U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

Employment Opportunities for Minorities in
 Montgomery County, Ohio

Chapter 3  

Data Analysis

The purpose of the data analysis is to discern specific racial differences in employment patterns between minorities and nonminorities in managerial and professional jobs. The design of the data analysis in this chapter has seven sections: (1) area employers, industry, and employment; (2) unemployment and labor force participation rates; (3) managerial and professional jobs and minority availability; (4) private employers and the utilization of minorities in managerial and professional jobs; (5) public employers and the utilization of minorities in managerial and professional jobs; (6) utilization of minorities in managerial and professional jobs by individual firms; and (7) educational attainment. Sections 3, 4, 5, and 6 contain statistical analysis of the data.

Area Employers, Industry, and Employment

Montgomery County, Ohio, is home to 48 large employers, defined as companies with employment exceeding 1,000. The economic base of the county is diversified in terms of its products and services. Manufacturing, education, public administration, transportation, automotive, retail, hospitals, information services, computers, and aviation are some of the industries in the county. Excluding firms that are retail businesses, health care facilities, and education entities, the largest private employers and their employment (to the nearest 100) and product are shown in table 3.1.

Four government employers with employment over 1,000 also serve the public in Montgomery County: Wright-Patterson Air Force Base (Federal), employing 9,000 individuals; the Veterans Affairs Medical Center (Federal), employing 1,800 individuals; the county of Montgomery (county), employing 5,000 individuals; and the city of Dayton (local), employing 2,000 individuals. 

The Montgomery County area began a surge of growth in the first half of the 20th century. The growth of the city of Dayton and Montgomery County in the 1920s and 1930s was primarily due to outside migration particularly from Appalachia and the South to the area's many manufacturing jobs producing everything from refrigerators to car parts to paper products. In recent years, however, that legacy of manufacturing has declined significantly. Of the jobs that Montgomery County currently provides, only 15 percent are in manufacturing, while the retail sector has become the area's largest employing industry. National trends as well as local indicators suggest that the manufacturing sector of the economy will continue to decline.   

As the manufacturing base in the county declined, the proportion of white-collar jobs increased. Sixty-two percent of all jobs in Montgomery County are now classified as white collar (see table 3.2). These include executive, managerial, professional, technical, sales, office, clerical, and administrative support positions. The service sector has shown strong rates of growth in the Montgomery County area, generally increasing at a rate of over 7 percent through the early 1980s and over 4 percent annually since. In the city of Dayton, the service sector has shown much more modest rates of growth and actually showed a decline in the number of jobs between 1987 and 1995. Developments in the health care industry have also had a major impact on the local economy, since Dayton is home to six major health care providers. 

Unemployment and Labor Force Participation  

Two common statistics to measure labor market conditions are the unemployment rate and the labor force participation rate. The unemployment rate indicates the extent to which available labor resources are used. It is calculated by determining the ratio of individuals unemployed to the number of individuals in the labor force. To be considered part of the labor force an individual must be 16 years of age or older and either employed or unemployed. 

For purposes of determining labor market conditions, unemployed individuals are people who are 16 years of age or over, did not work during the survey period, were available for work, and were (1) looking for work during the past 4 weeks, (2) waiting to be called back to a job from which they had been laid off, (3) had a job to which they were going to report within 30 days, or (4) would have been actively looking for work had they not been ill. Individuals who are not employed and are no longer looking for work are not considered unemployed, rather they are considered outside, i.e., not participating in the labor force. 

In Montgomery County African Americans suffer a much higher rate of unemployment than whites. The unemployment rate for African Americans in the county is 13.1 percent, while the unemployment rate for whites in the county is 4.6 percent. African Americans have more than twice the unemployment of whites (see table 3.3).

Not only do African Americans suffer higher rates of unemployment, but their rate of participation in the labor force is significantly lower than that of whites. In 1996 whites in Montgomery County participated in the labor force at a rate of 65.9 percent. That means that 65.9 percent of all white adults were either employed or considered officially unemployed. The participation rate for African Americans is much lower, 55.5 percent (see table 3.4).[1] This is evidence of a much larger proportion of African Americans than white workers being discouraged workers, i.e., workers without jobs who no longer actively seek work. Put in other terms, in Montgomery County African Americans who are 18 percent of the county's population are 15 percent of the county labor force.[2] This contrasts with whites, who are 81 percent of the county's population and 84 percent of the county labor force.  

