reflects the percent representation of a minority in the establishment's workforce, while the occupation ratio reflects the distribution of minority employees across the various occupations in the establishment (the distribution is equitable if minorities are distributed as are all employees, in which case the occupation ratio is 1.000). Using OFCC tables giving McKersie statistics for private industry, comparisons can be made between the Labor De-. partment and the private sector. Such comparisons show that the Labor Department lags significantly behind the industries with the better EEO records. Of the 50 indus tries in the Washington, D. C. SMSA in 1967, forty-five had better 1967 occupation ratios for blacks than the DOL National Office had in October 1970; only five were worse. 13/ A more meaningful comparison, however, is obtained by considering only those industries which had 13/The comparison is between the status of minorities in private industry in the Washington SMSA in December 1966 (given by 1967 EEO-1 data) and the status of minorities in the DOL National Office in October 1970. The 1967 EEO-1 data was the most recent available when the analysis was done. The nearly four year time lag would seem to work to the Department's advantage, however, as the status of minorities in industry has generally improved since December 1966. equitable black representation (24%) in 1967. There were 24 such industries, and of those twenty-four, all but one had higher occupation ratios for blacks than the DOL National Office. This result merely reflects the concen tration of blacks in nonprofessional positions in the Department and the inequitable grade distribution of those blacks who are professionals. Comparing the DOL nationwide with private industry nationwide, of the 27 industries with 1967 black penetration equal to or greater than the percent blacks comprise of the national population (11.2%), all but six had higher occupation ratios than the DOL nationwide in 1970. However, the nationwide comparison is more mixed than the Washington, D. C. comparison; in general, industry is severely deficient in terms of representation, the DOL in terms of occupation distribution. Even so, the Department still lags behind the industries with the better EEO records. Overall, the DOL fails in its mission to be a model employer. (See Appendix A-3 for a more detailed presentation of the material in this section.) 1. B. Explaining underutilization Examination of employee's demographic characteristics This section presents a simple quantitative analysis which examines the following factors that could potentially explain the inequitable distribution of minorities and women: length of service, education, age, geographic location, administration, and time-in-grade. The analysis conducted here investigates the magnitude and characteristics of each of the explanatory factors for the various racial-sexual groups and considers their effect on underutilization. The impact of these factors on underutilization will be investigated by examining each factor individually assuming all others to be constant. The correlation study in the next section considers the effect of each explanatory factor while taking into account the interaction of all the other factors at the same time. In gaining an understanding of the underutilization of minorities and women, it is important to consider length of government service since this factor represents a significant determinant of an employee's position. Two measures of actual work experience were available for this study: total government service, and service in DOL since last appointment. Of these, total government service seemed to be the more appropriate approximation of what this analysis wished to investigate the work experience of an individual which would be relevant to his present status in the Department. 14/ Total government service includes the ex perience gained by employees in Federal agencies other than the Department, and their experience in DOL prior to the last appointment. Length of service in the Depart ment was also examined and will be referred to when use ful. However, unless otherwise noted, "length of service" refers to total government service. Blacks The length of service data disclose that black professional employees have not been recent entrants to Government service. The average length of service is the same for blacks as for all professionals, 131⁄2 years. Among professionals in the National Office, black males and females have longer service compared to all males and females. This pattern also prevails for black females in the Field. The only case where black professionals have less service than all professionals is among males in the Field. (Tables 1-3, pp. 242-25). 14/ Government service includes military service. To convert total Government service to civilian service, two years were subtracted from the service of each employee with a veteran's preference. Comparing the length of service for black profes sionals to that for all professionals at each GS grade shows a significant difference. Black professionals in the lower grades, GS 5, 7, 9, 11, and 12, have longer service than all professionals. On the other hand, blacks The in the higher grades have less government service than all employees in these grades. As a result, length of service rises much more sharply as GS grade increases for all professionals in comparison to black professionals. length of service of black professionals is almost constant over grades GS 7-16. This pattern is especially evident for black males, and occurs in the National Office and the Field. The longer service of blacks in the lower professional grades implies that they have been stagnated in these positions and this is confirmed by the time-ingrade data. (Chart 15, p. 49; and Tables 1-3, pp. 424-25). One particular factor which should be noted is the substantial length of service for professional GS 5, 7, 8 years, 8 years, and 9 years, respectively. The average service of blacks in these grades is even 9 years, 14 years, and 13 years, respectively. |