestige occupations. A ratio of 1.00 signifies
that a group is evenly distributed throughout the various occupational
levels.

The distribution ratios will measure the distribution of black and
female municipal employees in each occupation. The stratification
ratios will measure the distribution of employees in high and
low~prestige occupational levels. Each ratio is based on the assumption
that black males should be distributed equally in each occupation and

occupational level. The assumption is the same for white and black

21

females. However, the employment status of the white male is the
implicit basis for comparison for affirmative action. Therefore, the
distribution of black males, white females and black females was
compared with the distribution of white males.

A number of studies have examined inequality, dissimilarity, or
segregation between groups with respect to a number of variables
(Lorenz, 1905: Duncan and Duncan, 1955; Marshall, 1975: Darden and
Tabachneck, 1980: Morgan 1980; Darden, 1985). In this study,
occupational segregation refers to the uneven distribution of the study
groups over occupational categories. The index of dissimilarity will be
used to measure the degree of occupational segregation in municipal

government work forces. The index can be stated mathematically as:

k
D = 10005 | z xi-yil)
i=0

Where Xi- the percentage of municipal governments"white male
employees employed in a given occupation.

Y} = the percentage of a municipal government’s black male,
white female or black female employees employed in the
same occupation.

D = the index of dissimilarity or one-half the sum of the
absolute differences (positive and negative) between the
respective proportional distributions in X.i and Yi above
in each municipal government (Darden and Tabachneck,
1980).

The index, which ranges from "0" indicating no segregation to ”100"
indicating total segregation, may be interpreted as the minimum
percentage of either group that would have to move from one occupation
to another in order to achieve an even distribution between the groups

in the municipal government.

22

The final measure of the qualitative progress of blacks and
females concerns median salary income. Median salary was calculated for
each group in the municipal work force. An advantage ratio was then
computed using the white male’s median salary as the benchmark. For

example,

Black Male _ BlackLales'pedian salary
Advantage Ratio White naies' median salary

An advantage ratio greater than 1.00 reveals that a group’s median
salary is greater than the white male median salary. A ratio less than
1.00 indicates that the group’s median salary is less than the median
salary of the white males. A ratio of 1.00 reveals that the median
salary of the group and the white male is approximately equal. AAword
of caution is needed concerning median salaries and advantage ratios.
Some municipalities have a small number of black male and female
employees. Hence, the confidence intervals for the median salaries of
these groups would likely be very large. The advantage ratios are
important to assess the progress of blacks and females in municipal

governments.

Hypothesis
The following research hypotheses will be examined in this study:

1) Black males, white females and black females will be
disproportionately underrepresented in municipal government
work forces.

2) The change in size of the municipal government will be
positively associated with representativeness.

3) Interminority competition will exist in the municipal work

force between 1980 and 1986.

4)

5)

6)

23

Black males, white females and black females will be
disproportionately underrepresented in the higher-level
occupations in municipal government work forces.

The representation, distribution, stratification and
advantage ratios will have increased for black males, white
females and black females between 1980 and 1986.

The index of dissimilarity between white males and black
males, white females and black females will have decreased

between 1980 and 1986.

CHAPTER 3

QUANTITATIVE REPRESENTATION IN THE MUNICIPAL WORK FORCE

Equal employment opportunity and affirmative action in both the
public and private sectors were important concerns during the 19703.
The 19808 were perceived to be an era of slackened enforcement due to
the fiscal constraints facing many cities and the perceived antipathy of
the Reagan Administration towards compensatory employment programs
(Glazer, 1985; Steel and Lovrich, 1986). For example, Congress approved
the courts’ use of goals and timetables to remedy the effects of
employment discrimination. The importance of these strategies to
achieve equal employment was acknowledged by both the Ford and Carter
Administrations. However, the Reagan Administration chose to avoid the
use of goals and timetables to remedy proven employment discrimination
under any circumstances (Days, 1984). Given such behavior, how did the
municipal employment status of blacks and females change during the
decade? In this chapter the quantitative position and progress of black
males, white females and black females in the eleven Michigan municipal

‘work forces during the 19809 will be analyzed.

Black.Male Qpantitgtive Progress

The representation ratios (see Table 3.1) reveal that black males
were at least proportionally represented in four of eight municipal work
forces in 1980. They included Bay City (3.07), Detroit (1.16),
Kalamazoo (1.84) and Muskegon (1.00). The ratio for Bay City may be
quite deceiving since the percentage of black males in the labor force
(.54 percent) is so small. Black males in Grand Rapids (.95) and

Lansing (.89) were close to being proportionally represented. Black

24

Black Male Representation in the Municipal Work Force

25

Table 3.1

 

 

CITY 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1980-6
117 112 104 101 107 99 -181

13.67 13.24 12.24 12.08 12.80 12.33 -1.34

Ann Arbor 3.33 3.22 2.98 2.94 3.12 3.00 -.33
80 79 82 22

13.22 12.72 13.20 -.02

Battle Creek 1.24 1.20 1.24 .00
8 5 6 6 5 5 6 -2

1.66 1.09 1.37 1.27 1.13 1.14 1.39 -.27

Bay City 3.07 2.01 2.53 2.34 2.08 2.11 2.57 -.50
9149 7324 7686 7244 6782 7567 8005 -114

36.44 36.44 38.75 38.61 38.04 40.16 41.42 4.98

Detroit 1.16 1.16 1.24 1.23 1.21 1.28 1.33 .17
187 162 163 160 166 224 237 50

11.72 11.40 11.96 11.90 12.72 15.38 16.20 4.48

Flint .57 .56 .58 .58 .62 .75 .79 .22
122 112 115 106 106 103 100 -22

6.30 5.96 6.44 6.52 6.66 6.43 6.13 -.17

Grand Rapids .95 .90 .97 .99 1.01 .97 .93 -.02
23 22 20 -32

6.32 6.11 5.90 -.42

JBCkson 096 093 e90 ‘006
118 119 121 121 110 114 107 -11

11.36 11.96 11.78 13.04 12.93 13.18 13.14 1.78

Kalamazoo 1.84 1.93 1.91 2.11 2.09 2.13 2.13 .29
83 85 80 80 83 86 87 4

5.67 5.92 5.90 6.01 6.28 6.53 6.57 .90

Lansing .89 .93 .92 .94 .98 1.02 1.03 .14
25 20 18 17 17 19 19 -6

7.44 6.80 5.94 6.16 5.82 6.81 6.31 -1.13

Muskegon 1.00 .92 .80 .83 .79 .92 .85 -.15
91 76 50 51 53 67 85 -6

10.00 9.38 7.52 7.85 8.32 10.62 12.86 2.86

Saginaw .65 .61 .49 .51 .54 .69 .84 .19

 

Number of black males

Percentage of work force

Representation ratio

1Based on 1981-1986
2Based on 1984-1986

26

males were considerably underrepresented in Flint (.57) and Saginaw
(.65). The ratios for Battle Creek (1.24) and Jackson (.96) in 1984
reveal that black males were overrepresented in Battle Creek and
slightly underrepresented in Jackson. The 1981 ratio for Ann Arbor
(3.33) reveals that black males of its municipal work force fared better
than black males of any municipality for any particular year.

The representation ratios for 1986 reveal that black males were at
least proportionally represented in six of the eleven municipalities.
The cities included Ann Arbor (3.00), Battle Creek (1.24), Bay City
(2.57), Detroit (1.33), Kalamazoo (2.13) and Lansing (1.03). Lansing
'was the only addition to the list of municipalities to have a black male
representation ratio of 1.00 or better in 1980. Black males in this
city’s municipal work force became representative of the labor force in
1985. Muskegon was the only city to drop from the list. The proportion
of black.males in the Muskegon work force declined 1.13 percentage
points during the study period and the representation ratio fell below
1.00 in 1981. The ratio in Grand Rapids reached 1.01 in 1984. However,
the percentage of black males in the work force decreased thereafter and
was the lowest of the decade in 1986.

Black males in Flint and Saginaw continued to be the most
underrepresented in 1986. However, the group increased its proportion
in the Flint municipal work force by four and one-half percentage points
between 1980 and 1986 to a ratio of .79. The increase can be mostly
attributed to the high proportion of black males hired in 1985. The
black male percentage of the Saginaw work force increased by
approximately three percentage points to a ratio of .84 in 1986. A
closer analysis reveals that the percentage of black males in Saginaw
experienced a decline between 1980 and 1982. In fact, the
representation ratio of .49 in 1982 was the lowest for black males in

any city during the study. The decrease can be attributed to the

27

disproportionately high number of black males released during reductions
in the*work force. A table showing the size of the municipal work
forces can be found in Appendix IV. The overall gain'was the result of
the large proportion of black males hired from 1984 through 1986 when
the‘work force expanded slightly. Black males in Grand Rapids and
Jackson experienced small declines of .17 and .42 percentage points
respectively.

The proportion of black males in the work force declined in six of
the eleven municipalities. The change in percentage points ranged from
-1.34 in Ann Arbor to 4.98 in Detroit. An examination of Table 3.1
reveals that the percentages fluctuated in most cities during the study.
Small percentage changes are relatively insignificant since the number
of black males in many of the municipalities is so small. However,
large fluctuations result from a lack of consistency in the proportion
of black males entering and exiting the work force. Large negative
changes are a result of two phenomena which may act in combination with
one another. First, black.males are leaving the work force in
disproportionately high numbers, due to either the elimination of jobs
or employment opportunities elsewhere. Second, the percentage of black
males being hired is less than the existing percentage in the work
force. On the other hand, percentage gains may be a consequence of a
disproportionately small number of black males who leave the‘work force
and/or the disproportionately large number of black males who obtain
employment positions in the municipality.

The fluctuating and decreasing percentages reveal that black.males
are not making annual progress in these Michigan municipalities. The
percentage of black males in the work force did not approximate 1.00
every year in any municipality. Of the cities that experienced a
positive change between 1980 and 1986, declines were experienced during

two or more years in every municipality with the exception of Lansing

28

where the percentage declined in only a single year. Other than
Lansing, black males are clearly overrepresented in those municipalities
with a black male representation ratio greater than 1.00. Concern also
exists with those cities which have ratios less than 1.00. Despite the
decreasing proportions in Jackson and Grand Rapids, black males in these
cities are close to being proportionately represented. The percentage
of black males in Muskegon has fluctuated greatly throughout the 1980s.
The black male representation ratios in Flint and Saginaw have remained
law. However, black males in these municipalities have made
considerable progress since the beginning of the decade. Overall, the
quantitative position of black males in the eleven Michigan
municipalities have improved slightly between 1980 and 1986.

An ideal work force would have each of the groups with a ratio of
1.00. The study revealed that black males in six of the eleven
municipalities were overrepresented. These figures necessarily mean
that one or more of the other groups are underrepresented. Hence,
progress does not occur when a representation ratio greater than 1.00
increases. This phenomenon occurred in Detroit and Kalamazoo. The
ratio in Battle Creek was identical in 1984 and 1986. Progress occurs

only when the ratios approximate 1.00.

White Female ngntitgtive Progregg

The representation ratios (see Table 3.2) reveal that white
females were largely underrepresented in every municipality in 1980.
The ratios for Bay City (.33), Detroit (.42), Kalamazoo (.46), Lansing
(.46), Muskegon (.42) and Saginaw (.33) indicate that white females were
employed at less than one-half of parity in these municipalities. White
females in Grand Rapids (.52) were in a slightly better position. Yet,
in order to approach the labor pool standard, Grand Rapids would need to
nearly double their work force concentration of white female employees.

The ratios for Battle Creek (.45) and Jackson (.46) in 1984 and

White Female Representation in the Municipal Work Force

29

Table 3.2

 

 

CITY 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1980-6
144 156 155 151 147 151 71

16.82 18.44 18.24 18.06 17.58 18.80 1.98

Ann Arbor .41 .45 .44 .44 .43 .46 .05
95 98 97 22

15.70 15.78 15.62 -.08

Battle Creek .45 .45 .44 -.01
62 58 56 60 52 51 57 -5

12.89 12.66 12.81 12.71 11.71 11.67 13.23 .34

Bay City .33 .32 .32 .32 .30 .29 .33 .00
1638 1203 933 884 846 867 863 775

6.52 5.99 4.70 4.71 4.73 4.55 4.50 -2.02

DetrOit e42 e39 e31 e31 031 030 029 "e13
258 222 213 218 208 249 247 -11

16.18 15.62 15.63 16.21 15.94 17.10 16.88 .70

Flint .66 .63 .63 .66 .65 .69 .68 .02
374 374 356 288 287 302 313 61

19.30 19.91 19.92 17.70 18.04 18.84 19.19 -.11

Grand Rapids .52 .53 .53 .47 .48 .51 .51 -.01
62 62 60 -22

17.03 17.22 17.70 .67

Jackson .46 .46 .48 .02
189 149 185 151 136 143 135 -54

18.19 14.97 18.01 16.27 15.98 16.53 16.58 -1.61

Kalamazoo .46 .37 .45 .41 .40 .41 .42 -.04
255 257 255 248 241 244 249 -6

17.41 17.91 18.79 18.62 18.23 18.53 18.81 1.40

Lansing .46 .48 .50 .49 .48 .49 .50 .04
52 53 55 50 53 48 51 -1

15.48 18.03 18.15 18.12 18.15 17.20 16.94 1.46

Muskegon .42 .48 .49 .49 .49 .46 .46 .04
84 72 62 6O 58 59 62 .22

9.23 8.89 9.32 9.23 9.11 9.35 9.38 .15

Saginaw .33 .32 .33 .33 .33 .34 .34 .01

 

Number of white females

Percentage of work force

Representation ratio

1Based on 1981-1986

2Based on 1984-1986

30

Ann Arbor (.41) in 1981 indicate that white females are also highly
underrepresented in these municipalities. White females in Flint,
despite their low ratio of .66, were the most representative of any city
in 1980.

The 1986 representation ratios reveal that white females were
still largely underrepresented in every municipality. White females in
Lansing attained a .50 ratio in 1986 to join Flint (.68) and Grand
Rapids (.51) as the only municipalities to have a white female ratio of
.50 or better. The proportion of white females in the Grand Rapids work
force did not remain consistent during the study. The percentage
declined over two percentage points between 1982 and 1983 to a ratio of
.47. The decrease can be attributed to the disproportionately high
number of white females who lost their jobs due to work force reductions
between 1982 and 1983. It is interesting to note that job reductions
also occurred from 1980 to 1982 in Grand Rapids. However, the white
female share of the municipal work force during this period actually
increased.

The proportion of white females in the Flint municipal work force
decreased during work force reductions between 1980 and 1981. The
decline was more than compensated when a large number of white females
'were hired during the increase of the work force between 1984 and 1985.
The white female representation ratios of the other eight municipalities
remained below .50.

The proportion of white females in the work force declined in four
of the eleven municipal work forces during the study. The reductions
ranged from .08 percentage points in Battle Creek to 2.02 percentage
points in Detroit. The white female representation ratio for Detroit
dropped from .42 in 1980 to .29 in 1986. The 1986 ratio for Detroit and
the 1985 Bay City ratio represent the lowest for white females of any

municipality during the study. The decrease in the white female

31

proportion can be attributed to both the elimination of a
disproportionately large number of jobs held by white females and the
disproportionately low hiring of white females. A disprOportionately
high number of white females lost their jobs during employee reductions
between 1980 and 1982. During the work force reductions between 1982
and 1984 the proportion of white females leaving municipal jobs‘was
similar to the proportion in the work force. The Detroit municipal work
force increased by nearly 1,000 workers between 1984 and 1985. However,
a disproportionately low number of white females were hired. The
representation ratio reached its low in 1986 when the work force
expanded while the number of white females declined slightly.

The white female percentage of the municipal work force declined
slightly between 1980 and 1986 in Battle Creek (.08 percentage points)
and Grand Rapids (.11 percentage points). The white female share in the
Kalamazoo municipality declined by 1.61 points between 1980 and 1986.

An examination of Table 3.2 reveals that the percentage of white fenales
in the Kalamazoo work force fluctuated throughout the 1980s. The
fluctuations were due to the disproportionately high number of white
females exiting the work force and the disproportionately large number
of white females hired.

The white female proportion of the work force grew in seven of the
eleven municipalities. The increases ranged from .15 percentage points
in Saginaw to 1.98 points in Ann Arbor. The percentages were found to
fluctuate in nearly every city. Jackson was the only city where the
percentage consistently improved. However, the study of Jackson was
based on only three years.

The representation ratios reveal that white females are far from
being representative in every municipality. The highest white female
representation ratio in 1986 is actually lower than the lowest ratio for

black males in 1986. The fluctuations indicate that white females are

32

not making annual progress in any municipality. The decreasing
percentages indicate that the position of white females in those cities
is actually worsening, despite their already poor quantitative
positions. The overall quantitative position of white females in the

Michigan municipalities is very similar to that experienced in 1980.

Black Female Qpantitative Progress
The representation ratios (see Table 3.3) reveal that black

 

females were representative in only one of the eight municipalities in
1980. The lone municipality was Bay City with a ratio of 1.24. This
figure may be quite deceiving since only three black females are
employed in the work force. Detroit (.70) and Kalamazoo (.54) were the
only other two cities to have a ratio greater than .50 at the beginning
of the decade. These municipalities were followed by Grand Rapids
(.47), Flint (.40), Lansing (.40), Muskegon (.36) and Saginaw (.31).
Ann.Arbor had a ratio of 1.25 in 1981. Battle Creek and Jackson had
ratios of .42 and .89 respectively in 1984. The quantitative position
of black females in these municipalities in the early 1980s was clearly
unsatisfactory.

The representation ratios for 1986 indicate that black females
'were representative in two of the eleven municipal work forces. Ann
Arbor had a ratio of 1.25 and Bay City’s ratio increased to 1.38. The
ratio for Bay City represents the highest for black females of any
municipality during the study. The number of black female municipal
‘workers in Bay City remained constant throughout the decade. However,
the size of the work force declined from 1980 to 1986 which resulted in
the increased ratio. Only the ratios of Battle Creek (.48) and Saginaw
(.43) remained under .50 in 1986.

