Institutional Racism/Sexism in North Carolina State Government: Final Report of the Affirmative Action Research Project 1977-1981

    +{

, \j'

I'4-t
I
It'

*..,

,.:.. .:. . I,. .l
t,

.l
I

I

I
I

l
I
,i

'i

I.:t

l

-.:J ',',

T rfl: t, { 'f.--,
;-. 

<, . ::L-.-;.ll--,f ;..::,il.r-l1:.i-i -,_.r-*J ?.-. ',r, -. a 
- 

.'..r. v t^

.I'i*.-:.i: i-rr,*il r' :,i

.r'i :;::*.,-l /.'ryle r.. J\,1.1. /

n-'1.

i:i i:i;IB

FIi'i,l'L H"IiilCiLT Ctr't'If,
AF F I i.;..1-L:t.'I' i1,1i A (l'f i- O l{
I'l E illi.LR CI't i'I? Ciijc-i -'= 7.1)'7 7 - 198 1

( ii-'o:'q.:, -\i. ^ict'lr', Print:iirtil .iiirre stig:itor
.r

Il,

i ptAlnflrrs



INSTITUTIONAI RACISM A}TD SE(ISM IN NORTH CAROLINA

STATE GOVERMIENT:

THE FINAL REPORT OF THE AIFIRMATIVE ACTION RESEARCH PROJECT

George M. Neely, Prlncipal Inv'estlgator
Barbara Baylor, Adminlstratlve Assistant

Max Castro, Research Assoclate
Rudolph Jackson, Research Associate

Rachael Tayar, Research Asscclate
Eula Turner, Research Assoclate

March 15, 1981

Minorlty Center of the Natlonal Institute
of Mental Health Grant ilIR0n'IH3075103

The concluslons and oplnlons expressed herein are not
necessarlly those of the North Carollna State Government,
the NIIIH or the U.S. Government.



ACK}iOh'],EDGEMENT

I wlsh to pubLlcly thank the staff of the Offlce of the Secrerary,

Department of Adrainistratlon, Secretari.es of Human Resources, Natural

Resources and Communlty Development, Department of Correctlons, The Divislons

of Mental Health and Mental Retardatlon Servlces, Health Servlces, Community

Asslstance, Envlronmental }lanagement, Probat,lon and Parole, Prisons, Budget,

and the offlce of State Personnel of North Carollna for permltting thls

research to take place, and for the technlcal support provlded.

I thank oembers of t,hese same staffs who read and conmented on drafts

of this final document.

I thank the followlng rnembers of the staff who worked very hard on the

Affirmative Action Research ProJect:

Barbara Baylor, B.A.
Max Castro, B.A., M.A.
Rudolph Jackson, M.B.A., Dr. P.H.
Rachael Tayar, M.A., Ph.D.
Eula Turner, B.A., M.A.

I thank various consultants and frlends who helped wlth varlous aspects

of the research project.

I thank Robln Varr Llew for typing the flnal report. I am grateful to

the Department of Health Administration and the School of Public Health for

the support lrhich I recel.ved from various faculty, students and administrators.

Flnally, I want to acknowledge my deep appreciatLon to the Center for

Minority Group Mental Health Programs and the National Instltute for Mental

Health for their fundtng of this undertak

h7



rABLE OF CONTNTS

Llst of Tables and Figures

Introductlon

An EconomLc and Social Proflle of North Carolina with Special
Attention to the Sta.tus of Mlnoritles and Women

Falr Emplo)rment LegislatLon

The Need for Employment Parity for l"tinorlties and women in
North Carolina SEate Govetnment

The Relatlonship Bet$reen }Iental Hea1th and Instltutional
Raclsn/Sexisn

Polltical Patronage and Afflrmatlve Action

Questlonnaires and Methods

Results

Support for Affirmative Action Goals

Summary

PART II - Context for Time 1-Time 2 Coroparison

Analysls of Afflrmative Actlon Research Project Questionnaire
Sectlons I' II and III

Recomrnecdattons

General Recorrroendations on Affirmative Action
state Government wide

A.PPENDICES

Appendix 1 Affirmative Actlon Research Project Survey

Questionnaire /lI, Administered April 1979

Afflrmative Action Research Project Survey

Questionnaire /iII, Administered April 1980

Appendix 2 survey Feedback and AffirmatLve Action conmittee
Descriptlons for Eleven "Experimengal" Departments
and Dlvislons

Appendix 3 Tables'L.L - L2.2 Factor Patterns

6

43

P"gu

lil

1

48

66

7l

73

91

l_05

107

110

trl
L34

135

2-L - 2-176

3-1 - 3-54



CONTENTS

Appendix

Appendlx

continued

4 Managing OrganLzational Change and Affirmative Acti_on

5 GeneraL Assenbly of North Carolina, Session 1977
Ratifled 8111, Chapter 726, Senate Bill 459
Article 49. "Equal Employment Practlces.'l

and
General Assembly of North Carolina, Sesslon 1979
House Bill 1135
Proposed Senate Coumlttee Substltute PCS1657
Short Title: Fair Employment

6 Conprehensive Reports on Intervlewlng, Testing, Job
Classification and Posltion Management, Tralnlng and
Termlnation, the Affirmative Action Divislon

7 JOB MOBILITY IN NORTH CAROLINA STATE GOVERN]'IENT FOR
BLACK AND WOIfrN WORKERS by Rachael Tayar, Ph.D. and

Page

4-t - 4-3

5-1 - 5-il

5-1 - 5-28

6-]- - 6-42

(4s PPl

WITH
woMEN 8-1 - 8-6

Appendlx

Appendlx

George M. Neely, Ph.D.