Managerial and Professional Jobs and Minority Availability 

As part of its mandate under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended,[3] the EEOC requires annual reports from private employers as to the composition of their work forces by race, gender, ethnicity, and job category. This information is recorded on EEO 1 survey forms, and is required of all private employers subject to the provision of title VII of the Civil Rights Act with 100 or more employees, and all private employers with Federal contracts with 50 or more employees. Financial institutions are mandated to report if they serve as a depository of Government funds in any amount or are a financial institution that is an issuing and paying agent for U.S. Savings Bonds. Mortgage companies affiliated with a financial institution are also required to report as are companies with fewer than 100 employees if they are owned or affiliated with another company and the entire enterprise employs a total of 100 or more employees.[4] 

The EEO 1 report includes all full-time and part-time employees listed by race/ethnicity, sex, and job category. There are five racial and ethnic categories: 

• White (Not of Hispanic origin). All persons having origins in any of the original people of Europe, North Africa, or the Middle East. 

• Black (Not of Hispanic origin). All persons having origins in the black racial groups of Africa. 

• Hispanic. All persons of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race. 

•  Asian or Pacific Islander. All persons having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, the Indian Subcontinent, or the Pacific Islands.  

•  American Indian or Alaskan Native. All persons having origins in any of the original peoples of North America and who maintain cultural identification through tribal affiliation or community recognition.[5] 

EEO 1 reports contain nine occupational categories: (1) officials and managers, (2) professionals, (3) technicians, (4) sales, (5) office and clerical, (6) craft workers (7) operatives, (8) laborers, and (9) service workers. To ensure reporting uniformity the EEOC has established guidelines for the inclusion of employees in a category. 

The officials and managers category, EEO 1 category 1, includes occupations requiring administrative and managerial personnel who set broad policies, exercise overall responsibility for execution of these polices, and direct individual departments or special phases of a firm's operations. Job titles include officials, executives, middle management, plant managers, department managers, and superintendents, salaried supervisors who are members of management, and purchasing agents and buyers.[6]            

Professional jobs, EEO 1 category 2, are occupations requiring either college graduation or experience providing a comparable background. Job titles include accountants, auditors, airplane pilots, architects, artists, chemists, designers, dietitians, editors, engineers, lawyers, librarians, mathematicians, natural scientists, registered professional nurses, personnel and labor relations specialists, physical scientists, physicians, social scientists, teachers, surveyors, and kindred workers.[7] 

An aggregated availability of the nine EEO 1 category jobs was calculated by race (see table 3.5). In the Montgomery County labor force, African Americans are 10.8 percent of all individuals with the skills and/or experience to be executives, officials, managers, and administrators, i.e., hold EEO 1 category 1 jobs. The data also show African Americans to be 11 percent of all individuals with the skills and/or experience to perform professional jobs, i.e., hold EEO 1 category 2 jobs.[8] In other words, these are the ratios of African Americans in Montgomery County currently employed or seeking employment whose present occupation, experience, and/or training is in executive, administrative, or professional occupations.[9] Whites are 88.1 percent of those in Montgomery County with the skills and/or experience to be executives, managers, and administrators, and 86.7 percent of those with the skills and/or experience to be professionals (see table 3.5).[10]   

Analysis of the data shows that African Americans are significantly underrepresented in the top two EEO 1 categories, officials/managers and professionals, than expected given their percentage of the labor force. Using a point estimator of the observed proportion, p, in a binomial distribution, a confidence interval can be established for p by: 

p - za/2 ((p q)/n) < p < p + za/2 ((p q)/n)     (3.1)    

Computing equation 3.1, the confidence interval for p is:

0.143 < p < 0.165                                              (3.1a) 

where a = 0.05. This means that it is likely with 95 percent probability that the observed proportion of African Americans in officials/managers positions should lie between 0.143 (14.3 percent) and 0.165 (16.5 percent). Note, however, that the observed proportion of African Americans who are officials and managers is actually 0.108 (10.8 percent), a rate significantly lower than what would be expected absent unusual circumstances. 

Similarly for the professional positions, computing equation 3.1, the confidence interval for p is: 

 0.140 < p < 0.168                                            (3.1b) 

where a = 0.05. The observed proportion of African Americans who are in professional positions is 0.11 (11.0 percent), again a rate at significant variance from the lower expected boundary of 0.140 (14.0 percent).  

Private Employers and the Utilization of Minorities in Managerial and Professional Jobs

An analysis of composite EEO 1 data for all reporting private employers in the Montgomery County was conducted to determine the rate of utilization of African Americans in EEO 1 category 1, officials and managers, and EEO 1 category 2, professionals, compared with their availability in the general work force.[11] Among private employers African Americans are employed in officials and managers positions at a rate of just 6.3 percent a utilization rate more than 4 percentage points lower than their availability in the labor force. Similarly with respect to the professional positions, African Americans are 11 percent of all professionals in the Montgomery County labor force, but hold just 5.7 percent of professional positions with private employers employing more than 100 individuals. This is a percentage difference of more than 6 percentage points (see table 3.6).  