The proportion of black females in the municipal work force
increased in nine of the eleven municipalities. The only two cities

where the percentage of black females declined during the study were

Black Female Representation in the Municipal Work Force

33

Table 3.3

 

 

CITY 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1980-6
46 42 45 43 40 43 -31

5037 4096 5e29 5.14 4078 5035 “e02

Ann Arbor 1.25 1.16 1.23 1.20 1.11 1.25 .00
23 26 27 42

3.80 4.19 4.35 .55

Battle Creek .42 .46 .48 .06
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0

.62 .66 .69 .64 .68 .69 .70 .08

Bay City 1.24 1.30 1.36 1.26 1.34 1.36 1.38 .14
5004 3742 3850 3747 3458 4027 4248 -756

19.93 18.62 19.41 19.97 19.35 21.37 22.17 2.24

Detroit .70 .65 .68 .70 .68 .75 .77 .07
115 97 93 100 93 129 133 18

7.21 6.83 6.82 7.43 7.13 8.86 9.09 1.88

Flint .40 .38 .38 .41 .39 .49 .50 .10
61 55 53 47 50 57 61 0

3.15 2.93 2.97 2.89 3.14 3.56 3.74 .59

Grand Rapids .47 .44 .45 .43 .47 .53 .56 .09
20 19 15 -52

5049 5028 4.42 "1e07

Jackson .89 .86 .72 -.17
35 38 47 44 44 48 41 6

3.37 3.82 4.58 4.74 5.17 5.55 5.04 1.67

Kalamazoo .54 .61 .73 .76 .83 .89 .80 .26
33 36 34 31 36 41 44 11

2.25 2.51 2.51 2.33 2.72 3.11 3.32 1.07

Lansing .40 .44 .44 .41 .48 .55 .59 .19
10 5 6 8 10 11 13 3

2.98 1.70 1.98 2.90 3.42 3.94 4.32 1.34

Muskegon .36 .21 .24 .35 .41 .48 .52 .16
41 36 27 28 30 34 41 0

4.51 4.44 4.06 4.31 4.71 5.39 6.20 1.69

Saginaw .31 .31 .28 .30 .33 .38 .43 .12

 

Number of black females

Percentage of work force

Representation ratio

lBased on 1981-1986
ZBased on 1984-1986

34

Ann Arbor and Jackson. The proportion in Ann Arbor fluctuated each year
and was reduced .02 percentage points between 1981 and 1986. The
largest decrease occurred in Jackson as the percentage of black females
dropped 1.07 percentage points between 1984 and 1986. The decline can
be attributed to the disproportionately high reduction of black females
during a decrease in the number of employees in the Jackson municipal
‘work force.

The percentage of black females in the work force rose by more
than one percentage point in six of the nine municipalities which
experienced an increase. Black females in Detroit experienced the
largest increase (2.24 percentage points). The gain was primarily due
to the disproportionately large number of black females hired between
1984 and 1985. Black females also experienced an increase of more than
one percentage point in Flint (1.88), Saginaw (1.69), Kalamazoo (1.67)
and Lansing (1.07).

Black female proportions did not increase every year in any
municipality. The proportion in Kalamazoo did increase approximately
.40 percentage points each year from 1980 to 1985. However, a .51 point
decline occurred in the following year. Many of the gains in other
municipalities were primarily due to a large increase which occurred
during a single year. For example, black females in the Flint work
force increased 1.73 percentage points between 1984 and 1985. The
increase of the other years combined was only .15 percentage points.
Black female employees in Saginaw experienced a gain of .81 percentage
points between 1985 and 1986 and .68 points between 1984 and 1985.
However, black females increased by only .20 points in the remaining
years. Consistent percentage increases or decreases rarely occur. This
phenomenon can be attributed to the fluctuating size of the municipal

‘work force. During work force increases and reductions, the

35

municipalities rarely hire or release a group of employees in proportion
to their size in the work force.

The representation ratios indicate that black females in most
municipalities are far from being representative in the work force.
Black females have a lower ratio than their male counterparts in every
city. However, black females are more representative than white females
in every municipality with the exception of Flint. Nine of eleven black
female representation ratios are greater than .50 while the same can be
said of only three of eleven white female ratios. Fluctuating
percentages do indicate that black females are not making annual
quantitative progress. Yet, black females in most municipal work forces
have made considerable progress between 1980 and 1986. Thus, the
overall quantitative position of black females has improved during the

19808.

Representation gnd the Change in Work Forc§4§i_g

One would expect to find the representation of blacks and females
in municipal work forces to consistently improve under equal
employment/affirmative action efforts. The fluctuating percentages
indicate that consistent progress is not occurring. One possible
explanation would be the changing size of the municipal work force.
Many cities are facing fiscal constraints which may have negative
implications for equal employment/affirmative action efforts. These
cities may not only have to halt most or all hiring, but they may be
forced to reduce their work forces. If the adage "last hired, first
fired" holds true, then the proportion of blacks and females is likely
to decline in a contracting work force. On the other hand, a
municipality with an expanding work force has the opportunity to hire a
large percentage of black and female employees and increase the
representation of the work force. Much less controversy would result in

a municipality which hired a disproportionately low number of white

36

males rather than eliminate a disproportionately large number of
employment positions held by white males. This section will analyze the
association between the change in the size of the municipal‘work force
and the change in the representation of black male, white female and
black female municipal employees.

The size of the municipal work force has not remained constant
during the 19808 (see Table 3.4). The work force has been reduced in
ten of the eleven municipalities. Six of the ten have declined by over
ten percent including the work forces of Kalamazoo (-21.66), Detroit
(-23.68) and Saginaw (-27.36) which have declined by over 20 percent.
The declines were not consistent each year and every municipal work
force, with the exception of Jackson, experienced an increase in one or
more years. Battle Creek was the only municipality to have its work
force increase during the study. The number of employees in Battle
Creek rose 2.64 percent between 1984 and 1986. A comparison between the
change in size of municipal work forces between 1980 and 1986 and the
change in the combined percentage of black males, white females and
black females between 1980 and 1986 indicates that a positive
association does not exist between the two variables in most
municipalities (see Table 3.4). In nine cities which experienced a
declining work force between 1980 and 1986, the combined
representativeness of the three groups increased. The work force
declined by nearly 24 percent in Detroit while the representation
increased 5.56 percentage points. The number of employees in the Flint
work force decreased 8.28 percent‘while the percentage of black males,
white females and black females in the work force rose 7.06 percentage
points. In Saginaw, the number of employees was reduced by 27.36
percent while the representation increased 4.7 percentage points. Other
municipalities with a negative association experienced a smaller

increase in the representation of blacks and females.

37

Table 3.4

Representation and the Change of Work Force Size

 

 

 

CITY 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1980-6
Ann W? -1.17 .47 -1.65 .00 -3.95 -6.191
Arbor REP 35.86 36.64 35.76 35.29 35.17 36.49 .63
Battle WF 2.64 .00 2.642
Creek REP 32.73 32.69 33.17 .44
Bay WF -4.78 -4.59 8.01 ~5.93 -1.58 ~1.37 ~10.4O
City REP 15.18 14.41 14.87 14.62 13.51 13.50 15.31 .13
WF -19.93 -1.33 -5.40 -4.88 5.57 1.68 -23.68
Detroit REP 62.90 61.04 62.87 63.29 62.11 66.13 68.46 5.56
W -10091 -4008 -1032 -2097 11057 .48 -8028
Flint REP 35.11 33.85 34.41 35.54 35.79 41.35 42.17 7.06
Grand WF -3.10 -4.85 -8.95 -2.21 .75 1.75 -15.84
Rapids REP 28.74 28.81 29.32 27.11 27.84 28.82 29.06 .32
WP -1.10 -5.83 -6.872
Jackson REP 28.85 28.61 28.02 -.83
WP -4.23 3.22 -9.64 -8.30 1.65 -5.90 -21.66
Kalamazoo REP 32.92 30.75 34.37 34.05 34.08 35.26 34.77 1.85
WP -2005 -5044 -1084 -075 -038 .53 -9062
Lansing REP 25.32 26.34 27.19 26.95 27.23 28.17 28.70 3.38
W? -12050 3806 -8091 5080 -4045 7089 -10042
Muskegon REP 25.89 26.53 26.07 27.17 27.40 27.96 27.57 1.68
WF -10.99 -17.90 -2.26 -2.00 -.94 4.75 -27.36
Saginaw REP 23.74 22.72 20.90 21.38 22.14 25.36 28.44 4.70
WF - 2 change in the size of the work force 1Based on 1981-1986

REP - Combined percentage of black males,

2Based on 1984-1986

white females and black females in
the work force

38

The only municipalities to experience a positive association were
Battle Creek and Jackson. The work force in Battle Creek grew 2.64
percent between 1984 and 1986 while the combined representation of black
males, white females and black females increased .44 percentage points.
The number of employees in the Jackson municipal work force declined
6.87 percent between 1984 and 1986 while the representation of the three
groups declined .83 percentage points.

The comparison between the change in the work force size between
1980 and 1986 and the change in the combined percentage of black males,
white females and black females revealed that the combined
representation increased in most municipalities despite the reduction of
the work forces. A comparison between the change in size and
representation for each year reveals a rather weak association between
the variables. For example, the Detroit work force declined 5.4 percent
between 1982 and 1983 while the combined representation of black males,
white females and black.males increased .42 percentage points. The
following year the work force decreased 4.88 percent. However, the
combined representation that year decreased 1.18 percentage points. The
'work force in Muskegon increased 5.8 percent between 1983 and 1984 while
the combined percentage rose .23 percentage points. However, a 7.89
percent increase in the work force between 1985 and 1986 was associated
‘with a .39 percentage point decline in the representativeness.

The number of employees in the Detroit, Flint, Grand Rapids and
Kalamazoo work forces increased two years during the study while the
combined representation increased in both years in each of the
‘municipalities. The opposite is the case in Ann Arbor, Battle Creek and
Bay city. The size of the work force increased one year in each of the
municipalities while the combined percentage of black males, white
females and black females declined in that year in each of the

municipalities. These examples indicate that the combined

39

representation of the three groups increased and decreased regardless of

the direction or size of the change in the work force size.

Interminority Cgppetition in thegflunicipgl Work Forcg

A work force composition equal to the composition of the labor
force would indicate a representative municipal work force. The
percentages for black males, white females and black females revealed
that the eleven Michigan municipalities were not representative.
However, black males, white females and black females made quantitative
progress in most municipalities during the 19808. The last section
revealed that the combined percentage of black males, white females and
black females increased in ten of the eleven municipalities during the
study. The aggregation of data for black males, white females and black
females covered up the extent to which each group is increasing. Each
group which is underrepresented in the work force should be increasing.
Interminority competition occurs when the representation of one group
increases while the representation of one or two of the other groups
declines. This section will determine whether competition for
employment opportunities is occurring between black.males, white females

and black females.

The percentages for black males, white females and black females
in each work force for each year are shown on Table 3.5. An examination
of the percentage point change between 1980 and 1986 reveals that the
percentage of black males, white females and black females changed in
the same direction in only three municipalities. Each group experienced
an increase between 1980 and 1986 in Flint, Lansing and Saginaw. In the
remaining municipalities, only one or two of the groups experienced an
increase between 1980 and 1986. For example, the percentage of black
males and females in the Detroit work force increased 4.98 and 2.24
percentage points respectively between 1980 and 1986. However, the

percentage of white females declined 2.02 percentage points. ‘White

Interminority Competition

40

Table 3.5

 

 

CITY 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1980-6
BM 13.86 13.24 12.24 12.08 12.80 12.33 -1.341
Ann WF 16.82 18.44 18.24 18.06 17.58 18.80 1.98
Arbor BF 5.37 4.96 5.29 5.14 4.78 5.35 -.02
BM 13.22 12.72 13.20 -.022
Battle WF 15.70 15.78 15.62 -.08
Creek BF 3.80 4.19 4.35 .55
BM 1.66 1.09 1.37 1.27 1.13 1.14 1.39 -.27
Bay WF 12.89 12.66 12.81 12.71 11.71 11.67 13.23 .34
City BF .62 .66 .69 .64 .68 .69 .70 .08
BM 36.44 36.44 38.75 38.61 38.04 40.16 41.42 4.98
WP 6.52 5.99 4.70 4.71 4.73 4.55 4.50 -2.02
Detroit BF 19.93 18.62 19.41 19.97 19.35 21.37 22.17 2.24
BM 11.72 11.40 11.96 11.90 12.72 15.38 16.20 4.48
W? 16.18 15.62 15.63 16.21 15.94 17.10 16.88 .70
Flint BF 7.21 6.83 6.82 7.43 7.13 8.86 9.09 1.88
BM 6.30 5.96 6.44 6.52 6.66 6.43 6.13 -.17
Grand WF 19.30 19.91 19.92 17.70 18.04 18.84 19.19 -.17
Rapids BF 3.15 2.93 2.97 2.89 3.14 3.56 3.74 .59
BM 6.32 6.11 5.90 -.422
‘wr 17.03 17.22 17.70 .67
BM 11.36 11.96 11.78 13.04 12.93 13.18 13.14 1.78
W? 18.19 14.97 18.01 16.27 15.98 16.53 16.58 -1.61
Kalamazoo BF 3.37 3.82 4.58 4.74 5.17 5.55 5.04 1.67
BM 5.67 5.92 5.90 6.01 6.28 6.53 6.57 .90
W? 17.41 17.91 18.79 18.62 18.23 18.53 18.81 1.40
Lansing BF 2.25 2.51 2.51 2.33 2.72 3.11 3.32 1.07
BM 7.44 6.80 5.94 6.16 5.82 6.81 6.31 -1.13
WF 15.48 18.03 18.15 18.12 18.15 17.20 16.94 1.46
Muskegon BF 2.98 1.70 1.98 2.90 3.42 3.94 4.32 1.34
BM 10.00 9.38 7.52 7.85 8.32 10.62 12.86 2.86
WF 9.23 8.89 9.32 9.23 9.11 9.35 9.38 .15
Saginaw BF 4.51 4.44 4.06 4.31 4.71 5.39 6.20 1.69

 

BM - Percentage of black males in work force

WF - Percentage of white females in work force

BF - Percentage of black females in work force

1Based on 1981-1986
2Based on 1984-1986

41

females are the most underrepresented in the Detroit work force while
black males are overrepresented. The same phenomenon occurred in
Kalamazoo. In Muskegon, the work force percentage of white and black
females increased 1.46 and 1.34 percentage points respectively while the
black male percentage declined 1.13 percentage points. The percentages
in Ann Arbor indicate that black males and females are overrepresented
while white females are underrepresented.

Even in Flint, Lansing and Saginaw where the percentages changed
in the same direction between 1980 and 1986, competition appears to
exist for individual years. For example, the percentage of black males
increased by .82 percentage points between 1983 and 1984 while the white
female percentage declined .27 percentage points. In Saginaw between
1981 and 1982, the white female percentage increased by .43 percentage
points while both the black male and female percentages declined. The
percentages indicate the competition for employment opportunities exists

between black males, white females and black females in the eleven

municipalities.

CHAPTER 4

QUALITATIVE REPRESENTATION IN THE MUNICIPAL WORK FORCE

Quantitative representation is an important factor to determine
the employment status of blacks and females in the municipal work force.
However, the quantitative dimension alone does not adequately explain
the position and progress of blacks and females. A large percentage of
black and female municipal employees may be of little significance if
these groups are largely relegated to less prestigious occupations which
add little or nothing to the decision making process. Therefore, the
qualitative dimension may be equally, if not more, important to the
municipal employment status of blacks and females. Qualitative
representation is the extent to which blacks and females have entered
‘more responsible, prestigious, and remunerative positions. In this
chapter a number of methods will be utilized to analyze the qualitative
position and progress of black.males, white females and black females of

the eleven municipalities during the 19808.

Occupational Distribution
Occupational distribution is an important determinant of the

qualitative employment status of black and female municipal employees.
The distribution ratio was able to determine the extent to which black
males, white females and black females are evenly distributed throughout
the eight occupational categories.

Black males have traditionally been highly overrepresented in the
service/maintenance occupations. Black males in the Michigan

municipalities during the 19808 are no different. Black.males were

42

43

annually overrepresented in the service/maintenance occupations in every
municipality. The 1986 distribution ratios (see Appendix Va-XVa) ranged
from 1.41 in Saginaw to 2.78 in Grand Rapids. The 2.78 in Grand Rapids
signifies that the number of black male service/maintenance employees is
nearly three times as great as would be expected in a normal
distribution. Black males were also overrepresented in the skilled
craft occupation in six of the eleven municipalities. Despite
increasing their proportion in eight municipalities during the 19808,
black male protective service workers were proportionally represented in
only five cities in 1986.

Black.males have not fared so well in the high-prestige
occupations of official/administrator, professional and technician. In
1980 and the first year data was obtained for Ann Arbor, Battle Creek
and Jackson, black male technicians were at least proportionately
distributed in only three municipalities. The figure remained at three
in 1986. Black males were overemployed in the official/administrative
and professional occupations in one municipality in 1980. Their
distribution increased in both of these occupations in six cities during
the 19808. However, three administrative distribution ratios and only
one professional ratio were equal to or greater than the 1.00 in 1986.

The distribution ratios (see Appendix Vb-XVb) reveal that white
females in the 19808 are largely overrepresented in the office/clerical
positions. The office/clerical ratios declined in ten cities and
remained the same in one during the 19808. However, the 1986 ratios
remained high and ranged from 2.38 in Detroit to 6.33 in Bay City.

White females were also overrepresented in the paraprofessional
occupations in eight of ten municipalities in 1986.

White females were largely underrepresented in every municipality

during the 19808 in the traditionally male-dominated occupations of

protective service, skilled craft and service/maintenance. The

44

distribution ratios for white female protective service workers ranged
from .16 in Saginaw to .88 in Detroit in 1986. The ratios for white
female service/maintenance employees in 1986 ranged from .19 in Detroit
to .48 in Battle Creek. The distribution ratios for the skilled craft
occupation were even lower. The 1986 ratios ranged from .00 in Muskegon
to .26 in Detroit and Kalamazoo. A1though.white female employment
remains relatively low in these occupations, the distribution ratios
increased slightly in most municipalities during the study.

White females are largely underrepresented in the high-prestige
occupations. The distribution of white females in
official/administrative positions increased in seven municipalities
during the study. However, in 1986 only Muskegon (1.07) and Battle
Creek (1.42) had a ratio greater than 1.00. The white female
distribution in professional occupations was equal to or greater than
the white female percentage in the work force in only four
municipalities. The white female distribution of technicians increased
in seven municipalities and was greater than 1.00 in three cities in
1986.

The 1980 distribution ratios (see Appendix Vc-XVc) indicated that
black females were disproportionately overrepresented in office/clerical
positions in every municipality. The ratios ranged from 2.84 in Detroit
to 5.44 in Battle Creek. Black females were also overrepresented in the
paraprofessional positions in seven of eight municipalities. Black
females did not fare as well in the high-prestige occupations. The
distribution ratio for technicians was greater than 1.00 in three
municipalities. The distribution ratio for professionals was greater
than 1.00 in five municipalities. Black females were overrepresented in
official/administrative occupations in only one city. The 1980 black

female official/administrative distribution ratio in Saginaw was 1.01.

45

Black females were disproportionately underrepresented in the protective
service and skilled craft occupations in every municipality.

The 1986 distribution ratios revealed that black females continued
to be largely overemployed in the office/clerical occupation. In fact,
the ratio increased in eight of the municipalities during the study and
ranged from 3.12 in Detroit to 6.68 in Bay City in 1986. The ratio for
official/administrative and professional occupations increased in five
and six cities respectively. Black females were overemployed in
administrative positions in four municipalities in 1986. The
distribution ratios in professional occupations were greater than 1.00
in six municipalities. Black females continued to be the most
underrepresented in the protective service and skilled craft
occupations. The highest black female ratio for the protective service
occupations was .50 in Detroit. Only Detroit (.23) and Kalamazoo (.29)
had a black female ratio for skilled craft occupations greater than .00

in 1986.