Appendlx 8 General Recommendations and Policy Impact From
THE ECONO}IIC AND SOCIAI PROFILE OF NORTH CAROLINA
SPECIAL ATTE]qTION TO THE STATUS OF MINORITIES AI{D

11

I
I

t,

t
I

I



List gf Tables and Figures

Tlt le Page

?able 1. Socio-Economic and Health Status of PopulatLon of North 2L
Carollna by Race

Table 2. The Status of women in North carollna - in the unr.ted
States

Table 3. Labor Force by Sex and Minorlty Status, Raleigh/Durhan
49SMSA, 1977 (% of Total)

Table 4. Permanent, Full-Tlme Employees, North Carolina State
Government (Excluding Universirles) July 1, LgTg 49

Table 5. Parlty Representation of White lla1es, Females and Blacks
ln lJ.C. State Government 50

Table 6. Segregation by Race in Federal EEO Job Categories
N.C. State Government 8179 53

Table 7. Segregation by Sex ln Federal EOO Job Categories
N.C. State Government July 79 54

Table 8. Parity Representation of Blacks and Females by EEO Job
Categories 55

Table 9. Job Segregation ln EEO Job Categories by Race and Sex
N.C. State Government Employees, December 1976 to June
t979 s6

Table 10. Job Segregation in EEO Job Categories by Race and Sex' Elght N.C. State Government Departments, L977-L979

Table 11. Pay Grade Distribution of Employees by Race and Sex
Permanent FuLl-Time Employees in N.C. State Covernment
8/79

Table 12. Pay Grade (P.ank) Segregation Among N.C. State Government
Employees (E>:cluding Universities) 61

Table 13. Response Rates by Race.and Sex, by Department 80 - 82

Table 14. Experinental Departments and Divlsions 91

Table 15. Departnents by }Iajor Study Group 92

Table 16. Number of Survey Respondents by Race and Sex 95

Table 17. Distriburlons of Agree Responses, l,Iork Capability of
-Selcctt:d Iimplol,ee.s, Experirnencal Subgr:oup Comparisons 96

35

57

59

111

'Fw :ffi * l.E< t.@effi\F* r.t*ffi t"ffi FrT!F+'ws.w:, rt.-ffi ry-FF?arrB



I

-Llst of Tabl-es and Figures, contlnued

TitIE

Table 18.

Table 19.

Table 20.

Table 21.

Table 22.

Table 23.

Table 24.

Table 25.

Table 26.

Table 27.

Flgure 1.

Flgure

!'r.gure

Figure 4.

Figure 5.

Flgure 6.

Figure 7.

Page

Dlstrlbutions of Agree Responses, Work Capabllity of
Selected Enployees, Control and Experimental Comparisons 98

Distribution of Agree Responses, Perceptions of Race/Sex
Dlscrlminatlon, Experlmental Subgroup Comparisons 99

Dlstribution of Agree Responses, the Need for an
Affirmative Action Program, Experimental Subgroup
Comparisons 100

Dlstrlbution of Agree Responses, the lleed for an
Affirmatlve Actlon Program, Control and Experimental
Conparisons 101

Distributlon of Agree Responses, Perceptlons of Race/Sex
Discriminatlonr'Control and Experimental Comparisons 101

Dlstrlbution of Agree Responses, the Organizationrs
Iuterest in Its Employees, Experimental Subgroup
Comparisons 103

Distrlbution of Agree Responses, the Organizationrs
Interest in Its F.nployees, Control and Experimental Groups 104

Dlstrlbution of Agree Responses, Commitment to Afflrmative
Action Goals, Experimental Subgroup Comparisons 106

Distrlbution of Agree Responses, Coumitment to Afflrnatlve
Actlon Goals, Control and Experimental 107

Number of Survey Respondents by Race and Sex 111

DISTRIBIIIION OF

PARTICIPANTS BY

DISTRIBIITION OF

PARTICIPA}ITS BY

DISTRIBUTION OF

PARTICIPANTS BY

DISTRIBUTION OF

PAPJICIPA}iTS BY

DISTRIBI.ITION OF

PARTICIPA}iTS BI

AGREE RESPONSES AMONG

SEX A,ND STIJ'DY GROIIP

AGREE RESPONSES.AMONG

RACE fu\D STUDY GROI.'P

AGREE RESPONSES AI'IONG

SEX AND STUDY GROT'P

AGREE RXSPONSES AI'IONG

SEX AND STUDY GROT'P

AGREE RESPONSES AMO}iG

SEX A.I\iD STUDY GROUP

WHITE STIRVEY

}IALE SURVEY

WHITE SURVSY

113

114

115

PLOT OF IrL.lN TACTOR SCORES (PERSONAL)

rOR RACE A"\D SEX

PLOT OF IIL\N F,\CTOR SCOI1IS (DMSION)
FOR RACE AND SEX

Lv

T^THITE SURVEY

t17

NONWHITE SURVEY
1r8

tsY ADI'IINISTMTION
128

UY AD}IINII;TIIATION
t29

- 100

- 102

2.

