Assistance with Chi square

SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 THE NEED FOR AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

Chapter III

METHODOLOGY

Data Collection

The following information for this research will be secondary data by
using information from the NJ Department of Labor’s Affirmative Action
Plan, Bureau of Labor Statistics, The Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission Reports, and the Roper Opinion Research Center.

The availability estimates are based on a study of the job pools from
which the Department of Labor (DOL) filled job vacancies in State
Government. For each EEO job category, DOL constructed external and
internal job pools. The external job pool included the number of
individuals in that category and its feeder categories who were counted
Statewide in the 1990 Census. The internal job pool included the number
of individuals in that category and its feeder category who were counted
in State Government at the end of June 2000. For example, the external
job pool for Officials and Administrators included the Officials and
Administrators who were counted Statewide in the 1990 Census, plus the
Professionals who were counted Statewide in the 1990 Census. The
internal job pool for Officials and Administrators included the
Officials and Administrators in the State Government as of the end of
June 2000, plus the Professionals in the state Government at the end of
June 2000.

When calculating the availability estimates, weights were assigned to
the external and internal job pools fro each category. The weights were
based on the percentage of appointments in each category that were made
from internal and external sources, while promotions and laterals are
made from internal sources.

To get the availability estimate for each ethnic/gender group within a
job category, the percent of the group in the external job pool was
multiplied by the weight for that pool; multiplied the percent of the
group in the internal job pool by the weight for that pool; and added
the two products. The Chi square is used to compare the relationship of
minorities and females with non-minorities in the workplace. This
analysis will determine if affirmative action protects the rights of
minorities and females in employment.

Chapter IV

DATA ANALYSIS AND SYNTHESIS

An analysis of an affirmative action plan was conducted that
demonstrated availability, as well as, the under-representation of
minorities and females in the workplace. By using secondary data, the
Likert scale method is the best attempt to demonstrate the attitudes of
city managers throughout the United States and their support for the use
of affirmative action in the recruitment of women. Women are the
dependent variable in this report. A chi square analysis used to
analyze the data for the NJ Department of Labor’s Affirmative Action
Plan.

Availability estimates are the percentages used by ethnic and gender
groups for each Equal Employment Opportunity Category. The estimates
represent the State of New Jersey’s internal and external workforce
that had prior work experience.

Tables 1.1-1.3, was used to compare and analyze the effectiveness of
hiring decisions and promotional opportunities for the New Jersey
Department of Labor employees.

When comparing Caucasians with specific ethnic groups such as
African-Americans, Hispanic, Asian and American Indians in the hiring
and promotional process, various EEOC categories percentages vary
depending on the hiring needs, and job vacancies required throughout the
calendar year 2000. By viewing the availability estimates, one can
determine the areas that NJDOL will need to improve upon for the
necessary advancement of minorities and females. The organization must
also determine the role that Affirmative Action will partake to meet the
required standards of the availability estimates without initiating
goals.

In essence, Officials and Administrators by ethnic groups based on the
EEO categories remain at a low specifically, black males compared to
Caucasians. Females favor high in all categories, but there are areas
that can be improved. (Table 1.1)

Historical and contemporary patterns of recruiting women into the
management of the local public sector generally parallel the patterns of
blacks and members of other minority groups (Slack J.D. 1987).

Attitudes are an important in the growth of females in the
decision-making circles. James Slack, studies and examines the
attitudes of managers that support the use of affirmative action
practices in the recruitment of women into managerial positions. Table
3 illustrates the frequency distribution by use of the Lickert scale.
City manager support for affirmative action toward women appears to
follow two distinctive patterns. First, the respondents demonstrate a
substantial level of support for the principle of affirmative action.
Over 55 % believe that government should intervene on behalf of women,
60 percent agree that, when all factors are equal, hiring preference
should be given to the female applicant to accomplish affirmative
action. In addition, 80 percent of the city managers oppose expressions
of sexism, such as off colored jokes. Supportive attitudes toward the
principle of affirmative action; however, are not universally shared.
Approximately, 40 percent of the city managers the either oppose, or are
neutral toward, the use of affirmative action in support of women.
There is also a second pattern indicated in the table that displays the
attitudes of city managers. The level of support is substantially less
for some specific mechanisms designed to implement the principle of
affirmative action. Less than half of the respondents believe that
their respective city governments should make special recruitment
efforts on behalf of women. While 65 percent, believe that external
groups and individuals from the community should not be involved in the
local government hiring process. Moreover, approximately 60 percent of
the city managers oppose the use of hiring targets and timetables. While
20 percent are supportive, the majority of the respondents are opposed
to the idea of hiring a female applicant when a more competent male
applicant is available.