Blacks and nggles in the Occupgtiongl Hiergrchv

The percentages and distribution ratios indicated the distribution
of black.males, white females and black females in the individual
occupations. In order to determine the distribution of black and female
employees over the work force, a stratification ratio was calculated.
The ratio measures the extent to which black males, white females and
black females are evenly employed in high and low prestige occupations.

The stratification ratios (see Table 4.1) reveal that black male
employees are largely distributed in less prestigious municipal
occupations. The 1980 black male ratios ranged from .28 in Grand Rapids
to .91 in Saginaw. Besides Saginaw, only Flint (.50) and Muskegon (.85)
had ratios of .50 or better. Kalamazoo (.30) and Lansing (.38) join
Grand Rapids as the only municipality to have a 1980 ratio less than

46

Table 4.1

Stratification Ratios

 

 

CITY 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1980-6
BM .43 .56 .37 .44 .38 .55 .121
Arm WP .49 .45 064 868 857 838 -811
Arbor BF .23 .17 .43 .39 .40 .43 .20
BM .55 .53 .57 .022
Battle WF .51 .51 .54 .03
Creek BF .22 .29 .24 .02
BM .44 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 -.44
WP .41 .59 .48 .47 .68 .79 .73 .32
Bay City BF 1.33 1.35 1.39 1.26 1.32 1.36 1.39 .06
BM .43 .50 .55 .50 .51 .08
WF 2.21 1.90 1.48 1.59 1.68 -.53
Detroit BF .95 .89 1.18 .90 .87 -.08
BM .50 .75 .61 .73 .73 .71 .68 .18
WP .43 .36 .41 .42 .39 .41 .44 .01
Flint BF .46 .51 .49 .51 .56 .66 .69 .23
BM .28 .27 .30 .29 .36 .31 .30 .02
Grand WF .55 .54 .49 .51 .48 .56 .60 .05
Rapids BF .35 .43 .31 .49 .50 .37 .59 .24
BM .95 .87 .72 -.232
WP .30 .44 .40 .10
Jackson BF .50 .38 .57 .07
BM .30 .22 .29 .33 .28 .33 .44 .14
WP .39 .49 .54 .60 .59 .70 .73 .34
Kalamazoo BF .17 .10 .11 .21 .21 .27 .29 .12
BM .38 .32 .48 .41 .44 .52 .46 .08
WP .43 .37 .41 .41 .41 .43 .49 .06
Lansing BF 868 8 75 866 .64 .45 049 .41 " 827
BM .85 1.24 1.62 .83 .81 1.28 1.02 .17
WP .19 .33 .31 .35 .41 .44 .40 .21
Muskegon BF .97 2.17 1.62 1.45 .95 .73 1.05 .08
BM .91 .86 .89 .76 .74 1.06 .81 -.10
WP .44 .52 .62 .52 .85 .51 .59 .15
Saginaw BF .88 .62 .65 .53 .63 .92 .45 -.43

 

BM - Black males

WF - White females

BF - Black females

1Based on 1981-1986
2Based on 1984-1986

47

.40. The 1984 ratios of Battle Creek and Jackson were .55 and .95
respectively.

The 1986 ratios indicate that six of ten municipalities had black
male ratios greater than .50. The municipalities included Ann Arbor
(.55), Battle Creek (.57), Flint (.68), Jackson (.72), Saginaw (.81) and
Muskegon (1.02). Grand Rapids (.30) was the only municipality to remain
below .40. The black male stratification ratios improved in eight of
the eleven municipalities during the study. Only Saginaw (-.10),
Jackson (-.23) and Bay City (—.44) experienced declines. The drop in
Bay City is quite deceiving unless the number of black male employees in
the high-prestige occupations is examined. Only a single technician was
employed in the higher-level positions in Bay City in 1980. Thus, the
large decline was the result of his exclusion from the‘work force in the
following years. The decrease in Jackson occurred during a period of
only two years.

The increases in the black male stratification ratios ranged from
.02 in Battle Creek and Grand Rapids to .18 in Flint. The ratios did
not increase every year in any of the municipalities which experienced
gains. In fact, ratios in four of the seven cities actually declined
between 1985 and 1986.

The stratification ratios consistently fluctuated in most
municipalities. The ratio for Muskegon increased from .85 in 1980 to
1.24 in 1981. The growth was a result of the large number of white
females and male technicians who exited the work force combined‘with the
disproportionately large number of black males who were no longer
employed in the lower level occupations. The ratio grew to 1.62 in 1982
and'was the largest black male ratio in any municipality during the
study. The increase was a result of the declining number of black males
in the expanding lower level work force. However, the ratio decreased

to .83 in the following year as a result of the disproportionately large

48

number of black males leaving higher level occupations while the
percentage of black males in the lower-level occupations increased
significantly.

The stratification ratio in Saginaw grew from .74 in 1984 to 1.06
in 1985. The ratio then dropped to .81 in the following year. The
increase was the result of the growing proportion of black males in the
higher-prestige positions. The decrease was a consequence of the
growing number of black males in the declining low-prestige work force.
A similar situation occurred in Flint between 1980 and 1982 as the ratio
grew from .50 in 1980 to .75 in 1981 but dropped to .61 the following
year.

The fluctuating black male stratification ratios are common to
most municipalities. The fluctuation, to some extent, is a by-product
of the small number of black males in the municipal work force,
especially in the higher-prestige occupations. A reduction or increase
of one or two black male administrators or professionals will have a
significant impact on the stratification ratio. The decline of the Bay
City ratio is an excellent example. Regardless of the size of the black
male work force fluctuations indicate that black male municipal
employees are not making annual progress. The distribution of black
males in high-status occupations has improved in most municipalities
during the 19808. However, due to the fluctuating percentages, the same
statement may not be true at the end of the decade.

The stratification ratios (see Table 4.1) indicate that white
females are largely relegated to less prestigious municipal positions.
The 1980 ratios ranged from .19 in Muskegon to 2.21 in Detroit. Grand
Rapids was the only other municipality to have a white female ratio
greater than .50 in 1980. The ratio for Detroit was the largest of
blacks or females in any city during the study. The high ratio can be

attributed to the relatively low percentage of white females in the

49

low-level occupations. The low ratio in Muskegon was a result of the
relatively low percentage of white females in the higher-level
positions. The ratio was the lowest for white females of any
municipality during the study.

White female stratification ratios increased in nine of the eleven
municipal work forces during the study. The increases ranged from .01
in Flint to .34 in Kalamazoo. Other municipalities to experience large
gains were Bay City (.32) and Muskegon (.21). The ratio in Kalamazoo
increased in five of six years during the study. The gain occurred as
the white female percentage in the high-prestige occupations increased
‘while the percentage in the low-prestige occupations declined a similar
amount. The percentage increase in high level positions was also
combined with the percentage decline in low-level positions in Bay City.
However, the increased ratio can mostly be attributed to the growing
percentage in the upper-level positions. In Muskegon, the percentage of
white females rose in both the high and low-prestige occupations between
1980 and 1986. However, the increase in the high-prestige occupations
‘was over three times as great and the end result was a larger
stratification ratio. The ratios in the remaining municipalities
increased by .15 or less.

The only cities which experienced a reduction in the white female
stratification ratio during the study were Ann Arbor (-.11) and Detroit
(-.53). However, the declining ratio in Detroit reveals progress since
it is greater than 1.00. Both municipalities experienced large
fluctuations. The ratio in Ann Arbor increased from .49 in 1981 to .68
in 1984 and then fell each year to .38 in 1986. The drop between 1984
and 1985 was due to the decreasing proportion of white females in the
higher-level occupations. The decline in the following year was
primarily caused by the growing percentage of white females in the

lower-level occupations. The large decline in Detroit occurred between

50

1980 and 1982. The decreasing stratification ratio was caused by a
decline in the proportion of white females in the upper-level
occupations. The ratio actually increased in the proceeding two years.
The stratification ratio for Detroit could not be calculated in 1985 and
1986 due to incomplete data.

Saginaw and Bay City also experienced large fluctuations in the
19808. The ratio in Saginaw grew from .52 to .85 between 1983 and 1984
as the proportion of white females in the high-prestige occupations
expanded while the proportion in the low-prestige occupations decreased.
During the following year, the female percentage of the high-status
positions declined while the percentage in the low-status positions
expanded and the ratio fell to .51. A similar experience occurred in
Bay City throughout the 19808. Other municipalities experienced only
slight fluctuations during the 19808.

White females are largely employed in the low-prestige occupations
in nearly every municipality. The white female ratio in Detroit would
have most likely remained‘well above 1.00 in 1986. The highest 1986
ratios of the other municipalities, .73 in Bay City and Kalamazoo, are
significantly lower than 1.00. The obvious distribution of white female
municipal employees in low-status occupations will undoubtedly exist for
a considerable number of years.

The stratification ratios (see Table 4.1) reveal that black
females are largely underrepresented in high-level occupations in most
municipalities. Only Bay City (1.33) attained a black female ratio
greater than 1.00 in 1980. This figure may be quite deceiving since
only three black females are represented in the entire work force, one
professional and two office/clerical employees. Black female municipal
employees in Detroit (.95) and Muskegon (.97) were very close to being
evenly distributed in high and low-level positions. Flint (.46), Grand
Rapids (.35) and Kalamazoo (.39) had black female ratios below .50 in

51

1980. In each of the three municipalities, black females‘were
disproportionately underrepresented in both the high and low-prestige
occupations. However, the distribution of black females was far greater
in the low-level positions. The low ratios of Ann Arbor (.23) in 1981
and Battle Creek (.22) in 1984 were a result of the disproportionately
low number of black females in high-status occupations and the
disproportionately high number in the low-status occupations.

Black female stratification ratios increased in eight of eleven
municipalities during the study. The largest gain occurred in Grand
Rapids (.24). The ratio in Grand Rapids fluctuated throughout the 19808
due to the increases and declines of percentages in both occupational
levels. The large increase of the black female percentage in the
high-status occupations was responsible for the overall gain since the
proportion in the low-status occupations rose only slightly between 1980
and 1986. The ratios in Ann Arbor and Flint increased by .20 and .23
respectively. The ratio in Ann Arbor did not increase consistently. In
fact, the growth in the percentage of high-status black females between
1982 and 1983 alone resulted in a .26 increase. The ratio fell by .06
for the rest of the years combined. In contrast, the ratio in Flint
increased in five of six years between 1981 and 1986. The largest rise
in one year (.10) occurred between 1984 and 1985 as the percentage of
black females in the high-prestige occupations increased more than the
percentage in the low-prestige occupations.

The increases in other municipalities ranged from .02 in Battle
Creek to .12 in Kalamazoo. Prior to increasing, the ratio in Kalamazoo
dropped to .10 in 1981. The ratio was the lowest for black females of
any municipality during the study. The black female stratification
ratio in Muskegon grew by .08 between 1980 and 1986. However, the
increase is hardly an indication of the fluctuation that the ratio

experienced. The average annual absolute change during the study was

52

nearly .50. Between 1980 and 1981 alone, the ratio grew from .97 to
2.17. The 1981 ratio was the largest for any city during the study.
The ratio then declined each year to .73 in 1985 before rising to 1.05
in 1986. The large fluctuations are an obvious indication of the low
number of black female employees in the work force. The number ranged
from five to thirteen during the study.

Only the black female stratification ratios of Detroit, Lansing
and Saginaw decreased during the study. The Detroit ratio dropped by
.08 between 1980 and 1984. Primarily due to the increase in the
percentage of black females in the high-status positions, the ratio rose
from .95 in 1980 to 1.18 in 1982. However, the ratio fell to .87 in
1984. The decrease was a result of the decline in the percentage of
black females employed in high-status positions similar to the gain
experienced between 1980 and 1982. The .27 decline of the Lansing ratio
was mainly the result of the .19 decrease between 1983 and 1984. The
loss in that year was primarily due to the increase in the percentage of
black females employed in low-status occupations. The largest decrease
between 1980 and 1986 occurred in Saginaw (-.43). Large fluctuations
occurred in Saginaw during the study. The ratio dropped from .88 in
1980 to .53 in 1983, a result of the growing black female percentage in
the low-status occupations combined with declining percentage in the
high-status occupations. The ratio increased to its highest point (.92)
in 1985 as the proportion of black females in the high-level positions
nearly doubled. However, the ratio declined to its lowest point (.45)
in the following year. The decrease occurred as the black female
percentage in the upper-level occupations declined while the percentage
in the lower-level occupations expanded.

The 1986 stratification ratios revealed that black females
continued to be underrepresented in the high-prestige occupations. Only

Bay City (1.39) and Muskegon (1.05) had ratios which exceeded 1.00 and

53

these ratios were influenced by the small number of black female
municipal employees in the respective work forces. The black female
stratification ratio in Detroit would have most likely remained below
1.00 in 1986. In most municipalities black females have made little or
no progress in the occupational hierarchy during the 19808. For
example, stratification ratios in two municipalities increased past .50
while ratios in two other municipalities dropped below .50. Only five
of ten municipalities had black female stratification ratios which
exceeded .50 in 1986.

The stratification ratios indicate that blacks and females are
largely relegated to less prestigious and responsible occupations in
most municipalities. Comparisons can be made between black males, white
females and black females to determine which of the three groups were
more likely to enter high-status positions in the municipal work force.
Based on 1986, black males had the highest stratification ratio in four
of ten municipalities. White females and black females each had the
highest ratio in three cities. Direct comparisons reveal that black
males had a higher ratio than white females in six of ten
municipalities. The black male ratio was also greater than the black
female ratio in six of ten municipalities. White females and black
females each had a higher ratio in five municipalities. 1986 black.male
stratification ratios ranged from .00 in Bay City to 1.02 in Muskegon.
White female ratios ranged from .38 in Ann Arbor to .73 in Bay City and
Kalamazoo. Ratios of black females ranged from .24 in Battle Creek to
1.39 in Bay City. Finally, stratification ratios of black males‘were
less than .50 in four municipalities. The same was true of white and
black females in five municipalities. For these reasons, black males
have performed slightly better than white and black females in obtaining

high-prestige municipal positions.

54

Occupgtiog5178egregation

The distribution ratios revealed that black males were largely
employed in the service/maintenance occupations. White and black
females were largely relegated to office/clerical positions. The
stratification ratios indicated that blacks and females were
disproportionately overrepresented in the less-prestigious occupations.
The final measure of occupational attainment for blacks and females is
the index of dissimilarity. The index‘was able to measure the degree of
occupational segregation in municipal work forces. The distribution of
black males, white females and black females is compared directly with
the distribution of white males.

In 1980, the occupational segregation between white and black
males ranged from 16.88 percent in Saginaw to 36.48 percent in Detroit
(see Table 4.2). The level of segregation was also greater than 30
percent in Bay City (32.32 percent), Lansing (34.2 percent) and Grand
Rapids (35.63 percent). The 1981 level of segregation in Ann Arbor was
33.49 percent and the 1984 level of segregation in Battle Creek‘was
35.08 percent. The level of segregation was only 16.71 percent in
Jackson in 1984.

Black male occupational segregation increased in six of the eleven
municipalities during the study. The municipalities included Detroit
(.18 percentage points), Jackson (.41 percentage points in two years),
Muskegon (.91 percentage points), Battle Creek (1.22 percentage points
in two years), Ann Arbor (4.81 percentage points in six years) and Bay
City (16.81 percentage points). The segregation of four of these
municipalities declined between 1985 and 1986. Only the Ann Arbor level
of segregation increased annually during the study. The indices in the
other municipalities fluctuated throughout the 19808.

The largest decline of occupational segregation between 1980 and

1986 occurred in Lansing (-12.11 percentage points). The large decrease

55

Table 4.2

Occupational Segregation

 

 

CITY 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1980-6
BM 33.49 33.52 35.46 36.05 37.83 38.30 4.811
Ann WF 63.28 58.10 58.69 60.57 62.32 62.31 -.97
Arbor BF 63.91 65.15 56.47 61.85 56.56 53.09 -10.82
BM 35.08 36.90 36.30 1.222
Battle WF 61.60 58.69 65.62 4.02
Creek BF 64.97 61.29 66.17 1.20
BM 32.23 30.53 36.69 36.20 42.40 44.09 49.04 16.81
Bay WF 83.71 83.93 82.84 79.27 74.23 73.49 66.48 -17.23
City BF 89.72 89.10 88.80 87.76 89.65 90.33 90.49 .77
BM 36.48 40.39 40.77 40.94 41.16 37.57 36.66 .18
WF 57.92 59.57 52.79 51.93 53.25 47.67 42.61 ~15.31
Detroit BF 58.33 58.98 55.82 56.62 58.64 54.62 52.38 -5.95
BM 23.51 21.81 21.19 18.78 19.67 24.44 22.86 -.65
WP 66.42 71.69 68.69 64.00 65.14 63.89 62.55 -3.87
Flint BF 58.03 60.13 60.71 58.55 60.76 59.62 56.42 -1.61
BM 35.63 36.60 33.75 32.83 31.40 31.04 30.13 -5.50
Grand WF 66.61 66.92 66.89 66.24 66.59 59.22 54.38 -12.23
Rapids BF 71.98 70.24 75.34 70.80 65.99 68.44 62.49 -9.49
BM 16.71 21.77 17.12 .412
WF 69.77 62.81 64.77 -5.00
Jackson BF 66.40 67.57 69.10 2.70
BM 27.75 30.94 29.97 25.13 27.61 26.02 26.27 -1.48
WF 58.63 55.80 55.53 53.72 50.82 51.12 51.11 -7.52
Kalamazoo BF 61.63 66.45 69.05 66.43 66.43 64.04 61.05 -.58
BM 34.20 36.86 25.99 29.60 25.32 23.13 22.09 -12.11
WF 61.40 60.49 57.47 56.09 58.73 55.88 53.15 -8.25
Lansing BF 46.36 47.73 50.11 62.36 65.41 68.57 69.66 23.30
BM 23.02 15.21 15.30 9.26 9.63 23.99 23.93 .91
WP 82.69 74.55 74.52 74.42 74.46 72.51 68.44 -14.25
Muskegon BF 66.23 54.93 70.55 69.73 66.51 67.51 72.68 6.45
BM 16.88 15.46 8.02 9.46 11.04 5.89 14.73 -2.15
WF 76.51 77.84 77.89 79.03 77.12 74.91 58.03 -18.48
Saginaw BF 64.11 63.95 72.32 72.86 67.72 72.65 62.28 -1.83

 

1Based on 1981-1986
2Based on 1984-1986

BM - Black male
WF - White female
BF - Black female

56

can be mostly attributed to the nearly 11 percentage point decline which
occurred between 1981 and 1982. Black male occupational desegregation
occurred in Flint, Kalamazoo, Saginaw and Grand Rapids to a lesser
extent.

The 1986 level of black male segregation ranged from 14.73 percent
in Saginaw to 49.04 percent in Bay City. The large increase in Bay City
from 1980 can be partly attributed to the effect of the low number of
black male employees on the distribution. The 1986 index for Bay City
was the highest for black males of any city during the study.