3.

I

;-

:



TIIE AFFIR}IATIVE ACTION RESEARCH PROJECT
:

PINAI REPORT

Introduct ion

rn the ldlnter of. 1977 the Departtrent of Adulnlstration, state of
North carolina, and the PrLnclpal rnvestlgator, George Neely, sought funding
for an Afflrmatlve Actlon Research proJect from the Natlonal Instltute of
Mental Healthrs center for MLnorlty Groups Mental Health programs.

The orlginal grant appllcation contalned four broadly stared objectLves:
(1) To determine the extent to which Afflrmatlve Act10n lnterventlon

uethods have been successful, and their relationshlp to the mental

health of minoritles/female employees ln seLected unlts of srate

governtrent.

(2) To isolate speclal problems by instltutlonal. racism/sexism and ascertaln

thelr relatlonship to progran and servlce delivery in the State of

North Carolina.

(3) To feedback data and design with selected unlts corrective measures to
ellnlnate obstacles to above objectlves.

(4) To uonltor implenentation and dissemr.nate f indings.

We reallzed at the tlme the grant appllcatLon was written that there

were few states, lf any, which uould perolt the broad based survey lnto
the lssues of work cllnate wlth race and gender as up-front lssues. The

grant 
.applicatlon was titl.ed 'tlnstltutlonal Racisn/Sexism ln North Carolina

State Government.'r The proJect was endorsed by the secretarles of each of

the departments ln whlch the work was to take place, ln response to a

maJorpr1ncip1eoforgan1zationa1deve1opmentPractice.



The theoretical framework has lts basis ln several flelds: &anagement

theory/sclencesr survey research nethodoJ.ogy, organlzatlonal theory and

behavlor, the developlnB theorles of raclsn/sexlsm, adult education and

tralnlng Ln the areas of staff development, eplderniology and blostatlstlcs,
pollcy forrnulatlon and planning, aDong others. The guldlng work and frame

of reference fot the raclsm is based in part on previous work of the

Princlpal Investigator. A review of that material ls provlded in the

following section.

There are four dlstlngulshable organlzatlonal phases assoclated wlth

Affirnative Actlon which do not necessarily appear ln sequential order.

The first phase ln the transltion usually involves beginnlng to provide

servlces to a token few of the rnlnority group. The baslc policy ln thls

phase 1s non-dlscriminati.on. As peop!.e questlon why there are not Dore

ulnorities in organizations, the response is usually "They IBlacks] are

not gualified" or "I.Ie do not discrlnlnate." The idea in this phase is

that ninorlty candidates w111 be treated fairly, but no speeial efforts
are needed to increase the number of candldates.

During the second phase, the number of mlnority group members served

lncreases from a token fewr. and targets based roughly on thelr nuruber ln

the available roarket area are establlshed.

The thlrd phase is characterlzed by pressure from the mlnorlty recip-

lents of the services to have their members provldlng the servlce, and leads

to the hirlng of mlnority staff nembers. In the U.S. experlence, boycotts

and Federal legislatlon were required to move organlzatfons tnto hlrlng

nembers of nlnorlty groups. Stratlfled htring and/or token hlring occur



3

durlng thls phase. Mlnorlties are hlred'lnto:menlal or low-leveI Jobs, or

a f ew t'su. per" ml-norlties (who have to .prof e.ss phlte values to be successful)

are hlred and displayed to demonstrate compliance to laws and uinorlty

Pressure.

Phase four requires four rnaJor changes: a change in the lnter-personal

cllraate such that minority group memberst unLque contrlbutlons are sought

and welconed; the sharing of declsion-naklng power r^rlth the urinorlty group;

the acceptance and afflrmatlon of pluralistlc or synerglstic-values

styles, and standards; the equitable distribution of opportunlties,

' resources, and beneflts; and flexlblllty ln lnstltutlonal policles and

practLces such that they are responsive to the nulticultural populatlon

and clientele of the lnstltution.
'' 

As an effort ln a fleld setting the project was subject to a vlgorous

envlronnent. Anong the intervening varlables which affected the project

were: more than usual turnover among staff; three dlfferent proJect

dl.rectors ln two years; fallure to appreciate t.he unique "outsider" role

staff would experience; crediblllty questions as to projectrs wlllingness

to cite organl.zatlonal shortcomlngs; resistance to the conceptual frame-

work and research deslgn arnong staff and particlpantsi the development of

data bases which were foreign to state B,overnment record-keeplng and

retrleval systems; tfure lags ln brlnglng staff on boardi f.ct of sufficlent

continuity wlth Affirmative Action committees; varying lnterpretation

about the role of the com.ittees in the overall roanagement structure

and so on.

