Page images
PDF
EPUB

workforce.

The use indices become progressively worse in

the remaining regions reflecting both the poor represen

tation and inequitable distribution of black professionals.

Half the regions have a use index below .65.

(Chart 3,

p. 24 ).

9

Time-series analysis of underutilization

A further perspective of the underutilization of blacks

can be gained from examining their status over a period of

time.

Nationwide, the trend has been for the segment which

[blocks in formation]

example, the proportion which blacks comprise of all GS-15's

rose from 2.4 percent in 1965 to 8.3 percent in 1971 while

the segment of professional GS-5's comprised by blacks in

creased from 15 to 45 percent.

As the result of roughly

9/

The data used in this section were taken from old computer printouts which are available in the EEO office. The analysis considers only professionals and excludes professionals in grades 6, 8 and 10.

comparable gains in the proportion of black professionals

for grades GS 5-15 and the lack of a significant increase

in their representation among supergrades, the average

salary of black professionals did not register a significant

gain over 1965-1971.

The average salary of black profes

sionals was 85 percent of that for all professionals in 1965 compared to 88 percent in 1971.10/

(Chart 6, p. 29 ).

[blocks in formation]

in the field increased sharply between 1968 and 1969 only

to drop again between 1969 and 1970.

This rise and fall

appears to have resulted from a decline in the number of

black GS-5 professionals in 1969.

Overall, the difference

in the salary of black and all professionals was smaller

in the field compared to the National Office in 1965 and

this pattern has been maintained over time.

(Tables 2-5

pp. 243-46).

10/

This includes professionals in grades GS-6, 8, and 10.

Chart 6. PERCENT BLACKS COMPRISE OF PROFESSIONALS IN DOL,

GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION. 1965-1970

PERCENT 20

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

Source: Tables 2-5 pp.243-246.

1

If the trend since 1965 in the employment of black

professionals continues, the under-representation of blacks

among professionals in the field will improve measurably.

In contrast, no such improvement could be expected concern

ing the inequitable distribution of blacks in professional

positions.

At the rate given by the trend since 1968

(which is the time period over which the salary difference

between black, and all professionals has decreased most

markedly, it would still take well over a decade for blacks to gain an equitable distribution. 11

/

[blocks in formation]

Office where they comprise only 0.9 percent of the profes

sional staff.

In the field, 5.2 percent of all professionals

are nonblack minorities.

(Chart 7, p. 31 ).

11/

The historical data used in this section are not available for nonblack minorities or women.

Chart 1. PERCENT OF PROFESSIONALS IN EACH GRADE LEVEL

WHO ARE NONBLACK MINORITIES, MARCH 31, 1971

[merged small][merged small][graphic][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][graphic][subsumed][merged small][subsumed][merged small][subsumed][subsumed][merged small][subsumed][subsumed][merged small][subsumed][merged small][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][merged small][merged small][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][merged small]

Source: Tables 8, 17, and 26 pp. 256, 260,

31

« PreviousContinue »