The approval rate tends to be lower when minorities are asked about
their attitudes of Affirmative Action. According to Pamela Paul, most
African-Americans continue to believe that affirmative action policies
are needed in schools and the workplace. In 2001, the National Urban
League polled 800 African-Americans adults. 87 percent of the
respondents said that affirmative action in employment was still
necessary; this was up from 83 percent in 2000. This result is not
surprising, considering 68 percent of those polled said that affirmative
action played a very or somewhat important role in their own employment.
In this poll, the term affirmative action was not explained, and the
word quota was not mentioned.(Figure 1)

Reliability and Validity

The results of the various research will depend on the method, such as
surveys, questionnaires, tables, government statistics and models of
effectiveness that include the perception of affirmative action. A
considerable amount of information will be preexisting information from
other studies that have used surveys, questionnaires, tables and models
from random samples of groups over a period. This pre and posttest
experimentation is usually high on reliability, but low on validity. In
addition, statistical data will be historical data from government
documents and will be interpreted with caution. The validity of the
government document patterns of data may have some bias undercurrents
that will need reviewing. The information may not be indicative of
current policies or practices nor of past practices because of the
constant change. Subsequently, the validity of the government data is
constantly used throughout various research methods, when comparing
data, an assumption can be made that it is high in reliability.

Limitation of the Study

Limitations during this study may be obvious with the studies concerning
affirmative action, and the impact that it has on minorities and females
in upper level management positions. Most of the survey and
questionnaire data maybe outdated in reference to the attitudes of
minorities, females and non-minorities toward affirmative action. The
attitudes toward affirmative action’s effectiveness continue to be a
controversial issue, whereas the surveys and questionnaires may reflect
some biases when evaluating information.

CHAPTER V-

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, most of the literature review makes us understand that
the controversy of affirmative action is still strong. For some it
affirmative action creates more negative stigmatization, and for others
minorities and females will still repeat the test of time during the
1960’s, by the preferential and discriminatory practices of minorities
and females. It is my belief that affirmative action is still needed
and that without some type of policy to reinforce the effort for
employers to continue to use fair practices when hiring minorities and
females. Affirmative action is intended to improve employment or
educational opportunities for member of minority groups and women. By
implementing various statutes and executive orders that employers must
follow with regards to employment discrimination.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 operates as the
“centerpiece” of employment discrimination law, prohibiting
discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin.
According to (Player, 1992) Executive Order 11246 marks the beginnings
of “affirmative action,” which requires contractors doing business
with the federal government to take additional obligations to determine
the underutilization in their workplace and to develop a plan to remedy
it, marking the beginnings of “affirmative action.” Employers
determine underutilization by comparing the general availability of
qualified women and minority applicants in the relevant job market with
current employer demographics. Employers are then obliged to make a
good faith effort in targeting underrepresented groups in their
outreach, as well as ensure that job selection criteria do not have an
“adverse impact” on underrepresented groups.

Affirmative action, some people believe that if we eliminate
affirmative action, women and minorities would no longer be perceived as
being less qualified. However, others believe that stereotypes and
stigmas are so ingrained in our culture, that even if we eliminated
affirmative action, these stereotypes and stigmas would continue to
exist. The Federal Glass Ceiling Commission (1995), some how it can be
concluded that the pragmatic use of affirmative action to promote equal
opportunity in employment by government contractors has been and
continues to be valuable, effective, and fair. The leadership provided
by the federal government and its contractors has been a critical factor
in causing private and public organizations to challenge and change
their own personnel practices, using affirmative action as one tool to
open up opportunity to qualified minorities and women who might
otherwise have been left outside.