Looking back on the original goals and outcomes we thought posslble

ls reveaLing ln several aspects, whlch the followlng chapters represent.

i
t

t.



Priuarlly as a result of rthe proJect, the quest.l.on of worklife quality is

,be1ng viewed.from-addltlonal pers,pectlves. Minoritles and rrouen have sald

that the publtc workplace ln North Carollna ls qualltatlvely different for

them. I'le have baseline data, enplrlcal data, and know more about lurple-

Denting an Afflrmatlve Action program, and elements of the procedures for

monltorlng the program.

Thls flnal report ls divlded lnto elght .sectlons. The unique role and

place of North Carolina as a 6tate ln the'southeast region is presented ln

thc SCCt1ON Iltlcd AN ECONOMIC A}iD SOCIAL PROFILE OF NORTH CAROLINA WITH

SPECIAL ATTENTION TO THE STATUS OF MINORITIES AND WOMEN. As a contextual

framework for thereader, eoployoent bases and patterns are provided along

wlth an overview of soclal responses to race and gender lssues. Followlng

the general descriptlon of North Carollna ls a brief sectlon on emplolnoent

trends and minority and female partlclpation ln state governnent ln the

secrlon rirled THE EXTENT 0F EMPIo)HENT pARITy (Tayar & Neely, lggo).

The orlginal conceptual franework'of the grant ls revlewed and the

lssue of polltical patronage lnterJected as a unlque access to employuent

variable. The Methods Sectlon descrlbes the tlro questlonnaLres (see

Appendix 2), the samples, r.eturn rates, and generallzabtllty of the results.

Methods are described along with a Corqnlttee Treatment Sectlon. The

original treatments and efflcacy of the com-lttee approach are reviewed

and problens encountered are dtscussed.

fn a separate section, the results from the two rnajor adnlnistrations

and comparlsons between control and experlmental dlvislons are presented.

In addltlon, a sectlon contrastlng the Department of Human Resources (DHR)

wlth the other.experlmental dlvlslons ls provided as a further elaboratlon

of the data.



A serles of brlef reports on recrultEoent, Job classLflcatlon, tralnlng,

the Afflrmatlve Actlon Divlslon, testtng, grievance proeedure, and ternlna-

tlon as they should functlon are provided, agaln as background for thls

Bupport on afflrmative actlon

Speclflc recomnendatlons for each dlvlslon along wlth general recommend-

atlons for state government are presented and dlscussed. Finally, future

research needs are ldentified.



NrMH 1R01 MH3C751-03
Neely F.R.

AN ECONOMIC A}ID SOCIAL PROFILE OF NORTH
CAROLINA WITH SPECIAL ATTENTION TO
THE STATUS OF MINORITIES A}ID I.'OMEN

As mentioned 1n the lntroductlon this sectlon ls offered as background

and context for the reader. While not anong the orlglnal obJectlves of the

study, thls qualt'tatlve analysis ls hopefully useful ln understandlng the

people and events of North Carollna.

The Economv

the United States. The state ls one of the top ten states ln industrlal

production, traillng only Texas among the Southern states.l 0ther statistlcs

tell a similar story, contradlctlng the popular viery of North Carolina as a

purely agrlcultural state. According to the categori.es used by the U.S.

Labor Department, North Carolina ls nunber one ln the natlon 1n the percentage

of operatives (except transport) in the labor force (2L.22), and second in

the proportlon of blue collar workers Ln the labor force (43.42 to l.Iesr

Vlrglnlats 46.37).2 fh. percent of all employuent conposed by uanuf.acturlug

Jobs ln North Carollna (377.) ls one and a half tlsres the percentage for the

U.S. as a whole (247).3

The leading nanufacturlng industries Ln the stateln l977rmeasured by

numbers of persons enployed, were textlles (2511147, or 33i( of. the lnsured

uanufacturing labor force), apparel (84,989 or Ll7. of the lnsured manufac-

turlng labor force), and furniture and flxtures (77.605 or 102 of the

lnsured nanufacturing labor force).4 These three labor-lntenslve predoml-

nantly lou-wage lndustrles together accounted for over one half (542) ot.

all roanufacturlng emplolment ln North Carolina 1n Lg77,5

NorthCaro11na@hepr1ncipa1nanufacturingstates1n

-..'.kq.sFGS.feAW-@fir,

Ii'



Neely F.R.

The tobaeeo lndustry occuples a unlgue posltl0n ln the staters
economy-. Although as a capltal lntenslve lndustry lt enpl0ys fewer (and

conslderably betrer pald) workers 1n uanufacturlng (25,150 ln 1977), than
textlles, apparel or furnlture, lt 1s second only to textiles ln the
value-added by manufacturing.6 thu importance of tobacco to the staters
agrlculture ls even greater: In 1977 the value of the tobacco crop exceeded
the value of all others conblned.T

North Carolina has the lowesr percentage of
state (LL.37. of al1 workers).8 The percentage of
Labor force 1s usually correlated posittvely with
and the 1eve1 of economic developnent.