In 1980, the occupational segregation between‘white females and
white males ranged from 57.92 percent in Detroit to 83.71 percent in Bay
City (see Table 4.2). The level of occupational segregation was high
(i.e., above 50 percent) in every municipality. The high percentages are
primarily a result of gender differences and the unequal distributions in
the female dominated office/clerical occupations and the male dominated
skilled craft and service/maintenance occupations. Occupational
segregation was also high in Ann Arbor, Battle Creek and Jackson. The
1981 level of segregation in Ann Arbor'was 63.28 percent. The 1984
levels of segregation in Battle Creek and Jackson were 61.6 and 69.77
percent, respectively.

The white female occupational segregation declined in ten of the
eleven municipalities during the study. One-half of these municipalities
experienced a decrease of over ten percentage points. These
municipalities included Grand Rapids (-12.23), Muskegon (-14.25), Detroit
(-15.31), Bay City (-17.23) and Saginaw (-18.48). The only city to
experience an increase was Battle Creek. The occupational segregation
rose 4.02 percentage points between 1984 and 1986. The level of white
female occupational segregation in 1986 ranged from 42.61 percent in
Detroit to 68.44 percent in Muskegon. Detroit was the only municipality

to have its white female occupational segregation below 50 percent.

57

The high occupational segregation between white males and black
females is also a result of the traditionally male and female dominated
occupations. Black female occupational segregation in 1980 ranged from
46.36 percent in Lansing to 89.72 percent in Bay City (see Table 4.2).
Lansing was the only city to have black female occupational segregation
below 50 percent. The high index in Bay City is partly a result of the
effect of the small number of black female employees on the distribution.
The distribution was comprised of one professional and two
office/clerical employees throughout the study. The second highest level
of segregation in 1980 was 71.98 percent in Grand Rapids.

Black female occupational segregation declined in six of the eleven
municipalities during the study. The largest decline occurred in Ann
Arbor as the level of segregation decreased nearly eleven percentage
points between 1981 and 1986. Other municipalities to experience a
decline greater than five percentage points were Detroit (-5.95) and
Grand Rapids (-9.49). The level of segregation increased greater than
five percentage points in Muskegon and Lansing between 1980 and 1986.
Occupational segregation in Muskegon increased 6.45 percentage points
while the segregation in Lansing increased 23.3 percentage points to a
segregation level of 69.66 percent in 1986. Occupational segregation in
1986 ranged from 52.38 percent in Detroit to 90.49 percent in Bay City.
The index for Bay City was the highest for any group during the study.

The index of dissimilarity was able to demonstrate that the level
of occupational segregation for white and black females was high in most
municipalities. Only white females in Detroit had a 1986 level of
segregation less than 50 percent. The lowest black female level of
segregation also occurred in Detroit. The occupational segregation for
black males was much lower due to the difference in gender. Comparisons
between white and black females indicate that black females experience a

higher level of occupational segregation than white females in nine

58

municipalities in 1986. Black female segregation is lower only in Ann
Arbor and Flint. White females have experienced a decrease in
occupational segregation in ten cities while a decline has occurred for

black females and black males in only five and six cities respectively.

Median Salapy
One tangible indicator of the qualitative employment status of

blacks and females is monetary compensation. Salary inequalities may
result from a number of factors including the large distribution of
blacks and females in lower-level occupations due to lack of
qualifications, low seniority or discrimination. A lower income may also
be the result of underpayment of blacks and females for work of equal
value. Whatever accounts for the salary discrepancies between blacks and
females and the white male, the inequalities are important to assess the
qualitative progress of blacks and females in municipal governments.

The salary advantage ratios (see Table 4.3) indicate that, as
expected, blacks and females have a lower median salary than white males
in every municipality during the 19808. The 1980 black male advantage
ratio ranged from .76 in Kalamazoo to .97 in Saginaw. Bay City (.92) was
the only other city to have a ratio greater than .90 in 1980. Six of the
twelve municipalities had a ratio equal to or greater than .90 during the
decade. However, only Bay City (.90) and Saginaw (.94) were equal to or
greater than .90 in 1986. In fact, seven of eleven black male advantage
ratios declined during the study. The declines resulted as the median
salary of white males increased by a larger percentage than the median
salary of the black males. Median salaries can be found in Appendix XVI.
The largest decline occurred in Muskegon as the ratio dropped eight
points between 1980 and 1986. The ratio was as high as .97 in 1982 but
decreased to .77 in 1986. The highest ratio during the study was .99 in

Saginaw in 1984. The advantage ratios did not improve much during the

59

Table 4.3

Advantage Ratios

 

 

CITY 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1980-6
BM .84 .83 .86 .87 .85 .81 -.031
Ann WF .72 .77 .72 .77 .79 .76 .04
.Arbor BF .70 .77 .71 .79 .80 .78 .08
BM .85 .75 .85 .002
Battle WF .86 .76 .76 -.10
BM 892 885 879 880 895 892 890 -002
WP .81 .85 .82 .82 .86 .89 .88 .07
Bay City BF .79 .87 .79 .80 .92 .89 .90 .11
BM .85 .70 -.153
WP 884 871 -813
Detroit BF .72 .66 -.06
BM 888 889 885 880 891 885 886 -002
WP .74 .81 .79 .78 .79 .81 .85 .11
Flint BF .74 .78 .78 .79 .79 .77 .84 .10
BM .80 .84 .88 .84 .81 .75 .82 .02
Grand WF .72 .72 .77 .71 .66 .72 .76 .04
Rapids BF 8 70 8 70 8 7S 8 70 865 866 869 " 80].
BM .93 .86 .87 -.062
WP .69 .74 .75 .06
Jackson BF .60 .63 .69 .09
BM .76 .74 .75 .72 .77 .79 .76 .OO
WF .71 .72 .74 .72 .73 .76 .74 .03
Kalamazoo BF 868 861 863 .64 863 866 .64 " .04
BM .81 .77 .90 .89 .87 .77 .88 .07
WF .71 .70 .75 .78 .82 .74 .76 .05
Lan81ng BF 8 76 8 72 8 79 880 882 8 75 8 71 "' 805
BM 885 895 897 895 .94 883 877 -008
WF .63 .62 .65 .63 .65 .64 .65 .02
Muskegon BF .59 .62 .63 NA .60 .63 .62 .03
BM 897 893 896 897 899 893 .94 -003
WP .76 .67 .68 .71 .73 .72 .76 .00
Saginaw BF 873 866 .64 863 871 871 .70 -803

 

M - Black males

WF - White females

BF - Black females

1based on 1981-1986
2Based on 1984-1986
3Based on 1981-1982

60

study. The ratios increased in only Grand Rapids (.02) and Lansing
(.08).

Median salaries for white females were lower than the black male
salaries in every municipality in 1986. The white female ratios ranged
from .65 in Muskegon to .88 in Bay City. The ratios increased in eight
of the 11 municipalities during the study. The largest increase occurred
in Flint as the ratio increased .11 points during the decade. The
increasing ratios are the consequence of the white female median salary
increasing by a greater percentage than the white male median salary.
The white female advantage ratio declined in Battle Creek and Detroit
during the study. The ratio in Battle Creek declined from .86 to .76
between 1984 and 1986. Median salary was only available in Detroit in
1980 and 1981. The ratio dropped from .84 to .71 during those years.
The white female ratio in Saginaw was .76 in 1980 and 1986. The ratio
had declined to .67 in 1981 before increasing to its 1986 figure.

The black female median salaries were lower than the white female
salaries in eight of ten municipalities in 1986. The black female
salaries‘were larger in only Ann Arbor and Bay City. The 1986 black
female ratios ranged from .62 in Muskegon to .90 in Bay City. The figure
in Bay City is only a rough estimate since only three black females were
employed in the municipality in each of the years of the study. The
ratio in six of the eleven declined during the decade. The largest
decline occurred in Battle Creek as the ratio dropped from .80 to .72
between 1984 and 1986. Black females of Lansing experienced the second
largest decline as the ratio decreased from .76 to .71 between 1980 and
1986. The largest increase occurred in Bay City as the ratio increased
from .79 to .90. Other municipalities to experience a large increase

were Ann Arbor (.08), Jackson (.09) and Flint (.10).

CHAPTER 5

CONCLUSION

Summagy
Many studies have attempted to measure and explain the employment

opportunities of minorities and females in both the public and private
sectors. However, a majority of these studies have failed to analyze
whether these groups were making annual progress in attaining a
representative share of municipal employment including the more
responsible and prestigious government positions.

This study was able to measure the annual quantitative and
qualitative progress of black and female municipal employees in
individual cities in Michigan during the first half of the 19808.

The percentage of white males, white females, black males, and
black females in each city’s labor force was calculated and compared to
the corresponding percentage in the municipal work force in a number of
employment categories to determine the representation of each group in
the eleven municipal work forces. These comparisons were made each year
during the period of 1980 through 1986 to determine whether blacks and
females were making annual progress in attaining a representative work
force.

The representation ratio was able to reveal the representation of
each municipal work force. The ratios revealed that blacks and females
are underrepresented in most of the municipal work forces. Black males
were the best represented of the three groups. However, black males
‘were underrepresented in five of the eleven municipalities in 1986. The

municipalities included Flint, Grand Rapids, Jackson, Muskegon and

61

62

Saginaw. The percentage of black males in the work force decreased in
three of these municipalities during the 19808.

The 1986 representation ratios revealed that white females were
largely underrepresented in every municipality during the 19808. White
females were also the most underrepresented of the three groups. The
1986 ratios ranged from .29 in Detroit to .68 in Flint. However, the
percentage of white females in the work force increased in seven
municipalities during the 19808.

The representation ratios indicated that black females were
underrepresented in nine of eleven municipalities in 1986.
Overrepresentation occurred in only Ann Arbor and Bay City. The lowest
ratio occurred in Saginaw (.43). The percentage of black females in the
work force increased in eight of the nine municipalities where black
females were underrepresented. However, black females did not make
annual quantitative progress in any of the municipalities. The
percentage of black males, white females and black females fluctuated
throughout the decade.

An examination between the change in the size of the municipal
‘work and the representation of blacks and females revealed that an
association does not exist between the variables. The representation of
black males, white females and black females increased and decreased
regardless of the direction or size of the change in the work force
size.

A comparison of percentages for black males, white females and
black females indicated that the representation of each group did not
improve in.most municipalities. Each group improved in only Lansing and
Flint. In the other municipalities, an increase of one group between
1980 and 1986 occurred as one or both of the other groups declined.

Interminority competition is said to exist in these municipalities.

63

A number of measures were used to measure the qualitative position
and progress in the Michigan municipalities. The distribution ratios
revealed that black males were largely overemployed in the
service/maintenance occupation in every municipality throughout the
19808. Overrepresentation occurred in the skilled craft occupation in
six municipalities in 1986. Black males were underrepresented in the
protective service occupation in six municipalities in 1986. Black
males have traditionally been largely underrepresented in this
occupation in the past. The group was also underrepresented in the
high-prestige occupations in most municipalities. For these reasons,
the stratification ratio for black.males in 1986 was less than 1.00 in
every municipality with the exception of Muskegon. However, the
stratification ratios did increase in eight of the eleven municipalities
during the decade.

White females were largely overemployed in the office/clerical
positions in every municipality during the 19808. The 1986 distribution
ratios for office/clerical employees ranged from 2.38 in Detroit to 6.33
in Bay City. White females were also overrepresented in the
paraprofessional occupation in eight of ten municipalities in 1986.
White females were largely underemployed in the traditionally
male-dominated occupations in every municipality. The highest ratio for
protective service workers was .88 in 1986. The highest ratio for
service/maintenance employees was .44. The ratios for the skilled craft
occupation ranged from .00 to .26.

White females were also largely underemployed in the high-prestige
occupations. The 1986 white female distribution ratio for the
official/administrative occupation was greater than 1.00 in only three
municipalities. The 1986 ratio for technicians was also greater than
1.00 in three municipalities. White female professionals were

overemployed in only one city in 1986. Despite the fact that the white

64

female stratification ratios increased in nine of ten municipalities,
not a single ratio was greater than or equal to 1.00 in 1986. The
highest ratio was .73 in Bay City and Kalamazoo. The 1984 ratio in
Detroit was 1.68 and would have likely remained high in 1986.

Black females were also overemployed in the office/clerical
occupation in every municipality during the decade. The 1986 black
female distribution ratios ranged from 3.12 in Detroit to 6.68 in Bay
City. Black females were the most likely of the three groups to obtain
high-prestige positions. Black females were overemployed in the
administrative occupation in four municipalities in 1986. The ratio in
professional positions was greater than 1.00 in five municipalities. The
ratio for black female technicians was greater than 1.00 in two
municipalities. The group did not fare as well in the traditionally
male-dominated occupations. The 1986 distribution ratio for
service/maintenance employees was greater than 1.00 in only Kalamazoo.
The highest black female ratio for protective service workers in 1986
‘was .50 in Detroit. The ratio for skilled craft positions was greater
than .00 in only two municipalities, Detroit (.23) and Kalamazoo (.29).

The stratification ratios indicate that black females are largely
relegated to less prestigious occupations. The ratios increased in
eight of the eleven municipalities during the study. However, only two
municipalities had a black female stratification ratio greater than 1.00
in 1986. The remaining municipalities had a ratio 1888 than .70.

The index of dissimilarity was able to compare the distributions
of black males, white females and black females with the distribution of
white males. Black male occupational desegregation occurred in only
five of the eleven municipalities during the decade. The municipalities
included Flint, Grand Rapids, Kalamazoo, Lansing and Saginaw. The

largest decline occurred in Lansing as the level of occupational

65

segregation decreased 12.11 percentage points. The levels of
segregation in 1986 ranged from 14.73 in Saginaw to 49.04 in Bay City.

The index of dissimilarity was greater for females in every
municipality due to the difference in gender and the unequal
distributions in the traditionally male and female-dominated
occupations. However, white female occupational desegregation occurred
more often than black.male desegregation and to a greater degree. White
female occupational desegregation occurred in ten of the eleven
municipalities during the study. Occupational segregation declined by
over ten percentage points in Grand Rapids, Muskegon, Bay City and
Detroit. Despite the progress experienced by white females in most
municipalities, the 1986 indices ranged from 42.61 percent in Detroit to
68.44 percent in Muskegon. Detroit was the only city to have an index
below .50.

The highest levels of segregation for the three groups were
experienced by black females. Black females had higher levels of
occupational segregation than white females in nine municipalities in
1986. The black female indices ranged from 53.28 in Detroit to 90.49
percent in Bay City. The high index for Bay City is primarily due to
the low number of black female municipal employees. Black females did
not experience as much progress as white females during the 19808 as
occupational desegregation for black females occurred in only six
municipalities. The largest decline occurred in Ann Arbor as the level
of segregation decreased nearly 11 percentage points between 1981 and
1986. The declines in the remaining cities were below ten percentage
points.

The final measure of qualitative progress was the advantage ratio.
With the exception of Bay City, black males had the highest median
salary of blacks and females in every municipality in 1986. The median

salaries for black males and black females were equal in Bay City that

66

year. The 1986 black.male advantage ratios ranged from .76 in Kalamazoo
to .94 in Saginaw. The black male advantage ratio did not increase
annually in any municipality. In fact, the ratio increased in only two
municipalities during the study. The ratio in Grand Rapids increased
.02 points while the ratio in Lansing rose .07 points. The advantage
ratios in Battle Creek and Kalamazoo were the same in 1986 as they were
in the first year data was available for each municipality. However,
fluctuations did occur in these municipalities during the study. The
black male advantage ratio experienced the greatest decline in Muskegon
as the ratio decreased by .08 points between 1980 and 1986.

The 1986 white female advantage ratios ranged from .65 in Muskegon
to .88 in Bay City. White females made the most progress of the three
groups in terms of the advantage ratio. The ratio increased in eight of
ten cities during the study. The largest increase occurred in Flint
(.11 points). The only municipality to suffer a decline was Battle
Creek. The ratio in this municipality dropped from .86 in 1980 to .76
in 1986. The ratio in Saginaw‘was the same in 1980 and 1986.

The 1986 black female median salaries were less than the white
female median salaries in eight of ten municipalities in 1986. The 1986
advantage ratios for black females ranged from .62 in Muskegon to .90 in
Bay City. The ratios increased in five of ten municipalities during the
study. The largest gains occurred in Bay City (.11 points) and Flint
(.10 points). The largest decline occurred in Battle Creek as the ratio

dropped .08 points between 1984 and 1986.

Inteppretation of the Results

The levels of inequality, quantitative and qualitative, in the
municipal employment status of black and female employees have become an
important concern since the passage of the Equal Employment Opportunity
Act of 1972. During the 19808, fiscal constraints and the perceived
antipathy of the Reagan Administration toward compensatory employment

67

programs may have resulted in less stringent equal employment and
affirmative action policies.

The municipal work forces were clearly not representative of the
labor force in any of the eleven Michigan cities in 1980. This may
reveal the levels of past discrimination in the public sector. More
importantly, for this study, is the quantitative progress of blacks and
females in the Michigan municipalities during the 19808. I have already
discussed the problems of using the 1980 labor force composition as a
benchmark for measuring representation throughout the decade. However,
for purposes of this study, I was forced to assume that the labor force
composition remained consistent throughout the 19808. The ratios
revealed that the work forces did not become more representative during
the 19808 in every municipality. In municipalities where the
representation did improve, the increases tended to be rather small. In
most municipalities, the representation of one group increased while the
representation of one or two of the other groups declined. One
explanation for the lack of considerable progress, especially in
municipalities where the representation of underrepresented groups
declined, is that the cities lacked sufficient equal
employment/affirmative action efforts. Discrimination in the municipal
‘work force would effect the employment opportunities of blacks and
females. The municipalities’ recruiting and hiring efforts toward
members of groups who have suffered past discrimination may have not
been adequate to increase their employment opportunities.

A second explanation does not directly concern the equal
employment and affirmative action policies of the municipal government.
A municipality may have had excellent equal employment and affirmative
action efforts and the representation of the work force may have
'worsened during the 19808. This phenomenon may be a result of

employment opportunities in the private sector. The work force in the

68

private sector is much larger than the public sector work force.
Depending on the level of discrimination in the private sector, the
private sector may present more employment opportunities to black and
female employees. Blacks and females may seek private sector employment
which is likely to provide greater monetary compensation. For these
reasons, a work force in which the representation is declining is not
necessarily a consequence of discrimination and poor affirmative action
efforts.

The percentages of black males, white females and black females in
the work force fluctuated throughout the 19808. Annual progress did not
occur in any of the municipalities. The fluctuating percentages would
seem to indicate that affirmative action efforts were not consistent
during the decade. .A city may have been aware that the representation
of its municipal work force was declining and became strongly devoted to
increasing the percentage of blacks and females. Once the
representation of the work force had increased to an adequate level the
municipality may have become lackadaisical in its efforts to sustain the
level of the percentages. Once the representation of blacks and females
become inadequate the municipality would then again become strongly
committed to increasing the percentages of blacks and females. This
scenario would explain the fluctuating percentage in the eleven
municipalities. A second explanation would be that a lack of qualified
blacks and females applied for employment positions each year. If these
groups do not apply for available positions, then even the most
dedicated effort to increase the number of blacks and females'will not
result in a more representative work force. Recently hired blacks may
also be the first individuals to be laid off during work reductions.