On the other hand, it can also be said that affirmative action is not a
gift, nor a way to redress past wrongs. It is a way to create not only
a level, but also a playing field. Affirmative action implies making
sure that opportunities are available to talented and qualified
individuals. In addition, the playing field is not yet leveled, and
opportunities are not always offered to the best people. (Web, mit.edu)

Employment affirmative action policies are designed to make the hiring
process as objective as possible to hire the most qualified candidate.
In doing so, it is highly unlikely that a less qualified candidate would
be selected for a position. To assume underrepresented candidates were
hired only because of their sex and, or racial/ethnic background is more
likely a prejudicial assumption that they are inferior. (Player, M.A.
1992). In the end, as described in aforementioned problem statement
purpose meant to determine if there is a direct relationship between
affirmative action and any inequality that impacts minorities and
females in employment specifically in selection and hiring process.
Here in the light of the literature review, we may easily conclude
“yes” there is a direct relationship between affirmative action and
any inequality that affects minorities and females in employment. Until
new solutions and policies are created to protect the right of
minorities and females in employment, the affirmative action policy must
be viewed as a tool to maintain fairness in the employment process.

The Equal Employment Opportunity was established by act of Congress in
1972, and charged with responsibility for developing and implementing
agreements and policies. As well as to designed and eliminate conflict
and inconsistency among the agencies of the Federal Government
responsible for administering Federal law prohibiting discrimination on
grounds of race, color, sex, religion, and national origin.

It is important that policies are in place to protect the rights of
minorities and females. According to the Federal Contract Regulations,
clarification was needed for State and local officials to the
Government's policies concerning the role of affirmative action in the
overall equal employment opportunity program. Principles were created
to serve as policy guidance for other Federal agencies as well. Thus,
the following recommendations were initiated:

Equal employment opportunity is the law of the land. In the public
sector of our society, this means that all persons, regardless of race,
color, religion, sex, or national origin shall have equal access to
positions in the public service limited only by their ability to do the
job. There is ample evidence in all sectors of our society that such
equal access frequently has been denied to members of certain groups
because of their sex, racial, or ethnic characteristics. The remedy for
such past and present discrimination is twofold. On the one hand,
vigorous enforcement of the laws against discrimination is essential.
But equally, and perhaps even more important are affirmative, voluntary
efforts on the part of public employers to assure that positions in the
public service are genuinely and equally accessible to qualified
persons, without regard to their sex, racial, or ethnic characteristics.
Without such efforts, equal employment opportunity is no more than a
wish. The importance of voluntary affirmative action on the part of
employers is underscored by title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
Executive Order 11246, and related laws and regulations--all of which
emphasize voluntary action to achieve equal employment opportunity.

As with most management objectives, a systematic plan based on sound
organizational analysis and problem identification is crucial to the
accomplishment of affirmative action objectives. For this reason, it is
salient that all State and local governments develop and implement
results oriented affirmative action plans, which, deal with the problems
so identified.

The following are recommendations that are intended to assist State and
local governments by illustrating the kinds of analyses and activities,
which may be appropriate for a public employer’s voluntary affirmative
action, plan.

This statement does not address remedies imposed after a finding of
unlawful discrimination.

Voluntary affirmative action to assure equal employment opportunity is
construction of any affirmative action plan should be an analysis of the
employer's work force to determine whether percentages of sex, race, or
ethnic groups in individual job classifications are substantially
similar to the percentages of those groups available in the relevant job
market who possess the basic job-related qualifications. When
substantial disparities are found through such analyses, each element of
the overall selection process should be examined to determine which
elements operate to exclude persons based on sex, race, or ethnic group.
Such elements include, but are not limited to, recruitment, testing,
ranking certification, interview, recommendations for selection, hiring,
promotion, etc. The examination of each element of the selection process
should include at a minimum a determination of its validity in
predicting job performance.

(3) When an employer has reason to believe that its selection
procedures have the exclusionary effect described in paragraph 2 of this
section, it should initiate affirmative steps to remedy the situation.
Such steps, which in design and execution may be race, color, sex, or
ethnic ``conscious,'' include, but are not limited to, the following:

(a) The establishment of a long-term goal, and short-range, interim
goals and timetables for the specific job classifications, all of which
should take into account the availability of basically qualified persons
in the relevant job market

(b) A recruitment program designed to attract qualified members of the
group in question

(c) A systematic effort to organize work, and redesign jobs in ways
that provide opportunities for persons lacking ``journeyman'' level
knowledge, or skills to enter and, with appropriate training, to
progress in a career field.

(d) Revamping selection instruments or procedures, which have not yet
been validated in order to reduce or eliminate exclusionary effects on
particular groups in particular job classifications.

(e) The initiation of measures designed to assure that members of the
affected group who are qualified to perform the job are included within
the pool of persons from which the selecting official makes the
selection.