The transltion from the farm to the factory and the office whlch has
been uncerway in the u.S. for more than a cenEury ls stl11 1n progress ln
North carolina' Between 1950 and 1975 the number of fanlly workers in
agriculture in North carclina ferl fron 4g5,ooo to 10g,ooo, ln effect to
about a flfth of lts prevlous level.9

' The smalr fanily farm r.s sti11 alrve ln North caroltna--kept arlve
Dostly by the federar tobacco prlce support program allotment system__but
agrlbusiness has been rapldly gaining ground. North carolrna has the
smallest average farm slze of any 

"a"t"10 but the number of farms feIl by
almost tso thirds between 1950 and 1977 and the average slze of faras about
doubled ln the same period, lndlcatlng increaslng concentration of farm
ownershlp' The ratlo of family to hlred workers on the faro ferl fron
4:5 ln 1950 to 1:8 ln 1975, evidence of the sane trend.I1

service workers of any

servl.ce workers in the

economlc diverslf icatlon



Neely F.R.

The attenpts by North Carollnals leaders to atEract 'lndustry to

lncrease the llving standards of the cltlzens of the state-attenpts whlch

have been underway ln one fashlon or another for several decades--have met

wlth ntxed results. Industry ln North Carollna has grown durlng thls

perlod, and 1lving standards have lncreased absolutely and relatlve to the

natlonal average. But per caplta lncome contl.nues to 1ag substantially

behlnd the nattonal average desplte one of the hlghest rates of partlclpation

ln the labor force 1n the'natlon. l{ages for factory workers are lower ln

North Carol.ina than in any other "t.t..12 Recent flgures suggest that

North Carolina has moved to a positlon of number ten ln a list of states

whlch have the lowest overall Lrages ln the Unlted States among eurployed

workers. North Carolina has proport.ionately the rnost factory workers of

any state, and among the poorest paid ones as weI1.

North Carollna ranked twelfth ln the natlon in the percentage of persons

llvlng below the poverty level (fn 1975) and fourth ln lnfant uortality,

lndlcating that a substantlal proportion of the statets populatlon live

under condltions of severe economic deprivatlo.,.13 Several studies have

concluded that the worklng poor constltute a large proportlon of the

population, lndicating that low wages rather than not working ls the naJor

factor contributlng to thls situatl.on.14 Characterlstlcally, North

Carolinars rate of unemplo)ment is below the natlonal average, whlch

relnforces this argument.15

Currently, plans for North Carollnars future developoent, under the

adnlnlstratlon of Democratlc Governor James B. Hunt, call for a "balanced

growth po1lcy" whlch seeks to encourage lndustrlal development ln snall

cltles and tor.ms outslde the rapldly growing Pledrnont reglon, contl.nued

'F Aar-r?,€-:-{ffiq< fil.ffi#a-!*!.f+ary



Neely F.R.

efforts to atEract lndustryr Partlcularly hlgher wage industry, to the statp
and to upgrade the skill ievels of the labor force on an area by area nego_
tlated basls.16 Wlth regard to the ,,balanced growth pollcyr,, critlcs charge
that lt ls essentlally a pollcy of geographical dlspersal of indusrries
rather than a comprehensive pollcy of balanced development whlch does not
address the baslc problem of low lrages and rnal' even rej.nforce the pattern
by encouraglng development in the areas of labor s,rrplrs.17 supporters argue
to the contrary' Efforts to attract hlgh wage lndustry to the state have
Det with moderate results, at best. From rg62 to 1g76 the proportl0n of
hlgh r.rage Jobs ln North Carolina grew froro 197. to 23,1. But because aost of
the galns lrere on the lower end of the hlgh wage category ,,the impact of
these new Jobs on the overall structure of Lrages has been co,.paratlvely' 56"11"'18 sor're feel that one factor which mlght llmit the growth of hlgh
wage Jobs ln North carolina ls the fact that an lmportant group of hlgh_
paying indusiries--those with a unlonized labor force--ls actually discour-
aged fron l0catlng ln the state.l9 The paradlgm of the ktnd of hlgh wage
Iniustry that the leaders of the state have sought ls the Research Trlangle
Park--a conplex of research and development facilltles for private lndustry
and government associated wlth the three maJor unlverslties in the area--
'wlth its largely whlte co11ar, non-unlon and reratlvely well pald labor
force.20 The Research Triangle, and the presence of the universlty of
North carollna at chaper Hll1, Duke universlty, North carolina State unlv-
erslty, North carolina central unlverslty and other colreges, glves the
Raleigh-Durhan-chapel Hilr area one of the hlghest proportlons of ph.D.s
per caplta of any area in the country, and lncludes perhaps the largest
concentratron of Blacks wlth rhe ph.D. But most of thls hlghly educated



Neely F.R. 10

labor force ls not home-grown but transplanted 'from other .states; its

presence ln North Carollna, however favorable, does not solve the basic

atructural probleros of the statets econouy nor those of the large number of

poor and near-poor workers In the state. Current proposals to expand

tralning in industrlal skllls are lntended to address those problens by

creatlng a large pool of skilled Labor uhlch 1t 1s hoped w111 attract

lndustry. An ftnportant questlon ls whether such proposals, couptred with

ot,her development, plans, will be adequate to overcome what nany have seen

as the baslc source of North Carolinars relatlvely disadvantaged economic

positlon: a self-perpetuatlng cycle ln whlch a low per caplta lncome leads

to lnadequate publlc and private flnances with which to support the infra-

6tructure (e.g. education, transportatlon) needed to sttract the hlgh-wage

lndustries needed to change the income structure of the state.21

Human Geography and Populatlon

North Caroll-na ls dlvided lnto three dlstinct geographlc regions wlth

slgniflcantly dlfferenE cultural, soclal and economlc features. These are

the Coastal PIains, the Pledmont and the Mountain reglon.