The qualitative measures of employment status revealed that blacks
and females are underrepresented in the higher-level occupations.

Qualitative progress did not occur in every municipality during the

69

19808. In municipalities where progress did occur, the improvement‘was
relatively small and not all groups experienced advancement. These
results are unsatisfactory considering the importance of black and
female representation in policy-making positions.

The large distribution of blacks and females in less prestigious
occupations may be a consequence of a number of factors. The first is
discrimination. Some municipalities, or those responsible for hiring,
may prefer a large percentage of white males in decision-making
positions. Blacks and females may be least likely to be hired or
promoted to these positions.

A second factor which is important to the black and female
representation in occupations which require higher levels of skill is
the qualifications of blacks and females. Have blacks and females
received the advanced education required to perform tasks in the
administrative and professional occupations? If the educational levels
of blacks and females are lower than the level for white males than it
is unlikely to expect blacks and females to be as representative as
white males in higher level occupations. The solution to this problem
is to increase educational opportunities for all groups.

The final factor which may explain the representation of blacks
and females in high-prestige occupations concerns the private sector.
It may be the case that affirmative action efforts in the private sector
only benefit blacks of the middle and upper socioeconomic classes. If
this is the case, many of these blacks may find more opportunities in
higher prestige occupations in the private sector and likely receive a
higher salary. The less qualified blacks would find employment in the
lower prestige occupations in the public sector. This phenomenon would
explain the underrepresentation of blacks in the higher prestige

occupations.

 

70

This study was able to reveal the position and progress of blacks
and females in the eleven Michigan municipal work forces during the
19808. Black males were overrepresented in a majority of the
municipalities. Black females were underrepresented in a majority of
the eleven municipalities and white females were largely
underrepresented in every municipality. Each group was largely
relegated to less prestigious occupations in the municipal work forces.
The study does not reveal the reasons which account for the quantitative
and qualitative position and progress of black and female municipal
employees. The position and progress may be related to either the equal
employment/affirmative action efforts, qualifications of blacks and
females, or the employment opportunities in the private sector.

Whatever the reasons may be, the representation of black and female

municipal employees will continue to be an important concern.

Future Research

A number of future studies concerning minority and female
representation in the municipal work force may be conducted using the
same general lines of investigation.which were utilized in this study.
One may use the same procedures to measure the representation of
minorities and females in the work force. However, in order to examine
equal employment/affirmative action efforts more directly, a researcher
may study the percentage of minorities and females hired each year.

A problem encountered in this study was the use of labor force
composition from a single year as the benchmark for the following years.
For this reason the representation ratios may have not been accurate
after 1980. To control for this problem, one may compare the
representation ratios of 1980 and 1990 by utilizing the labor force
composition from the 1980 and 1990 U.S. Census. This procedure would
allow the researcher to measure the quantitative progress of minorities

and females in the municipal work force.

 

101‘!
quip
ion
bed

and

 

str'
disl
any
em;

the

EQ‘

IQ

71

Many studies have relied on the use of a benchmark, such as the
population or labor force composition, to measure the quantitative and
qualitative progress of minorities and females in the municipal work
force. This procedure allows the researcher to compare the progress
between each city. Another study may compare the progress of the public
and private sectors in each city. The representativeness,
stratification and advantage ratios and the occupational index of
dissimilarity may be calculated for both sectors and compared. This
study would also allow the researcher to determine the effect of
employment opportunities in the private sector on the representation of
the municipal work force.

Future research should attempt to determine the importance of
equal employment/affirmative action policies and efforts on the

representation of the municipal work force.

APPENDICES

72

Appendix I

Racial and Sexual Makeup of Population

 

 

White
CITY Population Mgle Female
A Ab persons 107,960 46,527 45,990
"" '°' percent (43.10) (42.60)
persons 35 724 12 353 14 566
3m“ Creek percent ' (34:58) (40:77)
8 , persons 41,593 18,975 20,738
°Y‘”‘Y percent (45.62) (49.86)
persons 1,203,339 201,841 218,688
DeUFit percent (16.77) (18.17)
, persons 159,611 42,157 47,322
‘“"t percent (26.41) (29.65)
persons 181 843 69 027 78 193
6"“ “‘9‘“ percent ' (37:96) (43:00)
persons 39,739 15,414 17,418
“ck-W" percent (38. 79) (43 .83)
persons 79,722 30,850 34,613
“um“ percent (38.70) (43 .42)
, persons 130,414 50,308 55,338
L"“"W percent (38.58) (42.43)
persons 40,823 14,487 16,791
"“‘*°9°" percent (35 . 49) (41 . 13)
persons 77,508 20,867 23,919
5‘91"“ percent (26 .92) (30.86)
persons 9,262,078 3,862,082 4,031,196
"““9'” percent (41 . 70) (43 .52 )

Male

4,841
(4.48)

3,778
(10.58)

305
(.73)

355,169
(29.52)

31,197
(19.55)

13,404
(7.37)

2,994
(7.53)

5,810
(7.29)

8,699
(6.67)

4,265
(10.45)

12,807
(16.52)

567,686
(6.13)

Black

Female

5,345
(4.95)

4,306
(12.05)

307
(.74)

403,299
(33.51)

34,863
(21.84)

15,407
(8.47)

3,194
(8.04)

6,622
(8.31)

9,382
(7.19)

4,449
(10.90)

14,791
(19.08)

629,491
(6.80)

 

Source: Computed by the author from data obtained from the U.S.
Bureau of the Census.

Department of Commerce.
Population - General Social and Economic Characteristics,

Volume 1, Part 24.

1980 Census of

Appendix II

73

Labor Force Composition

 

 

 

Labor White Black

CITY Force Mgle Female Mgle Fepgle
A Ab persons 57,588 26,635 23,794 2,366 2,474
"" ”r percent (46.25) (41.32) (4.11) (4.30)
persons 14,925 6,492 5,244 1,587 1,349

“We Creek percent (43.50) (35.14) (10.63) (9.04)
, persons 18,075 10,348 7,152 98 91

3" my percent (57.25) (39.57) (.54) (.50)
, persons 484,895 109,396 74,631 152,156 138,887
”em“ percent (22.56) (15.39) (31.38) (28.64)
. persons 66,261 22,900 16,335 13,552 11,994
F“"t percent (34.56) (24.65) (20.45) (18.10)
persons 85,906 40,130 32,035 5,675 5,712

Gm“ W“: percent (46.71) (37.29) (6.61) (6.65)
persons 17,559 8,537 6,542 1,150 1,082

““5” percent (48.62) (37.26) (6.55) (6.16)
persons 38,237 17,639 15,273 2,364 2,394

"almm percent (46.13) (39.94) (6.18) (6.26)
, persons 64,476 29,658 24,290 4,111 3,649
“"5"“! percent (46.00) (37.67) (6.38) (5.66)
persons 16,462 7,503 6,124 1,220 1,360

“skew" percent (45.58) (37.20) (7.41) (8.26)
, persons 30,112 11,001 8,387 4,628 4,316
5'9”" percent (36.53) (27.85) (15.44) (14.33)
1 persons 4,224,485 2,197,614 1,496,584 239,967 220,381
M ““9“" percent (52.02) (35.43) (5.68) (5.22)

 

Source: Computed by the author from data obtained from the U.S.
Bureau of the Census.

Department of Commerce.

331

1980 Census of

ulation - General Social and Economic Characteristics,
ume 1, Part 24.

74

Appendix III

Description of Occupations

Officials and Administrators: Occu ations in which employees set
broad policies, exercise overall responsibility for execution of
these policies, or direct individual departments or special phases
of the agency’s operations, or provide specialized consultation on
a regional, district or area basis. Includes: department heads,
bureau chiefs, division chiefs, directors, deputy directors,
controllers, examiners, wardens, su erintendents, sheriffs, police
and fire chiefs and inspectors and kindred'workers.

Professionals: Occupations which require specialized and theoretical
knowledge which is usually acquired through college training or
through work ex erience and other trainin. which rovides
com arable know edge. Includes: personne and la or relations
wor ers, social workers, doctors, psychologists, registered nurses,
economists, dieticians, lawyers, system analysts, accountants,
engineers, employment and vocational rehabilitation counselors,
teachers or instructors, police and fire captains and lieutenants

and kindred workers.

Technicians: Occupations which require a combination of basic
scientific or technical knowledge and manual skill which can be
obtained through specialized postsecondary school education or
through equivalent on-the-job training. Includes: computer
programmers and operators, drafters, surveyors, licensed practical
nurses, photographers, radio operators, technical illustrators,
highway technicians, technicians (medical, dental, electronic,
physical sciences), assessors, inspectors, police and fire
sergeants and kindred workers.

Protective Service Wbrkers: Occupations in which workers are
entrusted with public safety, security and protection from
destructive forces. Includes: police patrol officers, fire
fighters, guards, deputy sheriffs, bailiffs, correctional officers,
detectives, marshalls, harbor patrol officers and kindred workers.

Paraprofessionals: Occupations in.which workers perform some of the
duties of a professional or technician in a supportive role, which
usually requires less formal training and/or experience normally
required for professional or technical status. Such positions may
fa 1 within an identified pattern of staff development and
promotion under a “New Careers" concept. Includes: library
assistants, research assistants, medical aids, child support
‘workers, policy auxiliary, welfare service aids, recreation
assistants, homemakers aides, home health aides, and kindred
wor ers.

75

Appendix III (Cont’d).

Description of Occupations

Office and Clerical: Occupations in which workers are responsible for

internal and external communication, recording and retrieval of
data and/or information and other paperwork required in an office.
Includes: bookkeepers, messengers, office machine operators,
clerk-typists, stenographers, court transcribers, hearing
reporters, statistical clerks, dispatchers, license distribution,
payroll clerks and kindred workers.

Skilled Craft Workers: Occupations in which workers perform jobs which

require special manual skill and a thorough and comprehensive
knowledge of the processes involved in the work which is acquired
through on-the-job training and experience or through
apprenticeship or other formal training programs. Includes:
mechanics and repairers, electricians, heavy equipment operators,
stationary engineers, skilled machining occupations, carpenters,
compositors and typesetters and kindred workers.

Service-Maintenance: Occupations in which workers perform duties which

result in or contribute to the comfort, convenience, hygiene or
safety of the general public or which contribute to the upkeep and
care of buildings, facilities or grounds of public property.
Workers in this group may operate machinery. Includes: chauffeurs,
laundry and dry cleaning operatives, truck drivers, bus drivers,
garage laborers, custodial employees, gardeners and groundkeepers,
refuse collectors and construction laborers.

 

Source: The description of these occupations is included in an

instruction booklet that accompanies the (EEO-4) form sent to
the city.

Municipal Work Force Size

Appendix IV

76

 

 

CITY 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1980-6
Ann Arbor 856 846 850 836 836 836 -201
Battle Creek 605 621 621 162
Bay City 481 458 437 472 444 437 431 -50
Detroit 25,104 20,100 19,833 18,763 17,848 18,843 19,159 -5,945
Flint 1,595 1,421 1,363 1,345 1,305 1,456 1,463 -132
Grand Rapids 1,938 1,878 1,787 1,627 1,591 1,603 1,631 -307
Jackson 364 360 339 -252
Kalamazoo 1,039 995 1,027 928 851 865 814 -225
Lansing 1,465 1,435 1,357 1,332 1,322 1,317 1,324 -141
Muskegon 336 294 303 276 292 279 301 —35
Saginaw 910 810 665 650 637 631 661 -249

 

1Based on 1981-1986
2Based on 1984-1986

77

Appendix Va

Quantitative Representation of Black Males of Ann Arbor1

 

 

OCCUPATIONfi 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1981-6
3 11 6 S 4 3 0

Official] 7.50 16.92 12.77 12.50 9.30 6.67 -.83
Administrator .55 1.28 1.04 1.03 .73 .54 .01
9 6 5 7 10 22 13

10.34 8.22 5.62 8.05 9.35 13.50 3.16

Professionals .76 .62 .46 .67 .73 1.09 .33
9 8 7 11 5 2 -7

7838 8833 5.47 6.75 5800 3823 -4015

TeChnj-Cians .54 863 8 [95 856 839 826 - 828
20 12 14 14 13 12 -8

Protective 9.17 5.56 7.37 7.41 6.28 5.97 —3.20
semice 867 .42 860 861 .49 .48 -019
O 2 0 0 1 0 0

Para- .00 14.29 .00 .00 8.33 .00 .00
Professionals .00 1.08 .00 .00 .65 .00 .00
0 1 1 0 1 2 2

Office] .00 .84 .84 .00 .89 1.67 1.67
Clerical .00 .06 .07 .00 .07 .14 .14
30 20 26 19 40 5 -25

Skilled 20.98 16.95 19.40 13.48 25.64 9.80 -11.18
Craft 1.53 1.28 1.59 1.12 2.00 .80 .73
46 52 45 45 33 53 7

Service] 40.00 35.86 33.58 47.87 33.33 33.76 -6.24
Maintenance 2.93 2.71 2.74 3.96 2.60 2.74 -.19
117 112 104 101 107 99 -18

Work Force 13.67 13.24 12.24 12.08 12.80 12.33 -1.34

 

1Data not available for 1980
Number of employees
Percent of occupation

Distribution ratio

78

Appendix Vb

Quantitative Representation of White Females of Ann Arbor1

 

 

OCCUPATIOE4, 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1981-6
2 3 2 2 1 3 1

Official] 5.00 4.62 4.26 5.00 2.33 6.67 1.67
Administrator .30 .25 .23 .28 .13 .35 .05
10 14 15 12 17 19 9

11.49 19.18 16.85 13.79 15.89 11.66 .17

Professionals .68 1.04 .92 .76 .90 .62 -.06
18 10 26 36 18 11 -7

14.75 10.42 20.31 22.09 18.00 17.74 2.99

Technicians .88 .56 1.11 1.22 1.02 .94 .06
17 27 9 9 11 10 -7

Protective 7.80 12.50 4.74 4.76 5.31 4.98 -2.82
serVice .46 868 826 826 830 826 -020
2 4 5 2 8 3 1

Para- 33.33 28.57 55.56 66.67 66.67 75.00 41.67
Professionals 1.98 1.55 3.05 3.69 3.79 3.99 2.01
91 89 88 86 85 92 1

Office] 72.80 74.79 73.95 72.27 75.89 76.67 3.87
1 2 1 3 2 2 1

Skilled .70 1.69 .75 2.13 1.28 3.92 3.22
Craft .04 .09 .04 .12 .07 .21 .17
3 7 9 1 5 11 8

Service] 2.61 4.83 6.72 1.06 5.05 7.01 4.40
Maintenance .16 .26 .37 .06 .29 .37 .21
144 156 155 151 147 151 7

work force 16.82 18.44 18.24 18.06 17.58 18.80 1.98

 

1Data not available for 1980

Number of employees

Percent of occupation

Distribution ratio

Appendix Va

79

Quantitative Representation of Black Females of Ann Arbor1

 

 

OCCUPATION 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1981-6
1 1 1 1 2 1 0

Official] 2.50 1.54 2.13 2.50 4.65 2.22 -.28
3 1 4 1 2 9 6

3.45 1.37 4.49 1.15 1.87 5.52 2.07

Professionals .64 .28 .85 .22 .39 1.03 .39
1 1 4 7 3 0 -1

.82 1.04 3.13 4.29 3.00 .00 -.82

Technicians .15 .21 .59 .83 .63 .00 -.15
5 6 4 6 6 5 0

Protective 2.29 2.78 2.11 3.17 2.90 2.49 .20
Service .43 .56 .40 .62 .61 .46 .03
3 4 1 0 1 0 -3

Para- 50.00 28.57 11.11 .00 8.33 .00 -50.00
Professionals 9.30 5.76 2.10 .00 1.74 .00 -9.30
27 24 25 27 22 23 -4

Office] 21.60 20.17 21.01 22.69 19.64 19.17 -2.43
Clerical 4.02 4.06 3.97 4.41 4.11 3.58 -.44
2 0 0 0 O 0 -2

Skilled 1.40 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 -1.40
Craft .26 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 -.26
4 5 6 1 4 5 1

Service] 3.48 3.45 4.48 1.06 4.04 3.18 -.30
Maintenance .65 .69 .85 .21 .84 .59 -.06
46 42 45 43 40 43 -3

Work Force 5837 4.96 5829 5.14 4.78 5835 -002

 

1Data not available for 1980

Number of employees

Percent of occupation

Distribution ratio

80

Appendix VIa

Quantitative Representation of Black Males of Bay City

 

 

OCCUPATION 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1980-6
0 O 0 0 0 O 0 0

Official] .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00
Administrator .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00
O 0 O 0 0 0 O 0

.00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

Professionals .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .OO .00
1 0 O 0 O 0 O -1

2856 800 800 800 800 800 800 ‘2056

TeCMiCianB 1 8 54 o 00 8 00 8 00 8 00 8 00 8 00 "" 1 .54
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0

Protective .84 .94 1.00 .85 .88 .91 .88 .04
Service .51 .86 .73 .67 .79 .79 .64 .13
- - 0 .. .. - .. ..