(f) A systematic effort to provide career advancement training, both
classroom and on-the-job, to employees locked into dead end jobs.

(g) The establishment of a system for regularly monitoring the
effectiveness of the particular affirmative action program, and
procedures for making timely adjustments in this program where
effectiveness is not demonstrated.

The goal of any affirmative action plan should be achievement of
genuine equal employment opportunity for all qualified persons.
Selection under such plans should be based upon the ability of the
applicant(s) to do the work. Such plans should not require the selection
of the unqualified, or the unneeded, nor should they require the
selection of persons based on race, color, sex, religion, or national
origin. Moreover, this statement should serve to assist State and local
employers, as well as Federal agencies, it recognizes that affirmative
action cannot be viewed as a standardized program, which must be
accomplished in the same way at all, times in all places. Accordingly,
there is no attempt to set forth the minimum or the maximum voluntary
steps that employers may take to deal with their respective situations.
Rather, that under applicable authorities, State and local employers
have flexibility to formulate affirmative action plans that are best
suited to their particular situations. In this manner, affirmative
action programs will best serve the goal of equal employment
opportunity. (Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs 41 CFR Part
60-3).

APPENDICES

TABLE 1

NJ Department of Labor Changes in Ethnic/Gender Profile

Calendar Year 2000

Department Total

Availability

Actual 12/1999 Actual 12/2000 Difference  

EEO CATERGORY   Estimates Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent











DEPARTMENT TOTAL     3665   3610      

White Males

46.3 1025 28.0% 1005 27.8% -20 -0.1%

Black Males

17.9 198 5.4% 189 5.2% -9 -0.2%

Hispanic Males

7 71 1.9% 68 1.9% -3 -0.1%

Asian Males

0.6 42 1.1% 42 1.2% 0 0.0%

American Indian Males 0.1 2 0.1% 2 0.1% 0 0.0%

Total Males

72 1338 36.5% 1306 36.2% -32 -0.3%

White Females

13.2 1378 37.6% 1345 37.3% -33 -0.3%

Black Females

10.4 688 18.8% 689 19.1% 1 0.3%

Hispanic Females

3.8 213 5.8% 225 6.2% 12 0.4%

Asian Females

0.5 45 1.2% 42 1.2% -3 -0.1%

American Indian Females 0.2 3 0.1% 3 0.1% 0 0.0%

Total Females

28 2327 63.5% 2304 63.8% -23 0.3%

Minority Males

25.6 313 8.5% 301 8.3% -12 -0.2%

Minority Females

14.8 949 25.9% 959 26.6% 10 0.7%

Total Minority

40.4 1262 34.4% 1260 34.9% -2 0.5%



TABLE 1.1

NJ Department of Labor Changes in Ethnic/Gender Profile

Calendar Year 2000

      Availability

Actual 12/1999 Actual 12/2000 Difference  

EEO CATERGORY   Estimates Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

OFFICALS/ADMINISTRATORS   305   292      

White Males

40.5 190 62.3 183 62.7 -7 0.4

Black Males

5.2 9 3 7 2.4 -2 -0.6

Hispanic Males

1.8 4 1.3 5 1.7 1 0.4

Asian Males

2.2 0 0 0 0 0 0

American Indian Males 0.1 1 0.3 0 0 -1 -0.3

Total Males

49.7 204 66.9 195 66.8 -9 -0.1

White Females

35 87 28.5 84 28.8 -3 0.2

Black Females

10.7 12 3.9 11 3.8 -1 -0.2

Hispanic Females

2.6 1 0.3 1 0.3 0 0

Asian Females

2 1 0.3 1 0.3 0 0

American Indian Females 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total Females

50.3 101 33.1 97 33.2 -4 0.1

Minority Males

9.2 14 4.6 12 4.1 -2 -0.5

Minority Females

15.3 14 4.6 13 4.5 -1 -0.1

Total Minority

24.5 28 9.2 25 8.6 -3 -0.6

PROFESSIONALS     2100   2090      

White Males

33 743 35.4% 733 35.1% -10 -0.3%

Black Males

6.6 140 6.7% 136 6.5% -4 -0.2%

Hispanic Males

1.9 57 2.7% 55 2.6% -2 -0.1%

Asian Males

2 39 1.9% 38 1.8% -1 0.0%

American Indian Males 0.1 1 0.0% 2 0.1% 1 0.0%

Total Males

43.7 980 46.7% 964 46.1% -16 -0.5%

White Females

33.5 720 34.3% 712 34.1% -8 -0.2%

Black Females

17.4 263 12.5% 269 12.9% 6 0.3%

Hispanic Females

3.3 102 4.9% 111 17.2% 9 12.4%

Asian Females

1.9 34 1.6% 33 1.6% -1 0.0%

American Indian Females 0.1 1 0.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0%