The Piednont regJ.on was the center of .North Carollna's industrialization

1n the 19th century; today lt remalns the Eost econonlcally developed regLon.

In 1975, annual per caplta lncome in the Pledmont was 91L of. the U.S. annual

per caplta lncome but lt was only 777! of. the natlonal average ln the

Mountaln reglon and 752 ln the C*"t.22

North Carollnafs pattern of human settlemenE - lncreaslngly urbsr but

composed of many relatively sma11 clusters (1ess than 100,000 people)

rather than one or a few large cltles - ts an unusual one. About two-thirds

of the siatets populatlon ls urban, but over half of these llve ln cltles



of less than 100,000 peopL".23 The

lndustrlal towrr and the small farm

Dentary pattern: one-thlrd of North
24

J oDs.

Neely F.R. 11

contlnued lnportahce of the suall

ln North Carolina represents a conple_

Carollnats faraers hold off-the-farn

North carollna ranked 1lth in popul.atlon ln the u.s.
tg78.25 ry rsSo the populatlon was expected ro reach 5.g

Dately i4z hlgher than ln 1970.25 such population growth

can be attrlbuted not only to natural lncrease but to net

among both l{hltes and nonwhltes, reverslng the establlshed

nlgrat1on.27

rn 1979, rlhltes composed 76.92 of the state's populatlon; nonwhites

composed 23.2% of the tot"l.28 The vast najorlty of these latter were

Blacks who alone composed 22.2'/. of the staters popuratlon (1 ,L26,47il.29
The only other nunerlcally slgnlficant raclal roinorlty ln the atate are
Aruerican rndians (liatlve Amerlcans) who composed slightly less than one

percent (44,406 or 0.97.) of the state's population ln 1970.30 The torals
for nlnorlties are llkely to be undercounted, so the actual percentages of
blacks and other nonwhltes are probably sonewhat higher than the flgures
reported above' some demographers and experts at the carolina populatlon

center estimate the nonwhlte population at twenty -six (267,, percent of the
tota1.

untl1 the 1970-1980 decade, the proportlon of nlnorltles in the popu-

latlon of the state had been decllning as a result of substantlal dlfferences
ln net nlgratlon rates between wlrites and ncnwhltes. In the 1g60-1970

decade, the Percentage of whltes Ln the populatlon rose from 71.62 to 76.g.1

as a result of a higher rate of cut-migratlon for nonwhltes.3l populatlon

wtth 5 ,577 ,000 ln

nlllion, approxl-

over the decade

ln-nigratlon

pattern of out-

I
I

I
I
I
I
t
i
I
:

,
I
t
t

,l
t
I



Neely F.R. t2

proJections lndlcate that no such change occurred ln the 1970-1980 decade.

Rather, a hlgher rate of whlte ln-rnlgratlon Lnto -the state Lras offset by

hlgher fert11lty rates among nonwhltes, leavlng the raclal conposltlon of

the state essentr.ally unchang"d.32

Nonwhltes are now represented aluost equally ln tretropolltan and non-

netropolitan areas of the state. Accordlng to proJectlons ln 1980 nonwhltes

are estlnaced to colDpose 22il of. the populatlon of Detropolltan areas of the

state. and 24lZ of the populatlon of non-netropolitrr, 
"r""".33

progressive and raclally tolerant states in the South. The 6tate has been

called an "lnsplring exception to southern raclsm."35 The unl.versity of

North Carollna ls consldered the South's best state unlverslty. The Unlver-

slty and lts presldent durlng the 1930s and 1940s,.Ilberal educaror Frank

Porter Graham, lrere 6een as proof of North Caroltnats leadershlp among the

Southern states ln soclal progress and raclal haracny. A clty ln North

Carollna--Greensboro--was the flrst ln the South to offlclally announce

lts lntention to conply with the 1954 Supreme Court declslon agatnst

schoor seBregatior.36

The extent to whlch the state's lmage ls conslstent lrlth reallty has

been questloned lnsistently ln recent years

It was ln Greensboro, North Caroltna, that ln 1950 the slt-ln trovenent

to protest segregated lunch counters began. And, throughout the 1960s

Greensboro renalned a center of Black actlvlsm and protest, a clear slgn

that all uas far from well ln North Carollna's race relatlons. A case

example (perhaps extrerne) of the gap between funage and reallty ln the

e $tatus of Minorlties in North Carollna: The State of Race Relatlons

North carolLna has had a long-standlng reputatlon as one of the nore



Neely F.R. 13

staters race relatlons Ls that of Greensboro itself, whlch, desplte belng

the flrst clty 1n the reglon to promlse conpllance wlth the 1954 desegrega-.