Para- - - .00 - - - - -
Professionals - - .00 - - - - -
0 O 0 0 0 0 O 0

Office] .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .OO
Clerical .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00
1 2 1 1 O 0 O -1

Skilled 1892 3877 1837 1869 800 800 800 -1092
craft 1816 3046 1800 1833 800 800 800 -1016
5 2 4 4 4 4 5 0

Service] 3.29 1.34 3.25 2.78 2.58 2.82 3.62 .33
Maintenance 1.98 1.23 2.37 2.19 2.29 2.46 2.60 .62
8 5 6 6 5 5 6 -2

work force 1.66 1.09 1.37 1.27 1.13 1.14 1.39 -.27

 

Number of employees
Percent of occupation

Distribution ratio

81

Appendix VIb

Quantitative Representation of White Females of Bay City

 

 

OCCUPATION 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1980-6
0 O 1 1 1 1 1 1

Official] .00 .00 4.55 4.00 4.76 5.26 5.26 5.26
Administrator .00 .00 .35 .31 .41 .45 .40 .40
2 2 2 2 4 4 4 2

4.76 4.88 4.88 4.08 9.52 10.26 11.11 6.35

Professionals .37 .39 .38 .32 .81 .88 .84 .47
6 8 5 6 5 6 6 0

15.38 25.00 19.23 22.22 17.86 20.00 20.69 5.31

Technicians 1.19 1.97 1.50 1.75 1.52 1.71 1.56 .37
2 2 1 3 3 2 4 2

Protective 1.68 1.89 1.00 2.56 2.65 1.82 3.54 1.86
Service .13 .15 .08 .20 .23 .16 .27 .14
- 1 _ - - -

Para- - - 100.00 - - - - -
Professionals - - 7.80 - - - - -
51 45 44 45 37 35 36 -15

Office/ 86.44 81.62 86.27 88.24 86.05 85.37 83.72 —2.72
Clerical 6.71 6.46 6.73 6.94 7.35 7.31 6.33 -.38
0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1

Skilled .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 1.79 1.89 1.89
Craft .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .15 .14 .14
1 1 2 3 2 2 5 4

Service] .66 .67 1.63 2.08 1.29 1.41 3.62 2.96
Maintenance .05 .05 .13 .16 .11 .12 .27 .22
62 58 56 60 52 51 57 -5

Work force 12.89 12.66 12.81 12.71 11.71 11.67 13.23 .34

 

Number of employees

Percent of occupation

Distribution ratio

82

Appendix VIc

Quantitiative Representation of Black Females of Bay City

 

 

OCCUPATION 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1980-6
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Official] .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00
Administrator .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0

2.38 2.44 2.44 2.04 2.38 2.56 2.78 .40

Professionals 3.82 3.72 3.55 3.21 3.52 3.74 3.99 .17
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

.00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

Technicians .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Protective .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00
Service .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00
O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Para- 800 8 00 800 800 800 800 800 800
Professionals .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0

Office] 3.39 3.64 3.92 3.92 4.65 4.88 4.65 1.26
Clerical 5.44 5.55 5.71 6.17 6.88 7.11 6.68 1.24
0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0

Skilled .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00
Craft .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Service] .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00
Maintenance .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0

Work force .62 .66 .69 .64 .68 .69 .70 .08

 

Number of employees
Percent of occupation

Distribution ratio

83

Appendix VIIa

Quantitative Representation of Black Males of Battle Creek1

 

 

OCCUPATION 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1984-6
2 1 1 -1

Official] 6.90 3.45 3.70 -3.20
3 4 1 -2

6882 9852 3813 -3069

Professionals .52 .75 .24 -.28
9 9 14 5

14.52 12.86 15.91 -1.39

Technicians 1.10 1.01 1.20 .10
14 12 13 -1

Protective 7.37 6.25 6.50 -.87
Service .56 .49 .49 -.O7
0 0 1 1

Para- .00 .00 25.00 25.00
Professionals .00 .00 1.89 1.89
0 0 0 0

Office] .00 .00 .00 .00
Clerical .00 .00 .00 .00
6 7 13 7

Skilled 12.77 12.73 22.41 9.64
Craft .97 1.00 1.70 .73
46 46 39 -7

Service] 29.68 29.49 29.32 -.36
Maintenance 2.24 2.32 2.22 -.02
80 79 82 2

Work Force 13.22 12.72 13.20 -.02

 

1Data not available for 1980-1983
Number of employees
Percent of occupation

Distribution ratio

Appendix VIIb

84

Quantitative Representation of White Females of Battle Creek1

 

 

OCCUPATION 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1984-6
5 5 6 1

Official] 17.24 17.24 22.22 4.98
Administrator 1.10 1.09 1.42 .32
4 8 8 4

9.09 9.52 25.00 15.91

Professionals .58 .60 1.60 1.02
8 9 6 -2

12.90 12.86 6.82 -6.08

Technicians .82 .82 .44 -.38
7 7 6 -1

Protective 3.68 3.65 3.00 -.68
56117168 8 23 8 23 8 19 - 8 04
2 2 3 1

Professionals 4.25 4.22 4.80 .55
57 56 57 0

Office] 76.00 75.68 72.15 ~3.85
1 1 1 0

Craft .14 812 811 -803
11 14 10 -4

Service] 7.10 8.97 7.52 .42
Maintenance .45 .57 .48 .03
95 98 97 2

Work Force 15.70 15.78 15.62 -.08

 

1Data not available for 1980-1983
Number of employees
Percent of occupation

Distribution ratio

Appendix VIIc

85

Quantitative Representation of Black Females of Battle Creek1

 

 

OCCUPATION 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1984-6
0 0 0 0

Official] .00 .00 .00 .00
Administrator .00 .00 .00 .00
1 1 0 -1

2.27 2.38 .00 -2.27

Professionals .60 .57 .00 -.60
1 2 3 2

1.61 2.86 3.41 1.80

Technicians .42 .68 .78 .36
2 2 1 -1

Protective 1.05 1.04 .50 -.55
Service .28 .25 .12 -.13
0 0 0 0

Para- 800 800 800 800
Professionals .00 .00 .00 .00
15 16 18 3

Office] 20.00 21.62 22.78 2.78
Clerical 5.26 5.16 5.24 -.02
0 0 0 0

Skilled .00 .00 .00 .00
Craft .00 .00 .00 .00
4 5 5 1

Service] 2.58 3.21 3.76 1.18
Maintenance .68 .77 .86 .18
23 26 27 4

Work force 3.80 4.19 4.35 .55

 

lData not available for 1980-1983
Number of employees
Percent of occupation

Distribution ratio

86

Appendix VIIIa

Quantitative Representation of Black.Males of Detroit

 

 

OCCUPATION 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1980-6
161 155 108 121 120 125 120 -41
Official] 25.35 27.19 26.93 30.10 30.61 31.89 30.46 5.11
Administrator .70 .75 .69 .78 .81 .79 .73 .03
400 403 386 354 323 380 330 -70
15.23 19.28 20.64 20.13 19.42 21.78 19.68 4.45
Professionals .42 .53 .53 .52 .51 .54 .47 .05
300 242 619 268 267 570 547
33.75 34.72 36.22 34.90 34.90 35.38 35.85
Techniciansl .93 .95 .93 .90 .92 .88 .86
2035 1462 1546 1570 1467 1871 2257 222
Protective 27.17 24.91 26.13 27.00 26.79 30.50 34.03 6.86
Service .75 .68 .67 .70 .71 .76 .81 .06
156 117 278 244 -
Para- 22810 25871 - 35810 30858 - "'
Professionals1 .61 .71 - .91 .80 - -
459 416 348 337 317 313 310 -149
Office] 12.53 12.94 13.29 13.15 12.47 12.39 12.16 -.37
Clerical .34 835 .34 .34 833 831 829 -805
4967 634 697 701 722 823 861
Skilled2 65.37 43.19 45.53 48.15 48.46 51.86 53.98
Craft 1.79 1.19 1.17 1.25 1.28 1.29 1.29
671 3895 3982 3615 3322 3485 3580
Service]2 44.79 67.90 68.81 69.40 70.34 71.90 74.80
Maintenance 1.23 1.86 1.78 1.80 1.85 1.79 1.79
9149 7324 7686 7244 6782 7567 8005 -1144
Work force 36.44 36.44 38.75 38.61 38.00 40.16 41.78 5.34

 

Number of employees

Percent of occupation

Distribution ratio

1The data for technicians and para-professional employees was
combined in 1982, 1985 and 1986.

2A number of skilled craft employees were reclassified as

service/maintenance employees in 1981.

Quantitative Representation of White Females of Detroit

87

Appendix VIIIb

 

 

OCCUPATION 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1980-6
55 51 16 19 21 17 17 -38
Official] 8.66 8.95 3.99 4.73 5.36 4.34 4.31 -4.35
Administrator 1.33 1.49 .85 1.00 1.13 .94 .96 -.37
456 303 175 164 168 179 179 -277
17.36 14.50 9.36 9.32 10.10 10.26 10.67 -6.69
Professionals 2.66 2.42 1.99 1.98 2.13 2.23 2.37 -.29
37 24 85 33 32 87 70
4.16 3.44 4.97 4.30 4.18 5.40 4.59
Techniciansl .64 .58 1.06 .91 .88 1.17 1.02
278 173 191 187 164 215 264 -14
Protective 3.71 2.95 3.23 3.22 3.00 3.51 3.98 .27
Service .57 .49 .69 .68 .63 .76 .88 .31
48 35 52 52
Para-1 6.80 7.69 - 6.57 6.52 - -
Professionals 1.04 1.29 - 1.39 1.38
684 552 405 363 346 303 273 -411
Office] 18.67 17.16 15.46 14.16 13.61 11.99 10.71 -7.96
Clerical 2.86 2.87 3.29 3.01 2.87 2.61 2.38 -.48
46 12 18 19 17 19 19
Skilledz .61 .82 1.18 1.30 1.14 1.20 1.19
Craft .09 .14 .25 .28 .24 .26 .26
34 53 43 47 45 47 41
Service] 2.27 .92 .74 .90 .95 .97 .86
Maintenance .35 .15 .16 .19 .20 .21 .19
1638 1203 933 884 845 867 863 -775

 

Number of employees

Percent of occupation

Distribution ratio

1The data for technicians and para-professional employees was
combined in 1982, 1985 and 1986.

ZA number of the skilled craft employees were reclassified as
service/maintenance employees in 1981.

88

Appendix VIIIc

 

 

Quantitative Representation of Black Females of Detroit
OCCUPATION 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1980-6
63 55 23 29 31 39 42 -21
Official] 9.92 9.65 5.74 7.21 7.91 9.95 10.66 .74
Administrator .50 .52 .30 .36 .41 .47 .48 -.02
700 563 526 489 445 525 529 -171
26.66 26.94 28.13 27.80 26.76 30,09 31.54 4.88
Professionals 1.34 1.45 1.45 1.39 1.38 1.41 1.42 .08
181 113 560 138 139 561 520
20.36 16.21 32.77 17.97 18.17 34.82 34.08
Techniciansl 1.02 .87 1.69 .90 .94 1.63 1.54
627 264 397 414 320 543 738 111
Protective 8.37 4.50 6.71 7.12 5.84 8.85 11.13 2.76
Service .42 .24 .35 .36 .30 .41 .50 .08
362 196 ~ 382 317 -
Para- 51.27 43.08 - 48.23 39.72 - -
Professionalsl 2.57 2 .31 2.42 2.05 - -
2074 1876 1568 1599 1613 1693 1763 - 311
Office] 56.62 58.33 59.87 62.39 63.45 67.00 69.16 12.54
Clerical 2.84 3.13 3.08 3.12 3.28 3.13 3.12 .28
379 19 39 52 55 77 81
Skilled2 4.99 1.29 2.55 3.57 3.69 4.85 5.08
Craft .25 .07 .13 .18 .19 .23 .23
618 656 737 644 538 589 575
Service]2 41.26 11.44 12.74 12.36 11.39 12.15 12.01
Maintenance 2.07 .61 .66 .62 .59 .57 .54
5004 3742 3850 3747 3458 4027 4248 -756
Work force 19.93 18.62 19.41 19.97 19.37 21.37 22.17 2.24

 

Number of employees

Percent of occupation

Distribution ratio

1The data for technicians and para-professional employees was
combined in 1982, 1985 and 1986.

2A number of skilled craft employees were reclassified as

service/maintenance employees in 1981.

89

Appendix IXa

Quantitative Representation of Black Males of Flint

 

 

OCCUPATION 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1980-6
7 6 6 5 6 9 8 1

Official] 7.07 7.69 8.70 7.94 9.23 13.24 11.43 4.36
Administrator .60 .67 .73 .67 .73 .86 .71 .11
10 13 12 14 14 15 15 5

6.76 9.22 9.60 11.29 13.59 10.71 10.71 3.95

Professionals .58 .81 .80 .95 1.07 .70 .66 .08
13 13 10 10 8 14 18 5

6.02 7.10 5.49 6.10 4.88 7.29 9.42 3.40

Technicians .51 .62 .46 .51 .38 .47 .58 .07
65 63 61 66 69 78 94 29

Protective 15.66 16.58 16.35 15.94 17.78 22.29 24.42 8.76
Service 1.34 1.45 1.37 1.34 1.40 1.45 1.51 .17
4 2 2 1 5 24 7 3

Para- 9.76 8.70 7.14 6.25 16.67 30.00 16.67 6.91
Professionals .83 .76 .60 .53 1.31 1.95 1.03 .20
2 2 1 1 4 3 3 1

Office] .82 .89 .47 .50 1.98 1.28 1.28 .46
Clerical .07 .08 .04 .04 .16 .08 .08 .01
8 5 9 7 8 12 16 8

Skilled 8.25 4.67 9.09 7.37 8.60 10.62 13.33 5.08
Craft .70 .41 .76 .62 .68 .69 .82 .12
78 58 62 56 52 69 76 -2

Service] 23.28 20.42 22.55 20.90 20.00 24.73 27.05 3.77
187 162 163 160 166 224 237 50

work force 11.72 11.40 11.96 11.90 12.72 15.38 16.20 4.48

 

Number of employees

Percent of occupation

Distribution ratio

90

Appendix IXb

Quantitative Representation of White Females of Flint

 

 

OCCUPATION 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1980-6
8 4 3 4 4 4 5 -3

Official] 8.08 5.13 4.35 6.35 6.15 5.88 7.14 -.94
29 20 23 24 17 24 23 -6

19.59 14.18 18.40 19.35 16.50 17.14 16.43 -3.16

Professionals 1.21 .91 1.18 1.19 1.04 1.00 .97 -.24
15 14 14 12 14 16 17 2

6.94 7.65 7.69 7.32 8.54 8.33 8.90 1.96

Technicians .43 .49 .49 .45 .54 .49 .53 .10
17 13 15 22 22 23 27 10

Protective 4.10 3.42 4.02 5.31 5.67 6.57 7.01 2.91
Service .25 .22 .26 .33 .36 .38 .42 .17
13 7 7 2 1 14 12 -1

Para- 31.71 30.43 25.00 12.50 3.33 17.50 28.57 -3.14
Professionals 1.96 1.95 1.60 .77 .21 1.02 1.69 -.27
162 156 142 136 136 153 148 -14

Office] 66.39 69.33 66.98 67.66 67.33 65.38 63.25 -3.14
Clerical 4.10 4044 4.29 4.17 4022 3882 3875 -035
0 1 1 1 1 1 3 3

Skilled .00 .93 1.01 1.05 1.08 .88 2.50 2.50
Craft .00 .06 .06 .06 .07 .05 .15 .15
14 7 8 17 13 14 12 -2

Service] 4.18 2.46 2.91 6.34 5.00 5.02 4.27 .09
maintenance 826 816 819 839 831 829 825 -001
258 222 213 218 208 249 247 -11

Work force 16.18 15.62 15.63 16.21 15.94 17.10 16.88 .70

 

Number of employees

Percent of occupation

Distribution ratio

Quantitative Representation of Black Females of Flint

91

Appendix IXc

 

 

OCCUPATION 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1980-6
4 3 3 4 4 6 6 2

Official] 4.04 3.85 4.35 6.35 6.15 8.82 8.57 4.53
Administrator .56 .56 .64 .85 .86 1.00 .94 .38
8 9 8 9 7 12 13 5

5.41 6.38 6.40 7.26 6.80 8.57 9.29 3.88

Professionals .75 .94 .94 .98 .95 .97 1.02 .27
8 7 7 6 7 13 14 6

3.70 3.83 3.85 3.66 4.27 6.77 7.33 3.63

Technicians .51 .56 .56 .49 .60 .76 .81 .30
25 18 16 18 16 13 17 -8

Protective 6.02 4.74 4.29 4.35 4.12 3.71 4.42 -1.60
serv1ce .84 869 863 858 858 .42 049 -.35
6 3 2 3 5 11 7 1

Para- 14.63 13.04 7.14 18.75 16.67 13.75 16.67 2.04
Professionals 2.03 1.91 1.05 2.52 2.34 1.55 1.83 -.20
64 57 57 57 54 70 51 -13

Office] 26.23 25.33 26.89 28.36 26.73 29.91 30.34 4.11
Clerical 3.64 3.71 1.94 3.81 3.75 3.38 3.34 -.30
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Skilled .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00
Craft .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00
0 0 0 3 0 4 5 5

Service] .00 .00 .00 1.12 .00 1.43 1.78 1.78
Maintenance .00 .00 .00 .15 .00 .16 .20 .20
115 97 93 100 93 129 133 18

work force 7.21 6.83 6.82 7.43 7.13 8.86 9.09 1.88

 

Number of employees

Percent of occupation

Distribution ratio

92

Appendix Xa

Quantitative Representation of Black Males of Grand Rapids

 

 

OCCUPAIIO! 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1980-6
4 4 5 3 5 6 5 1

Official] 4.44 4.35 5.15 3.41 5.81 7.32 6.25 1.81
Administrator .71 .73 .80 .52 .87 1.14 1.02 .31
5 3 3 4 5 4 4 -1

2.17 1.33 1.43 2.08 2.58 2.02 1.97 -.20

Professionals .35 .22 .22 .32 .39 .31 .32 -.03
4 4 4 4 3 2 2 -2

1.94 2.19 2.30 2.38 1.84 1.21 1.13 -.81

TeChniCianB 831 837 836 837 828 819 818 -013
29 30 33 32 31 27 31 2

Protective 6.18 6.62 7.71 7.88 7.93 6.75 7.23 1.05
Service .98 1.11 1.20 1.21 1.19 1.05 1.18 .20
1 0 1 2 4 1 0 -1

Para- 2.04 .00 1.79 4.17 8.70 2.22 .00 -2.04
Professionals .32 .00 .28 .64 1.31 .35 .00 -.32
3 2 2 2 2 3 0 -3

Office, 892 064 867 883 886 1829 800 -092
Clerical 815 811 810 813 813 820 800 -015
8 7 7 8 8 12 12 4

Skilled 3.94 3.23 3.33 3.69 3.70 5.33 5.53 1.59
Craft .63 .54 .52 .57 .56 .83 .90 .27
68 62 60 51 48 48 46 -22

Service] 18.68 18.62 19.23 19.03 18.32 18.82 17.04 -1.64
Maintenance 2.97 3.12 2.99 2.92 2.75 2.93 2.78 -.19
122 112 115 106 106 103 100 -22

WOrk force 6.30 5.96 6.44 6.52 6.66 6.43 6.13 -.17

 

number of employees
Percent of occupation

Distribution ratio

Appendix Kb

93

Quantitative Representation of White Females of Grand Rapids

 

 

OCCUPATION 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1980-6
6 6 8 6 5 5 6 0

Official] 6.67 6.52 8.25 6.82 5.81 6.10 7.50 .83
Administrator .35 .33 .41 .39 .32 .32 .39 .04
49 51 45 37 36 42 45 -4

21.30 22.67 21.43 19.27 18.56 21.21 22.17 .87

Professionals 1.10 1.14 1.08 1.09 1.03 1.13 1.16 .06
25 19 15 17 16 17 21 -4

12.14 10.38 8.62 10.12 9.92 10.30 11.86 -.28

TeChrliCians 863 852 .43 857 .54 855 862 -801
16 17 19 14 17 30 42 26

Protective 3.41 3.75 4.44 3.45 4.35 7.50 9.79 6.38
Service .18 .19 .22 .19 .24 .40 .51 .33
32 37 31 25 24 26 11 -21

Para- 65.31 57.81 55.36 52.08 52.17 57.78 57.89 -7.42
Professionals 3.38 2.90 2.78 2.94 2.89 3.07 3.02 -.36
230 226 221 176 176 161 165 -65