Contrasting the employment experience of African Americans with whites in the highest two job categories, whites are found to be overrepresented based on their availability. While whites are 88.1 percent of the officials and managers in the county, among private firms 92.1 percent of officials and managers are white. Similarly in professional positions, whites are 86.7 percent of the available work force in Montgomery County, but among private employers whites hold 90.8 percent of the positions. 

Using an analysis similar to before, the data show that African Americans are significantly underrepresented among private employers in the top two EEO 1 categories, officials/managers and professionals, by private firms in Montgomery County given their availability for these positions in the labor force. Using the point estimator of the observed proportion, p, in a binomial distribution, the confidence interval is again established for p by equation 3.1: 

p - za/2 ((p q)/n) < p < p + za/2 ((p q)/n)     (3.1)  

Computing equation 3.1, the confidence interval for p with respect to officials and managers is: 

 0.102 < p < 0.114                                             (3.2a)

where a = 0.05. The actual utilization rate of African Americans as officials and managers by private employers is 0.063 (6.3 percent), a rate significantly lower than expected absent some unaccounted barrier to equal employment opportunity. For professionals, the confidence interval is:  

0.106 < p < 0.114                                             (3.2b)   

where a = 0.05. The observed proportion of African Americans who are in professional positions with private employers is 0.057 (5.7 percent), again a rate significantly lower than what would be expected absent some unaccounted barrier to equal employment opportunity. 

The significant deviation in the rate of African American employment in officials/managers and professional positions from their participation rate in the labor force as demonstrated in equations 3.1a and 3.1b can partially be explained by institutional forces. These jobs require specific and higher levels of education, training, and experience, variables not controlled in computing equations 3.1a and 3.1b. 

The significantly lower African American employment observed in equations 3.2a and 3.2b are not as easily dismissed. In equations 3.2a and 3.2b the lower employment level rates of African Americans in officials/managers and professional positions is observed even after education, training, and experience have been controlled, as Africans Americans have demonstrated these skills by virtue of their availability for these positions. Hence, equations 3.2a and 3.2b suggest the presence of real barriers to equal employment opportunity for African Americans by private firms in Montgomery County. 

Public Employers and the Utilization of Minorities in Managerial and Professional Jobs

What is intriguing about the observed low levels of African American utilization in the two highest EEO 1 categories, officials/managers and professionals, is the comparatively high minority utilization rates in these two occupational categories by area government employers. Similar to the requirement on private firms, the EEOC requires annual reports from public employers as to the composition of their work forces by race, gender, ethnicity, and job category. This information is recorded on EEO 4 survey forms.

Excluding the Veterans Affairs Medical Center from the analysis,[12] Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, the county of Montgomery, and the city of Dayton have utilization rates of African Americans in officials and managers positions that exceed the percentage of African Americans qualified for those positions. Similarly, the county of Montgomery and the city of Dayton also have substantially higher utilization rates of African Americans in professional positions as compared with their availability (see table 3.8).[13]  

It is possible that observed differences between public and private sector employers in the utilization of African Americans in professional positions could be influenced by group differences in specific education and training requisites. That is, certain exact higher skills are required to be employed in a professional position, e.g., engineer, and there is a difference between groups in the proportion of individuals who have attained the required job-specific skills. 

But individuals employed in EEO 1 category 1 occupations, i.e., officials/managers, are persons who have generally advanced to those positions of authority and responsibility from lower positions, whether within that organization or in another organization. Asserting that there are no group differences in innate leadership, organizational, and administrative skills, there should be no difference between public and private employers with respect to the proportion of African Americans employed in managerial positions. 

To examine whether observed differences between African Americans and whites exist between private and public sector employers, a test of the difference between the two proportions, p1 and p2, was conducted, where p1 is the proportion of African Americans in officials and manager positions with private employers and p2 the proportion of African Americans in officials and managers positions with public employers. Using the private and public employer data, the test is defined by the following reduced form equation based upon independent samples having binomial populations: 

 z = (p1 - p2)/[pq((1/n1) + (1/n2))]                       (3.3) 

 where z has a standard normal distribution and the level of significance, a, equals 0.05.[14] Solving, 

  z = 2.08                                                              (3.3a) 

The finding of z exceeding 1.96, the z-score associated with a = 0.05, indicates a significant difference between the public employers and the private employers in utilizing African Americans in the organizations managerial/officer positions. African Americans have a significantly higher likelihood of advancing to higher management positions in the public sector than they do in the private sector, all other things holding constant.  