tlon ruling, 'rflna11y, ln 1971--seventeen years after the Brqm declslon--

Lntegrated lts pub1lc schools, beconi.ng one of the last cltles ln the

to comply with federal desegregatlon order".,,38

In more recent years several racially significant lssues arose ln North

South

Carollna which captured natlonal attent.lon, among.them:

-ttre .toan tlttte , whlch lnvolved the prosecution of a Black woman

for homlclde ln the stabbing death of a Whlte Jal1er. The defendant claimed

the Ja11er was attenptlng to rape her, as a result of whlch she stabbed him

ln self-defense. The trial was closely followed by borh civil rtghts and

femlnist groups and the case lnspired charges that, beyond the tssues of

thls partlcular case, the staters crlnlnal Justlce system was racist and

sexlst. The defendant ln the case was eventually acqultted, however.

, nlne black men and one white wotran

convlcted of arson and conspiracy to flre on pub1lc offlcers in connectlon

wlth raclal dlsturbances whlch occurred ln that city Ln 1971, also raised

charges of ractally biased Justlce. The controversy led to an lnvestigatlon

by the U.S. Department of Justice, whlch essentlally supported those who

questloned the Justlce of the proceedings. Calls for Governor Hunt to lssue

a pardon were bolstered by the recantatlon of key wltnesses and evldence

that some r+ltnesses had been promlsed favors 1n exchange for their testimony.

The Governor chose not to pardon the defendants. Instead he went on state-

wide televlslon, defended the state agalnst charges of racism, reafflrmed

hls confidence ln the courts and ihe crlminal Justlce syslem, but decided

to reduce the sentence of each of the convicted men, rnaklng them all



Neely F.R. 14

except the Reverend Ben Chavls el1gtb1e f'or parole wlthln a few roonths. All

rere eventually released wlthln a year of the Governorrs speech. In the

oplnlon of some, the Governorrs actlons defused the lssue wlthout admlttlng

any lnJustlce on the part of the Staters crl.alnal Justlce systeu

-The November 2. 1979 rnur.der of fLve persons enqaged ln an antl-Ku Klux

Klan demonstration ln Greensboro, North Carollna by self-descrlbed members

of the Klan and the Amerlcan NazL Party. The flve, three White Anglo uen,

a Black uoman and a Hlspanic man, were menbers or supporters of the

Coronunlst Workerrs Party, whlch had been engaged ln a vocal campaign

against the Ku KIux Klan. The Eassacre underscored the continued existence

. of vlolent racist rightwing groups ln the state. Questlons have also been

raised about the actions of the Greensboro poli.ce; the possiblllty that

the police colluded with the attackers, or at least neglected their duty

to protect a lega1 demonstration, has been raised. An investlgatlon by the

U.S. Justlce Department ls being conducted. The trlal of six defendants

charged ln the muders began June 16, 1980. On the same day flve of the

anti-Klan demonstrators were also arraigned, charged with several felonles

ln connectlon wlth the same incident. Attenpts by the Greensboro clty

offlclals to prevent the deruonstration which took place February 2, 1980

to protest the murder and support the trovement for ctvil and human rlghts,

and the prosecutlon of flve Corcnunlst Workerrs farty members and supporters

on felony counts, have prourpted renewed charges of unequal protectlon under

the l'aw, political persecutlon and patent lrr1ustlce.39

-The lone battle wased bv the Department of Health, Educatlon and

Erlfare to force the Unlversity of North Caroll-na system to agree to

Lntegrate lts campuses. The U.S. Department of H.E.l.l. contends that not



Neely F.R.

enough has becn done to upgrade the physlcal plant and acadealc prograns at
the flve predonLnantly Black campuses ln the slxteen catrpus Bystem--winston-
salen state' Elizabeth clty state' Fayettevllle state, North carollna central
unlverslty' and North carolina A&T--ln order to brlng them up to the 1eve, of
the predoninantly l+,hlte catrpuses, and thereby attract more students,
lncluding whlte students' to these 

'egregated canpuses. The unlverslty of
North carolina Board of Governors contends that slnce the systen was restruc-
tured ln L972 more lnprovements have been nade at these campuses than ever
before' Yet ln recent years two aaJor new professLonal schoors have been
approved whlle none have been approved for Black carnpuses. These are a
51'2 rol1llon dollar new medlcal school at East carollna unlverslty, approved
desplte some evidence that the facllity was not needed, and a 9.2nlIIion

' dollar veterlnary school at North carollna state unlverstty. These expendl-
tures, along with approximately $40 uilllon in ald glven to North
carolLna students attendlng prlvate co11eges, represent $100 nllllon that
has gone to Predomlnantly white catrpuses in recent years. The declsl.ons
to a110cate Eoney and programs in thls way result, ln great part, from a
hlghly charged polrtlcal process, r.n which Blacks are grossly under_
represented ' The uNc Board of Governors whlch adminlsters the systetr
I's selected by the North carollna General Asseurbly. The selectlon process
lnvolves heated Po11tlca1 battles and ls conducted on the basls of secret
ballots whlch are destroyed as soon as they are counted. The resurt 1s
a governlng board whrch ls "a refrectlon of the politlcal power base of
the state: whlte ma1e, above average income and lnfluence, and representr.ng,
r''lth few exceptlons, the btg buslness, anti-unron approach to dolng
thlngs. "40

15



Neely F.R. 16

In the North Carollna prloraty electlons of May 6, 1980, an avowed raclst

and Nazl leader, Harold Covlngton, obtatned 56,000 votes, 437, of the total,

ln the race for the Republlcan nomlnatlon for staters altorney general.