Office] 70.34 72.67 73.67 73.33 75.54 69.10 69.92 -.42
Clerical 3.64 3.65 3.70 4.14 4.19 3.67 3.64 .00
0 2 1 1 1 2 2 2

Skilled .00 .92 .48 .46 .46 .89 .92 .92
Craft .00 .05 .02 .03 .03 .05 .05 .05
16 16 16 12 12 19 21 5

Service] 4.40 4.80 5.13 4.48 4.58 7.45 7.78 3.38
Maintenance .23 .24 .26 .25 .25 .40 .41 .18
374 374 356 288 287 302 313 -61

WOrk force 19.30 19.91 19.92 17.70 18.04 18.84 19.19 -.11

 

Number of employees

Percent of occupation

Distribution ratio

94

Appendix Xc

Quantitative Representation of Black Females of Grand Rapids

 

 

OCCUPATION 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1980-6
1 1 2 4 2 2 3 2

Official] 1.11 1.09 2.06 4.55 2.33 2.44 3.75 2.64
Administrator .35 .37 .70 1.57 .74 .69 1.00 .65
8 8 5 5 8 7 7 -1

3.48 3.56 2.38 2.60 4.12 3.54 3.45 -.03

Professionals 1.11 1.21 .80 .90 1.31 .99 .92 -.19
0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5

.00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 2.82 2.82

Technicians .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .76 .76
4 3 2 2 3 3 3 -1

Protective .85 .66 .47 .49 .77 .75 .70 —.15
SGI’ViC 827 823 816 817 .24 821 819 -008
4 7 6 6 5 6 3 -1

Para- 8.16 10.94 10.71 12.50 10.87 13.33 15.79 7.63
Professionals 2.59 3.73 3.61 4.33 3.46 3.75 4.22 1.63
42 33 36 28 28 35 37 -5

Office] 12.84 10.61 12.00 11.67 12.02 15.02 15.68 2.84
Clerical 4.08 3.62 4.05 4.04 3.82 4.22 4.19 .09
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Skilled .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00
Craft .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00
2 3 2 2 4 4 3 1

Service] .55 .90 .64 .75 1.53 1.57 1.11 .56
Maintenance .17 .31 .22 .26 .49 .44 .30 .13
61 55 53 47 50 57 61 0

work force 3.15 2.93 2.97 2.89 3.14 3.56 3.74 .59

 

Number of employees

Percent of occupation

Distribution ratio

95

Appendix XIa

Quantitative Representation of Black Males of Jackson1

 

 

OCCUPATION 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1984-6
1 0 1 0

Official] 4.00 .00 3.70 —.30
Administrator .63 .00 .63 .00
3 3 1 -2

7.14 8.33 2.94 -4.20

Professionals 1.13 1.36 .50 -.63
4 4 3 -1

8.16 8.51 6.98 -1.18

5 5 5 0

Protective 4.72 5.05 5.26 .54
Service .73 .83 .89 .16
0 0 1 1

Para- .00 .00 16.67 16.67
Professionals .00 .00 2.83 2.83
1 1 1 0

Office] 1.75 1.67 1.89 .14
Clerical .28 .27 .32 .04
3 3 3 0

Skilled 10.00 7.89 8.11 -1.89
Craft 1.58 1.29 1.37 -.21
6 6 5 -1

Service] 11.76 13.64 11.36 -.40
Maintenance 1.86 2.23 1.93 .07
23 22 20 -3

work force 6.32 6.11 5.90 -.42

 

1Data not available for 1980-1983
Number of employees
Percent of occupation

Distribution ratio

96

Appendix XIb

Quantitative Representation of White Females of Jackson1

 

 

OCCUPATION 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1984-6
4 6 4 0

Official] 16.00 19.35 14.81 -1.19
4 5 6 2

9.52 13.89 17.65 8.13

Professionals .56 .81 1.00 .44
3 4 3 0

6.12 8.51 6.98 .86

Technicians .36 .49 .39 .03
6 4 4 -2

Protective 5.66 4.04 4.21 -1.45
Service .33 .23 .24 -.09
2 1 1 -1

Para- 50.00 20.00 16.67 -33.33
Professionals 2.94 1.16 .94 -2.00
42 40 38 -4

Office, 73868 66867 71870 -1098
Clerical 4.33 3.87 4.05 -.28
0 1 1 1

Skilled .00 2.63 2.70 2.70
Craft .00 .15 .15 .15
1 1 3 2

Service] 1.96 2.27 6.82 4.86
Maintenance .12 .13 .39 .27
62 62 60 -2

work force 17.03 17.22 17.70 .67

 

1Data not available for 1980-1983
Number of employees
Percent of occupation

Distribution ratio

97

Appendix XIc

Quantitative Representation of Black Females of Jackson1

 

 

OCCUPATION 1980 1981 19827 1983 1984 1985 1986 1984-6
1 2 2 1

Official] 4.00 6.45 7.41 3.41
Administrator .73 1.22 1.67 .94
4 2 2 -2

9.52 5.56 5.88 -3.64

Professionals 1.73 1.05 1.33 -.40
0 0 0 0

.00 .00 .00 .00

Technicians .00 .00 .00 .00
2 2 2 0

Protective 1.89 2.02 2.11 .22
Service .34 .38 .48 .14
1 0 0 -1

Para- 25.00 .00 .00 -25.00
Professionals 4.55 .00 .00 -4.55
11 13 9 -2

Office] 19.30 21.67 16.98 -2.32
Clerical 3.51 4.11 3.84 .33
0 0 0 0

Skilled .00 .00 .00 .00
Craft .00 .00 .00 .00
1 0 0 -1

Service] 1.96 .00 .00 -1.96
Maintenance .36 .00 .00 -.36
20 19 15 -5

work force 5.49 5.28 4.42 -1.07

 

1Data not available for 1980-1983
Number of employees
Percent of occupation

Distribution ratio

Quantitative Representation of Black.Ma1es of Kalamazoo

98

Appendix XIIa

 

 

OCCUPATION 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1980-6
1 1 1 1 0 O 1 0

Official] 2.00 2.13 1.96 2.08 .00 .00 2.86 .86
Administrator .18 .18 .17 .16 .00 .00 .22 .04
9 7 7 10 9 10 13 4

6.04 4.93 4.61 6.76 6.21 6.94 9.09 3.05

Professionals .53 .41 .39 .52 .48 .53 .69 .16
4 3 6 5 4 3 4 O

3.42 2.50 4.69 5.38 4.88 5.77 7.27 3.85

Technicians .30 .21 .40 .41 .38 .44 .55 .25
33 30 31 31 27 27 23 -10

Protective 15.49 14.63 16.06 16.67 15.98 13.78 12.04 -3.45
Service 1.36 1.22 1.36 1.28 1.24 1.05 .92 -.44
3 5 7 5 5 6 3 0

Para- 6.67 12.82 18.92 13.89 14.71 15.38 9.38 2.71
Professionals .59 1.07 1.61 1.07 1.14 1.17 .71 .12
1 0 0 1 1 1 0 -1

Office, 876 800 800 896 1 8 10 1801 800 -076
Clerical .07 .00 .00 .07 .09 .08 .00 -.07
24 23 24 26 22 24 23 -1

Skilled 16.78 15.54 16.78 18.71 15.94 16.78 16.67 -.11
craft 1.48 1830 1.42 1.43 1823 1827 1827 -021
43 50 45 42 42 43 40 -3

Service] 22.51 26.32 23.56 24.14 27.81 27.39 31.75 9.24
Maintenance 1.98 2.20 2.00 1.85 2.15 2.08 2.42 .44
118 119 121 121 110 114 107 -11

work force 11.36 11.96 11.78 13.04 12.93 13.18 13.14 1.78

 

Number of employees

Percent of occupation

Distribution ratio

99

Appendix XIIb

Quantitative Representation of White Females of Kalamazoo

 

 

OCCUPATION 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1980-6
6 7 9 9 8 6 4 -2

Official] 12.00 14.89 17.65 18.75 19.51 17.14 11.43 -.57
Administrator .66 .99 .98 1.15 1.22 1.04 .69 .03
16 16 24 19 16 21 20 4

10.74 11.27 15.79 12.84 11.03 14.58 13.99 3.25

Professionals .59 .74 .88 .79 .69 .88 .84 .25
12 9 13 10 10 8 13 1

10.26 7.50 10.16 10.75 12.20 15.38 23.64 13.38

Technicians .56 .50 .56 .66 .76 .93 1.43 .87
13 12 9 8 7 9 10 -3

Protective 6.10 5.85 4.66 4.30 4.14 4.59 5.24 -.86
semi-ca .34 839 826 826 826 828 832 -802
13 11 11 13 13 13 10 -3

Para- 28.89 28.81 29.73 36.11 38.24 33.33 31.25 2.36
Professionals 1.59 1.88 1.65 2.22 2.39 2.02 1.88 .29
106 78 98 73 60 66 62 -44

Office] 80.92 75.00 74.24 70.19 65.93 66.67 65.96 -14.96
Clerical 4.45 5.01 4.12 4.31 4.13 4.03 3.98 -.47
5 5 5 4 8 6 6 1

Skilled 3.50 3.38 3.50 2.88 5.80 4.20 4.35 .85
Craft .19 .23 .19 .18 .36 .25 .26 .07
18 11 16 15 14 14 10 -8

Service] 9.42 5.79 8.38 8.62 9.27 8.92 7.94 -1.48
Maintenance 852 839 847 853 858 .54 .48 -004
189 149 185 151 136 143 135 -54

Work force 18.19 14.97 18.01 16.27 15.98 16.53 16.58 -1.61

 

Number of employees

Percent of occupation

Distribution ratio

Quantitative Representation of Black Females of Kalamazoo

Appendix XIIc

100

 

 

OCCUPATION. 1980 1981 198_ 1983 1984 1985 1986 1980-6
0 0 0 1 1 2 2 2

Official] .00 .00 .00 2.08 2.44 5.71 5.71 5.71
Administrator .00 .00 .00 .44 .47 1.03 1.13 1.13
2 1 1 3 2 2 2 0

1.34 .70 .66 2.03 1.38 1.39 1.40 .06

Professionals .40 .18 .14 .43 .27 .25 .28 -.12
1 1 2 1 2 2 2 1

.85 .83 1.56 1.08 2.44 3.85 3.64 2.79

Technicians .25 .22 .34 .23 .47 .69 .72 .47
2 2 1 0 0 0 1 -1

Protective 094 898 852 800 800 800 852 -042
Service .28 .26 .11 .00 .00 .00 .10 -.18
4 4 4 5 6 4 2 -2

Para- 8.89 10.26 10.81 13.89 17.65 10.26 6.25 -2.64
Professionals 2.64 2.69 2.36 2.93 3.41 1.85 1.24 -1.40
16 18 26 22 22 25 23 7

Office] 12.21 17.31 19.70 21.15 24.18 25.25 24.47 12.26
Clerical 3.63 4.53 4.30 4.46 4.68 4.55 4.86 1.23
1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1

Skilled .70 .68 .70 .72 1.45 1.40 1.45 .75
Craft .21 .18 .15 .15 .28 .25 .29 .08
9 11 12 11 9 11 7 -2

Service] 4.71 5.79 6.28 6.32 5.96 7.01 5.56 .85
Maintenance 1.40 1.52 1.37 1.33 1.15 1.26 1.10 -.30
35 38 47 44 44 48 41 6

Work force 3.37 3.82 4.58 4.74 5.17 5.55 5.04 1.67

 

Number of employees

Percent of occupation

Distribution ratio

101

Appendix XIIIa

Quantitative Representation of Black.Ma1es of Lansing

 

 

OCCUPATION 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1980-6
4 2 3 4 3 4 5 1

Official] 3.88 2.04 3.03 4.04 4.11 5.41 6.67 2.79
Administrator .69 .34 .51 .67 .65 .83 1.01 .32
3 3 4 5 6 7 8 5

1.55 1.59 2.35 2.86 3.39 3.98 4.35 2.80

Professionals .27 .27 .40 .48 .54 .61 .66 .39
11 11 13 10 10 11 8 -3

4.66 4.25 4.87 3.91 4.05 4.38 3.21 -1.45

Technicians .82 .72 .83 .65 .64 .67 .49 -.23
14 21 21 19 19 22 21 7

Protective 4.09 6.29 6.93 6.33 6.44 7.48 7.19 3.10
Service .72 1.06 1.18 1.05 1.03 1.15 1.09 .37
0 0 1 2 2 1 1 1

Para- .00 .00 3.70 4.88 5.26 2.78 3.23 3.23
Professionals .00 .00 .63 .81 .84 .43 .49 .49
1 1 1 0 1 1 2 1

Office] .50 .49 .52 .00 .56 .57 1.16 .66
Clerical .09 .08 .09 .00 .09 .09 .18 .09
5 4 5 5 6 4 7 2

Skilled 5.21 3.51 4.31 4.81 7.06 4.76 7.87 2.66
Craft .92 .59 .73 .80 1.12 .73 1.20 .28
45 43 32 35 36 36 35 -10

Service] 16.19 20.87 17.39 18.92 15.79 15.79 15.15 -1.04
Maintenance 2.86 3.52 2.95 3.15 2.51 2.42 2.31 -.55
83 85 80 80 83 86 87 4

WOrk force 5.67 5.92 5.90 6.01 6.28 6.53 6.57 .90

 

Number of employees
Percent of occupation

Distribution ratio

102

Appendix XIIIb

 

 

Quantitative Representation of White Females of Lansing
OCCUPATION 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1980-6
8 9 12 11 4 4 4 —4
Official] 7.77 9.18 12.12 11.11 5.48 5.41 5.33 -2.44
Administrator .45 .51 .65 .60 .30 .29 .28 -.17
25 22 22 24 25 29 33 8
12.95 11.64 12.94 13.71 14.12 16.48 17.93 4.98
Professionals .74 .65 .69 .74 .77 .89 .95 .21
34 34 37 35 32 32 35 1
14.41 13.13 13.86 13.67 12.96 12.75 14.06 -.35
TeChniCians 883 873 .74 873 871 869 875 -008
15 16 17 20 21 21 23 8
Protective 4.39 4.79 5.61 6.67 7.12 7.14 7.88 3.49
Service .25 .27 .30 .36 .39 .39 .42 .17
5 7 7 11 11 12 10 5
Para- 33.33 24.14 25.93 26.83 28.95 33.33 32.26 -1.07
Professionals 1.92 1.35 1.38 1.44 1.59 1.80 1.72 -.20
157 158 148 137 138 131 128 -29
Office] 77.72 76.70 77.49 79.65 77.09 75.29 73.99 -3.73
Clerical 4.47 4.28 4.12 4.28 4.23 4.06 3.93 .54
4 4 3 4 1 1 2 -2
Skilled 4.17 3.51 2.59 3.85 1.18 1.19 2.25 -1.92
Craft .24 .20 .14 .21 .06 .06 .12 -.12
7 7 9 6 9 14 14 7
Service] 2.52 3.40 4.89 3.24 3.95 6.14 6.06 3.54
Maintenance .14 .19 .26 .17 .22 .33 .32 .18
255 257 255 248 241 244 249 -6
Werk force 17.41 17.91 18.79 18.62 18.23 18.53 18.81 1.40

 

Number of employees

Percent of occupation

Distribution ratio

Quantitative Representation of Black Females of Lansing

103

Appendix XIIIc

 

 

OCCUPATION 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1980-6
2 2 2 1 2 2 2 0

Official] 1.94 2.04 2.02 1.01 2.74 2.70 2.67 .73
Administrator .86 .81 .81 .43 1.01 .87 .80 -.06
5 7 6 8 6 8 8 3

2.59 3.70 3.53 4.57 3.39 4.55 4.35 1.76

Professionals 1.15 1.48 1.41 1.96 1.24 1.46 1.31 .16
5 5 5 2 1 1 1 -4

2812 1893 1887 878 040 .40 .40 -1072

Technicians .94 .77 .75 .34 .15 .13 .12 -.82
1 1 0 0 0 0 0 -1

Protective .29 .30 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 -.29
semice 813 812 800 800 800 800 800 -013
1 3 3 5 7 8 7 6

Para- 6.67 10.34 11.11 12.20 18.42 22.22 22.58 15.91
Professionals 2.96 4.12 4.43 5.24 6.76 7.14 6.79 3.83
15 14 14 12 17 19 23 8

Office] 7.43 6.80 7.33 6.98 9.50 10.92 13.29 5.86
Clerical 3.30 2.71 2.93 3.00 3.49 3.51 4.00 .70
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1

Skilled 1 .04 8 00 800 800 800 800 800 "'1 .04
Craft .46 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 -.46
3 4 4 3 3 3 3 0

Service] 1.08 1.94 2.17 1.62 1.32 1.32 1.30 .22
Maintenance .48 .77 .87 .70 .48 .42 .39 -.09
33 36 34 31 36 41 44 11

Wurk force 2.25 2.51 2.51 2.33 2.72 3.11 3.32 1.07

 

Number of employees

Percent of occupation

Distribution ratio

Quantitative Representation of Black.Ma1es of Muskegon

104

Appendix XIVa

 

 

OCCUPATION 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1980-6
2 2 2 1 1 1 1 -1

Official] 12.50 13.33 12.50 6.67 6.25 6.25 4.55 -7.95
Administrator 1.68 1.96 2.10 1.08 1.07 .92 .72 -.96
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0

2.70 2.86 3.03 3.45 3.03 3.03 2.70 .00

Professionals .36 .42 .51 .56 .52 .44 .43 .07
4 3 3 2 2 3 3 -1

5.80 7.69 8.11 5.56 5.41 7.89 7.69 1.89

Technicians .78 1.13 1.36 .90 .93 1.16 1.22 .44
6 7 6 6 6 9 8 2

Protective 10.53 9.72 8.11 7.89 7.41 11.54 10.00 —.53
Service 1.41 1.43 1.36 1.28 1.27 1.69 1.58 .17
2 0 0 0 0 0 0 -2

Para- 22.22 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 -22.22
Professionals 2.99 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 -2.99
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Office] .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00
Clerical .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00
4 3 4 4 4 1 1 -3

Skilled 7.14 6.12 7.84 10.26 9.52 2.50 2.50 -4.64
craft 896 890 1832 1867 1.64 837 .40 -056
6 4 2 3 3 4 5 -1

Service] 12.00 9.09 4.17 7.50 7.32 11.11 11.90 -.10
Maintenance 1.61 1.34 .70 1.22 1.26 1.63 1.89 .27
25 20 18 17 17 19 19 -6

Work force 7.44 6.80 5.94 6.16 5.82 6.81 6.31 -1.13

 

Number of employees

Percent of occupation

Distribution ratio

105

Appendix XIVb

Quantitative Representation of White Females of Muskegon

 

 

OCCUPATION 1980 1981 1982, 1983 1984 1985 1986 1980—6
2 3 3 3 4 4 4 2

Official] 12.50 20.00 18.75 20.00 25.00 25.00 18.18 5.68
Administrator .81 1.11 1.03 1.10 1.38 1.45 1.07 .26
1 2 2 1 2 2 2 1