Total Females

56.3 1120 53.3% 1126 53.9% 6 0.5%

Minority Males

10.7 237 11.3% 231 11.1% -6 -0.2%

Minority Females

22.8 400 19.0% 414 19.8% 14 0.8%

Total Minority

33.5 637 30.3% 645 30.9% 8 0.5%

TECHNICIANS     25   24      

White Males

34.1 5 20.0% 6 25.0% 1 5.0%

Black Males

14.4 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Hispanic Males

3.3 1 4.0% 1 4.2% 0 0.2%

Asian Males

0.7 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

American Indian Males 0.2 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Total Males

52.7 6 24.0% 7 29.2% 1 5.2%

White Females

19.8 7 28.0% 3 12.5% -4 -15.5%

Black Females

23.4 11 44.0% 11 45.8% 0 1.8%

Hispanic Females

3.2 1 4.0% 2 8.3% 1 4.3%

Asian Females

0.8 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

American Indian Females 0 0 0.0% 1 4.2% 1 4.2%

Total Females

47.3 19 76.0% 17 70.8% -2 -5.2%

Minority Males

18.7 1 4.0% 1 4.2% 0 0.2%

Minority Females

27.5 12 48.0% 14 58.3% 2 10.3%

Total Minority

46.2 13 52.0% 15 62.5% 2 10.5%

TABLE 1.2

NJ Department of Labor Changes in Ethnic/Gender Profile

Calendar Year 2000

Availability

Actual 12/1999 Actual 12/2000 Difference  

EEO CATERGORY   Estimates Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

PROTECTIVE SERVICE   1   1 0.0% 0 0.0%

White Males

56.7 1 100.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0%

Black Males

21.2 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Hispanic Males

2.9 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Asian Males

0.6 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

American Indian Males 0.3 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Total Males

86.7 0 #REF! 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

White Females

5.4 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Black Females

7.1 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Hispanic Females

0.8 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Asian Females

0.1 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

American Indian Females 0 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Total Females

13.3 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Minority Males

27.9 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Minority Females

7.9 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Total Minority

35.8 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

PARAPROFESSIONALS   545   540      

White Males

8.2 24 4.4% 27 5.0% -3 -0.6%

Black Males

6.3 26 4.8% 26 4.8% 0 0.0%

Hispanic Males

1.2 4 0.7% 2 0.4% 2 0.4%

Asian Males

0.5 3 0.6% 3 0.6% 0 0.0%

American Indian Males 0 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Total Males

16.3 57 10.5% 58 10.7% -1 -0.3%

White Females

45.2 223 40.9% 214 39.6% 9 1.3%

Black Females

31 200 36.7% 204 37.8% -4 -1.1%

Hispanic Females

6.1 62 11.4% 62 11.5% 0 -0.1%

Asian Females

1.2 3 0.6% 2 0.4% 1 0.2%

American Indian Females 0.1 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Total Females

83.7 488 89.5% 482 89.3% 6 0.3%

Minority Males

8.1 33 6.1% 31 5.7% 2 0.3%

Minority Females

38.5 265 48.6% 268 49.6% -3 -1.0%

Total Minority

46.6 298 54.7% 299 55.4% -1 -0.7%

OFFICE CLERICAL     651   626      

White Males

7.2 35 5.4% 29 4.6% -6 -0.7%

Black Males

2.6 17 2.6% 14 2.2% -3 -0.4%

Hispanic Males

0.8 4 0.6% 4 0.6% 0 0.0%

Asian Males

0.4 0 0.0% 1 0.2% 1 0.2%

American Indian Males 0 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Total Males