Utilization of Minorities in Managerial and Professional Jobs by Individual Firms 

The finding above that African Americans have a significantly higher likelihood of advancing to higher management positions in the public sector than they do in the private sector can be further examined by analyzing the behavior of individual firms. EEO 1 data for 14 of the 19 firms listed in table 3.1 was obtained and analyzed.[15] Among those 14 firms, the average employment rate of African Americans in EEO 1 category 1 jobs was 5.8 percent, which is lower but approximates the area utilization rate of 6.3 percent.  In the professional EEO 1 category, the average employment rate of African Americans was 8.1 percent, a rate substantially higher than the areawide rate of 5.7 percent for private employers (see table 3.9). 

Analysis of the data shows a wide variance among the individual firms in the employment of African Americans in the higher occupations. One firm, identified as firm 9 in table 3.9, employs African Americans in officials and managers positions at a rate of 13.9 percent. This is a utilization rate on par with the public employers and exceeds the area availability rate of 10.8 percent for African Americans. The same firm displays a similar practice in employing African Americans in professional positions, employing them at a rate of 17.1 percent a rate higher than the proportion of African Americans living in Montgomery County.

In contrast to firm 9, 6 of the 14 firms 43 percent of the firms employ African Americans at a rate of less than 3 percent in officials and managers jobs. It is clear that there is a wide variance among private employers in opportunities for African Americans to advance into management positions. 

Moreover, the commitment to equal employment opportunity appears to be firm specific, rather than dependent upon the types of jobs at the firm. This is deduced from the high correlation, 0.72, between the rate of black employment in officials and managerial jobs at a firm and the rate of black employment in professional positions at the same employer.

Educational Attainment

A continuing trend in labor markets is the requirement of education to qualify for quality employment opportunities, particularly the two highest EEO 1 categories: officials/managers and professionals. Phillip Parker, speaking before the Advisory Committee, specifically noted the importance of education.

Education and training is an important key factor in making sure that we provide and have good jobs for minorities. . . . I do not think we have done a good enough job in that [area]. . . . Here in this community there are a lot of young people dropping out of school that will not have the skills that employers want and need before they hire them. . . . We have to do a much better job of preparing our young people for the jobs that are available.[16] 

In the years preceding enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, educational opportunities that might qualify minorities for such managerial and professional jobs were closed to many African Americans. With the enactment of title VII, such discrimination on the basis of race was now prohibited. In the years immediately following the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, nationwide the college enrollment rates of African Americans between the ages of 18 and 24 began to approach those of whites. By 1980, almost 28 percent of all African American high school graduates in this age group were enrolled in college, compared with 32 percent of white high school graduates. During the 1980s that trend stopped. By 1990, although an increasing percentage of white high school graduates between the ages of 18 and 24 were enrolling in college, the college enrollment rates for African Americans were stagnant. In 1990, 38 percent of all white high school graduates between the ages of 18 and 24 were enrolled in college, while African American enrollment rates remained at 28 percent.

The Dayton area reflected these national trends. Among all adults over the age of 22 in Montgomery County, Ohio, 13.7 percent of whites were enrolled in some form of postsecondary education. In contrast, only 7.5 percent of all African Americans in the county over the age of 22 were enrolled in a postsecondary education program.[17]  

The observed difference in the percentage of African Americans in the Montgomery County area with college and graduate degrees, as well as the observed differences between whites and African Americans in college enrollment rates, suggests that differences in educational attainment are an explanatory variable in the observed differences between whites and African Americans in employment opportunities. 

The data also suggest, however, an additional theory for observed differences between the racial groups in employment at the higher levels. In the years immediately following the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 college enrollment rates of African Americans began to approach those of whites. In the 1990s as college enrollment by white high school graduates surged to almost 40 percent, the enrollment rate of African Americans remained stagnant at the same time that there was an increasing requirement in labor markets for advanced education to qualify for higher paying positions.   

Individuals acting from a rational cost-benefit basis will undertake the necessary costs both in terms of time and money to obtain education to the level that expected benefits, i.e., higher wages, will equal the costs of the investment. Increasingly, whites clearly hold the expectation that investments in education yield additional benefits beyond the investment. 

Controlling for socioeconomic status, African Americans, however, apparently do not hold the same expectation as whites. If they did, the rate of investment by African Americans in college education would be equal to whites. And for a brief period of time the postsecondary education rates between the two groups were merging. But as the post Civil Rights Act years passed and the country entered into new phases of civil rights, the expectations of African Americans concerning equal opportunity appear to have stagnated as observed by the college enrollment and attainment data. Such data indicate that African Americans are operating under a set of expectations at variance from white America and demonstrating by their actions that they believe there is a substantially lower likelihood of an African American being rewarded for additional education and training than is the case for their white counterparts.