2.70 5.71 6.06 3.45 6.06 6.06 5.41 2.71

Professionals .17 .32 .33 .19 .33 .35 .32 .15
3 4 3 5 5 5 5 2

4.35 10.26 8.11 13.39 13.51 13.16 12.82 8.47

Technicians .28 .57 .45 .77 .74 .76 .76 .48
1 1 2 1 1 2 3 2

Protective 1.75 1.39 2.70 1.32 1.23 2.56 3.75 2.00
Service .11 .08 .15 .07 .07 .15 .22 .11
6 4 3 3 3 3 3 -3

Para- 66.67 100.00 75.00 75.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 33.33
Professionals 4.31 5.55 4.13 4.14 5.51 5.81 5.90 1.59
37 35 38 34 35 30 31 -6

Office] 88.10 97.22 95.00 91.89 89.74 85.71 81.58 -6.52
Clerical 5.69 5.39 5.23 5.07 4.94 4.98 4.81 -.88
0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0

Skilled .00 2.04 1.96 .00 2.38 .00 .00 .00
Craft .00 .11 .11 .00 .13 .00 .00 .00
2 3 3 3 2 2 3 1

Service] 4.00 6.82 6.25 7.50 4.88 5.56 7.14 3.14
Maintenance .26 .38 .34 .41 .27 .32 .42 .16
52 53 55 50 53 48 51 -1

Work force 15.48 18.03 18.15 18.12 18.15 17.20 16.94 1.46

 

Number of employees

Percent of occupation

Distribution ratio

Quantitative Representation of Black Females of

106

Appendix XIVc

Muskegon

 

 

OCCUPATION 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1980-6
0 0 0 1 1 2 4 4

Official] .00 .00 .00 6.67 6.25 12.50 18.18 18.18
Administrator .00 .00 .00 2.30 1.83 3.17 4.21 4.21
0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

.00 2.86 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

Professionals .00 1.68 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00
4 2 3 3 3 2 2 -2

5.80 5.13 8.11 8.33 8.11 5.26 5.13 -.67

Technicians 1.95 3.02 4.09 2.88 2.37 1.33 1.19 -.76
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Protective .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00
Service .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1

Para- 11811 800 800 800 800 800 800 -1181].
Professionals 3.73 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 -3.73
4 1 2 3 4 5 6 2

Office] 9.52 2.78 5.00 8.11 10.26 14.29 15.79 6.27
Clerical 3.20 1.63 2.53 2.80 2.99 3.62 3.66 .46
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Skilled .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00
Craft .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00
1 1 1 1 2 2 1 0

Service] 2.00 2.27 2.08 2.50 4.88 5.56 2.38 .38
Maintenance 867 1 .34 1 805 886 1 .42 1 .41 855 -0 12
10 5 6 8 10 11 13 3

Work force 2.98 1.70 1.98 2.90 3.42 3.94 4.32 1.34

 

Number of employees

Percent of occupation

Distribution ratio

Appendix XVa

107

 

 

Quantitative Representation of Black Males of Saginaw
OCCUPATION 1980 1981 1982, 1983 1984 1985 1986 1980-6
3 4 4 3 3 6 9 6
Official] 6.82 8.70 9.09 6.82 7.50 13.95 16.67 9.85
Administrator .68 .93 1.21 .87 .90 1.31 1.30 .62
3 3 1 1 3 4 2 -1
3.80 4.29 1.92 2.13 9.38 8.16 3.92 .12
Professionals .38 .46 .26 .27 1.13 .77 .30 -.08
17 11 5 5 3 6 10 -7
14.29 11.46 7.35 7.69 3.70 10.00 9.52 -4.77
Technicians 1.43 1.22 .98 .98 .45 .94 .74 -.69
22 19 18 18 21 22 34 12
Protective 9.73 9.60 9.68 10.00 11.41 12.57 17.17 7.44
Service .97 1.02 1.29 1.27 1.37 1.18 1.34 .37
0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0
Para- 8 00 8 00 10 8 00 9 8 09 8 00 8 00 8 00 8 00
Professionals .00 .00 1.33 1.16 .00 .00 .OO .00
0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Office] .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 1.39 1.39
Clerical .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .11 .11
24 12 5 6 7 9 9 -15
Skilled 11.48 9.30 8.33 10.17 8.97 13.04 14.75 3.27
Craft 1.15 .99 1.11 1.30 1.08 1.23 1.15 .00
22 27 16 17 16 20 20 -2
Service] 15.38 14.29 8.89 9.60 10.60 12.66 18.18 2.80
Maintenance 1.54 1852 1818 1822 1827 1819 1.41 -013
91 76 50 51 53 67 85 -6
‘WOrk force 10.00 9.38 7.52 7.85 8.32 10.62 12.86 2.86

 

Number of employees

Percent of occupation

Distribution ratio

108

Appendix XVb

Quantitative Representation of White Females of Saginaw

 

 

OCCUPATION 1980 1981 19s; 1983 1984 1985 1986 1980-6
1 2 2 2 2 2 4 3

Official] 2.27 4.35 4.55 4.55 5.00 4.65 7.41 5.14
Administrator .25 .49 .49 .49 .55 .50 .79 .54
2 1 1 0 0 1 3 1

2.53 1.43 1.92 .00 .00 2.04 5.88 3.35

Professionals .27 .16 .21 .00 .00 .22 .63 .37
13 12 12 10 15 9 12 -1

10.92 12.50 17.65 15.38 18.52 15.00 11.43 .51

Technicians 1.18 1.41 1.89 1.67 2.03 1.60 1.22 .04
1 1 1 1 1 1 3 2

Protective .44 .51 .54 .56 .54 .57 1.52 1.08
Service .05 .06 .06 .06 .06 .06 .16 .11
1 2 1 2 2 1 3 2

Para- 50.00 66.67 10.00 18.18 18.18 8.33 30.00 -20.00
Professionals 5.42 7.50 1.07 1.97 2.00 .89 3.20 -2.22
60 50 42 42 36 40 33 -27

Office] 68.18 63.29 64.62 62.69 60.00 61.54 45.83 -22.35
Clerical 7.39 7.12 6.93 6.79 6.59 6.58 4.89 -2.50
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0

Skilled .48 .78 1.67 1.69 1.28 1.45 1.64 1.16
Craft .05 .09 .18 .18 .14 .15 .17 .12
5 3 2 2 1 4 3 -2

Service] 3.50 1.59 1.11 1.13 .66 2.53 2.73 -.77
Maintenance .38 .18 .12 .12 .07 .27 .29 -.O9
84 72 62 60 58 59 62 -22

work force 9.23 8.89 9.32 9.23 9.11 9.35 9.38 .15

 

Number of employees

Percent of occupation

Distribution ratio

Quantitative Representation of Black Females of Saginaw

Appendix XVc

109

 

 

OCCUPATION 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1980-6
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0

Official] 4.55 4.35 4.55 4.55 5.00 6.98 3.70 -.85
Administrator 1.01 .98 1.12 1.06 1.06 1.29 .60 -.41
1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0

1.27 1.43 .00 .00 .00 2.04 1.96 .69

Professionals .28 .32 .00 .00 .00 .38 .32 .04
10 6 5 4 5 7 8 -2

8.40 6825 7835 6815 6817 11867 7862 -878

Technicians 1.87 1.41 1.81 1.43 1.31 2.17 1.23 -.64
0 0 O 0 2 0 2 2

Protective .00 .00 .00 .00 1.09 .00 1.01 1.01
Service .00 .00 .00 .00 .23 .00 .16 .16
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1

Para- 50.00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 -50.00
Professionals 11.10 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 -11.10
19 21 17 19 19 20 25 6

Office] 21.59 26.58 26.15 28.36 31.67 30.77 34.72 13.13
Clerical 4.79 5.98 6.44 6.58 6.72 5.71 5.60 .81
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1

Skilled .48 .OO .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 -.48
Craft .11 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 -.11
7 6 3 3 2 3 3 -4

Service] 4.90 3.17 1.67 1.69 1.32 1.90 2.73 -2.17
Maintenance 1.09 .71 .41 .39 .28 .35 .44 -.65
41 36 27 28 30 34 41 0

Work force 4.51 4.44 4.06 4.31 4.71 5.39 6.20 1.69

 

Number of employees

Percent of occupation

Distribution ratio

110

Appendix XVI

Median Salary

 

 

CITY 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1980-6
WM 21,898 23,159 26,574 27,327 27,992 29,614 7,7161

BM 18,300 19,235 22,857 23,750 23,750 24,115 5,815

WF 15,661 19,235 19,041 21,115 22,118 22,370 6,709
Ann.Arbor BF 15,438 17,778 18,842 21,718 22,500 23,021 7,583
22,199 25,350 26,210 4,0112

BM 18,923 19,098 22,283 3,360

Battle WF 18,981 19,098 19,878 897
Creek BF 17,800 18,500 18,842 1,042
19,315 21,842 24,104 23,750 24,423 25,145 24,917 5,602

BM 17,800 18,500 19,000 19,000 23,125 23,125 22,500 4,700

WF 15,657 18,526 19,833 19,556 20,926 22,365 22,039 6,382

Bay City BF 15,250 19,000 19,000 19,000 22,500 22,500 22,500 7,250
22,473 27,407 4,9343

BM 19,081 19,212 131

WP 18,938 19,591 653

Detroit BF 16,269 18,180 1,911
WM 20,400 20,702 21,881 23,481 24,409 26,066 27,012 6,612

BM 17,883 18,494 18,600 18,897 22,231 22,204 23,310 5,427

WF 15,143 16,745 17,340 18,345 19,165 21,114 22,830 7,687

Flint BF 15,071 16,200 17,152 18,480 19,176 20,183 22,654 7,583
WM 17,792 21,313 20,059 21,863 24,531 25,810 25,716 7,924

BM 14,222 17,846 17,746 18,340 19,810 18,464 21,042 6,820

Grand WF 12,768 15,265 15,441 15,554 16,233 18,464 19,653 6,885
Rapids BF 12,438 14,821 14,974 15,289 15,842 17,000 17,840 5,402
23,375 22,568 22,907 -468

BM 21,786 19,333 20,000 -1,786

WF 16,211 16,727 17,143 932

Jackson BF 14,125 14,250 15,714 1,589
WM 17,128 20,167 21,011 22,038 24,430 23,625 25,260 8,132

BM 12,950 15,012 15,734 15,789 18,800 18,720 19,153 6,203

WF 12,205 14,561 15,513 15,877 17,804 18,033 18,627 6,422
Kalamazoo BF 11,568 12,280 13,265 14,059 15,470 15,591 16,154 4,586
WM 18,580 21,064 21,589 21,804 22,330 26,188 26,699 8,119

BM 15,009 16,273 19,333 19,400 19,476 20,000 23,523 8,514

WP 13,182 14,803 16,228 16,923 18,268 19,301 20,288 7,106

Lansing BF 14,050 15,250 17,000 17,500 18,222 19,625 18,889 4,839
WM 18,353 20,281 20,603 21,297 21,536 23,850 25,485 7,132

BM 15,591 19,333 20,000 20,313 20,313 19,714 19,750 4,159

WF 11,556 12,500 13,300 13,429 14,038 15,368 16,667 5,111

Muskegon BF 10,750 12,500 13,000 NA 13,000 15,100 15,714 4,964

111

Appendix XVI (Cont’d).

Median Salary

 

 

CITY 1980 1981 198_ 1983 1984 1985 1986 1980-6
WM 21,031 22,880 23,750 24,347 24,569 26,333 28,469 7,438
BM 20,392 21,190 22,879 23,583 24,352 24,609 26,854 6,462
WF 15,925 15,267 16,222 17,273 17,857 18,882 21,538 5,613
Saginaw BF 15,423 15,100 15,132 15,333 17,455 18,750 19,895 4,472

 

1Based on 1981-1986
2Based on 1984-1986
3Based on 1980-1981

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bahr, H. M., & Gibbs, J. P. (1967). Racial differentiation in
American metropolitan. Social Forces, 22(4), 521-532.

Blalock, H. M. (1956). Economic discrimination and negro increase.
American Sociological Review, 22(5), 584-588.

Blalock, H. M., Jr. (1957). Percent nondwhite and discrimination in
the South. AgerigggiSociological Review, 22(6), 677-682.

Cayer, N. J., & Sigelman, L. (1980). Minorities and women in state and
local government: 1973-1975. Public Administration Review, 22(5),

443-450.

 

Capon, J. A. (1988). Elementary Stggisticggfor the Socigl Sciences.
Belmont, CA: Wadworth, Inc.

Darden, J. T. (1985). The housing situation of blacks in metropolitan

areas of Michigan. In The State of Black Michigan, 1985. East
Lansing, MI: Urban Affairs Programs, Michigan State University.

 

Darden, J. T., & Tabachneck, A. A. (1980). Al orithm 8: Graphic and
mathematical descriptions of inequality, issimilarity,
segregation or concentration. Environment and Planning A, 22,
227-234.

Davies, S., & Huff, D. L. (1972). Impact of ghettoization on black
employment. Economic Geo ra h , 22(4), 421-427.

Days, D. S., III. (1984). Turning back the clock: The Reagan

administration and civil rights. Harvard Civil Rights - Civil
Libgrties Law Review, 22(2), 309-347.

Dometrius, N. C., & Sigelman, L. (1984). Assessing progress toward
affirmative action goals in state and local government: A new
benchmark. Public Administration Review, 22(3), 241-246.

Duncan, 0. D., & Duncan, B. (1955). A methodological analysis of
segregation indexes. Aggric§n7Sociological Review, 22(2),

210-217.

Dye, T. R., & Renick, J. (1981). Political power and city jobs:

Determinants of minority employment. Social Science anrterly,
22(3), 475-486.

Eisenger, P. R. (1982a). The economic conditions of black employment
in municipal bureaucracies. American Journal of Political
Science, 22(4), 754-771.

Eisenger, P. R. 1982b). Black eggloyment in municipal jobs: The impact

of black political power. e American Political Science Review,
12(2), 380-392.

112

113

Eisenger, P. K. (1983). Black ggploygent in city governgent.
1973-1980. Washington, DC: Joint Center for Political Studies.

 

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (1974). Minorities and women
in state and local government, 1973. washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office.

Frisbie, W. P., 8 Nerdert, L. (1977). Inequality and the relative
size of minority populations: A comparative analysis. American
Journgl of Sociology, 22(5), 1007-1030.

Galster, G. C. (1987). Residential segregation and interracial
economic disparities: A simultaneous equations approach. Journal
of Urban Economics, 22(1), 22-44.

Glazer, N. (1985). Affirmative action as a remedy for discrimination.
American Behaviorgl Scigntist, 22(6), 829-840.

Hall, 0., 8 Saltzstein, A. (1975). Equal employment in urban
governments: The potential problem of interminiority competition.

Public Personnel Mane ement, 2(6), 386-393.

Hall, 6., 8 Saltzstein, A. (1977). Equal employment opportunity for
minorities in municipal government. Socigl Science anrterly,
22(4), 864-872.

Hammerman, H. (1985). A decade of new gpportunity: Affirmative action

in the 19708. Washington, DC: Potomac Institute.

Henderson, L. J. (1978). The impact of the equal employment
opportunity act of 1972 on equal employment opportunities for
women and minorities in municipal government. PolicY Studieg

Journal, 1(2), 234-239.

Hutchins, M., 8 Sigelman, L. (1981). Black employment in state and
local governments: A comparative analysis. Social Science

anrterly, 22(1), 79-87.

Jiobu, R. M., 8 Marshall, H. M., Jr. (1971). Urban structure and the
differentiation between blacks and whites. American Sociological
Review, 22(4), 638-649.

 

Rain, J. F. (1968). Housing segregation, negro employment, and

metropolitan decentralization. The anrterly Journal of
Economics, 22(2), 175-197.

Karnig, A. R., Welch, S., 8 Eribes, R. A. (1984). Employment of women
by cities in the southwest. IQQJSocigl Science Journal, 22(4),

41-48.

LaGory, M., 8 Magnani, R. J. (1979). Structural correlates of
black-white occupational differentiation: Will U.S. regional
differences in status remain? Social Problems, 21(2), 157-169.

Leonard, J. S. (1987). The interaction of residential segregation and
employment discrimination. Journal of Urban Economics, 22(3),
323-346.

Lorenz, M. O. (1905). Methods of measuring the concentration of
‘wealth. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 2,
209-219.

114

Marlin, J. T. (1977). City affirmative action efforts. Public
Administration Review, 21(5), 508-511.

Marshall, J. M. (1975). City size, economic diversity, and
functional type: The Canadian case. Egonomic Geo ra h , 22(1),
37-49 8

Meier, K. J. (1978). Constraints on affirmative action. Policy
Studies Journal, 1(2), 208-213.

Mooney, J. D. (1969). Housing segregation, negro employment and
metropolitan decentralization: An alternative approach. The

anrterly Journal of Econog2cs, 22(2), 299-311.

Moore, P., 8 Mazey, M. E. (1986). Minorities and women in state and
local governments: 1978-1980. Journal of Urban Affairs, 2(3),
1-13.

Morgan, B. S. (1980). Occupational segregation in metropolitan areas
in the United States, 1970. Urbag_§tudies, 21(1), 63-69.

McDonald, J. F. (1981). The direct and indirect effects of housing
segregation on employment opportunities for blacks. The Annals of

Regional Science, 22(2), 27-38.

Saltzstein, G. H. (1983). Personnel directors and female employment
representation: A new addition to models of equal employment

opportunity policy? Social Science anrterly, 22(4), 734-746.

Sigelman, L., 8 Karnig, A. R. (1977). Black education and bureaucratic
employment. Social Science anrterly, 21(4), 858-863.

Sigelman, L. (1976). The curious case of women in state and local

government. Social Science anrterly, 22(4), 591-604.

Smith, J. P., 8 welch, F. (1984). Affirmative action in labor
markets. Journg2_of Labor Econogics, 2(2), 269-301.

Steel, B. S., 8 Lovrich, N. P. (1986). Fiscal stress, competing values
and municipal governance: What fate befell affirmative action in
municipal police departments? Journgl of Urban Affairs, 2(3),
15-30 8

United States Commission on Civil Rights. (1969). For all the
people....by all the people: A report on equal opportunity in
state and local government employment. Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office.

United States Commission on Civil Rights. (1982, December).
Affirmative action in Michigan cities [A statement by the Michigan
Advisory Committee to the United States Commission of Civil
Rights]. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Welch, S., Karnig, A. R., 8 Eribes, R. A. (1983a). Correlates of

'women’s employment in local governments. Urban Affairs anrterly,
22(4), 551-564.

'Welch, S., Karnig, A. R., 8 Eribes, R. A. (1983b). Changes in Hispanic
local public employment in the southwest. The Western Political

115

'Wilcox, J., 8 Roof, W} C. (1978). Percent black and black-white
status inequality: Southern versus nonsouthern patterns. Social

Science anrterly, 22(3), 421-434.