11 56 8.6% 48 7.7% -8 -0.9%

White Females

56.3 339 52.1% 330 52.7% -9 0.6%

Black Females

24.9 200 30.7% 192 30.7% -8 -0.1%

Hispanic Females

6.4 47 7.2% 49 7.8% 2 0.6%

Asian Females

1.3 7 1.1% 6 1.0% -1 -0.1%

American Indian Females 0.1 2 0.3% 1 0.2% -1 -0.1%

Total Females

89 595 91.4% 578 92.3% -17 0.9%

Minority Males

3.8 21 3.2% 19 3.0% -2 -0.2%

Minority Females

32.6 256 39.3% 248 39.6% -8 0.3%

Total Minority

36.4 277 42.5% 267 42.7% -10 0.1%

TABLE 1.3

NJ Department of Labor Changes in Ethnic/Gender Profile

Calendar Year 2000

Availability

Actual 12/1999 Actual 12/2000 Difference  

EEO CATERGORY   Estimates Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

SKILLED CRAFTS     21   22      

White Males

53.6 17 81.0% 18 81.8% 1 0.9%

Black Males

16.3 3 14.3% 3 13.6% 0 -0.6%

Hispanic Males

5.5 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Asian Males

0.8 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

American Indian Males 0.1 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Total Males

76.3 20 95.2% 21 95.5% 1 0.2%

White Females

10 1 4.8% 1 4.5% 0 -0.2%

Black Females

10 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Hispanic Females

2.7 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Asian Females

0.8 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

American Indian Females 0.1 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Total Females

23.7 1 4.8% 1 4.5% 0 -0.2%

Minority Males

22.7 3 14.3% 3 13.6% 0 -0.6%

Minority Females

13.6 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Total Minority

36.3 3 14.3% 3 13.6% 0 -0.6%

SERVICE MAINTENANCE   17   15      

White Males

46.3 10 58.8% 8 53.3% -2 -5.5%

Black Males

17.9 3 17.6% 3 20.0% 0 2.4%

Hispanic Males

7 1 5.9% 1 6.7% 0 0.8%

Asian Males

0.6 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

American Indian Males 0.1 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Total Males

72 14 82.4% 12 80.0% -2 -2.4%

White Females

13.2 1 5.9% 1 6.7% 0 0.8%

Black Females

10.4 2 11.8% 2 13.3% 0 1.6%

Hispanic Females

3.8 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Asian Females

0.5 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

American Indian Females 0.2 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Total Females

28 3 17.6% 3 20.0% 0 2.4%

Minority Males

25.6 4 23.5% 4 26.7% 0 3.1%

Minority Females

14.8 2 11.8% 2 13.3% 0 1.6%

Total Minority

40.4 6 35.3% 6 40.0% 0 4.7%



TABLE 2

EEO Analysis of Calendar Year 2000 Personnel Transactions

HIRES

        Number Percent

New Hires     140  

           

Minorities       57 40.7

Females       79 56.4

           

Officials/Administrators   4  

Minorities       0 0.0

Females       0 0.0

           

Professionals     90  

Minorities       14 15.5

Females       24 26.6

           

ParaProfessionals     6  

Minorities       0 0.00

Females       2 33.3

           

Office Clerical     38  

Minorities       19 97.4

Females       37 50

           

Skilled Craft     2  

Minorities       0 0.00

Females       0 0.00



TABLE 3

Support for Affirmative Action for Women by City Managers

          Supportive of Opposed AA Neutral

  Questionnaire Item     AA (%)   (%)   (%)











1.) If women are not getting fair treatment in jobs, 56.8

23.6

19.6

Government should see to it that they do. (n=271)

















2.) Where female and male applicants are







of equal ability and women are underrepresented 63.1

19.7

17.2

on the city's workforce, the city's department







Should give preference to female applicants. (n=274)

















3.) As long as they are told "privately" and in fun,"







it is all right for members of my department to tell 79.3

6.7

14

Jokes at work about sex and women. (n=285)

















4.) The city should make a special effort to recruit







Women for positions in management and administration. 46.6

33

20.4

(n=279)



















5.) Public agencies should set up committees of women civic 13.3

67.8

18.8

leaders to make recommendations for improving







Hiring/promotion of women. (n=271)

















6.) The city should establish hiring targets for women. 23.9

60.1

16.1

(n=273)



















7.) The city should establish timetables for reaching







The hiring targets for women. (n=272) 23.9

57

19.1











8.) The city's departments should not hire a female







applicant if there is a more competent male applicant 30.3

54.3

15.5

Who wants the job. (n=284)









Figure 1



Question:

Do you think there is still a need for affirmative action programs in
employment?

87%

8%

5%

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

Yes

No

Don't Know

Attitudes on Affirmative Action