Covlngton had been repeatedly dlsavowed by Republlcan leaders ln the state

before the electlon; ln the wake of hls strong showJ.ng they blaned nedia

attentlon and voter lgnorance and confuslon for the outcome. Yet uany ln

the state also believe that the vote, comlng only fLve months after the

Nazi-Klan attack ln a desronstratlon tn Greensboro in which flve protesters

were klI1ed, ls lndlcatlve of rlghtr.'lng and extreme raclst sentiments among

. 80me Eectors of the electorate.

Soclal and Economlc Status of Ilnorltles ln North Carollna

As elsewhere ln the U.S., nonwhltes on the average earn less, are less

'uell educated, less 1lkely to have professlonal or managerial jobs, and

srore llkely to be slck, uneroployed or ln prison than the rest of the popula-

tlon. Moreover, ln several areas the socioeconoroLc gap between Whites and

mlnorltles ls even greater ln North Carollna than ln the country as a whole.

Flnally, and signlfLcantly, sorue general characterlstlcs of the state, such

as the statets relatLvely undeveloped economy and lts harsh penal system,

lmpose particularly heavy burdens on nlnorltles ln the state.

In effect, North Carollna has the lowest factory wages ln the country,

the nlnth lowest per capita incone l-n the nation, the twelfth hlghest

percentage of the population lLving below the poverty line, the fourth

highest rate of lnfant nortallty, and ihe very hlghest rate of incarcera-

tlon which adversely affects mlnorltles more than others ln the populatlon.

In North Carollna ln 1975, medlan family income for Blacks was $7354,

or 502 of Whlte nedlan famlly lncome (512,287) ln the state. In the U.S.

as a whole, medlan famlly lncome for Blacks was $9045, or 627. of che median



Neely F.R. t7

for white fanllles ($tq,664).'The conblned effects of the general dlfferences
ln Black and whlte.famlLy tncomes, the.greater raclal gap in thls socloecononic
varlable ln North caroIlna, and the louer medlan lncome for all races in
North carollnarcan be seen by comparl.ng the uredlan fanlly lncomes of Blacks
ln North Carollna and ln the U.S. as a whole. The medlan fanily income of
Black North carollna famllies ln 1975 was only barely above one-harf the u.S.
uredlan for all races ($7354; $141094 = .52), whl1e Black family lncone in
the u'S' as a whole was alnost tlro-thlrds of the u.s. nedlan for all races
($9045; S14'094 = 647')' rn doIIar terns, the gap between Black median family
lncome and the u's. medlan lncome for all races was 91691 greater for Black
North carollna fanllies than for alr Black families ln the u.s.41

The percentage of ai1 workers employed ln the categ crrles of professional
or technlcal workers and tranagers and admlnj.strators (except farm) combined

I's lower in North carorina (g.g7.) rhan tn Misslsslppl (ro.gz) ana exceeds

that of only three srares: Alabama (g.3"1), Arkansas (7.52), and South

carollna (6-L7.);42 The percenrage of all Black workers falling ln the pro-
fesslonal and technical category ls lover ln North caroltna (7.22) than Ln

any other state except Arkansas (6.77.) and south carollna (4.g2,). By compari-
son, ln Californla, the percentage of all Black workers ln the professlonal-
technical classlflcation 1s 16.52 and 24.27. when managers and adnlnlstrators
are added. rn New york the comparable percentages are L4.6"1 and 2lr.l.l,
whl1e tn Michigan they are 11.32 and L6z. rn Norrh carollna, whlres are
approxlmately tlro and a half ttmes (2.46 tlmes) nore llkely to hold
professlonal, technical' nanagerlal or adninistratlve posltlons than are
Bracks, a flgure not markedly lower than that in,Mlsslssippl (2.61 tlnes)
and Alabarna (2.89 ttmes), but conslderably lower than that for South



Neely F.R.

Carollna (4.02 tlnes). In couparison, the dlsparltles 1n Callfornla (1.23

tLnes), Mlchlgan (1.52 tlmes), and New York (1.40 tlnes) are conslderably

enaller. In sum, the 1ow percentage of Blacks ln these relatlvely hlgher

status occupatlonal classlflcatlons ln North Carollna can be analyzed as a

comblnatlon of three factors: the underrepresentatlon of B1acks ln these

occupatlonal categorles ln the U.S. as a who1e, the dlsproportlonately

large underrepresentatlon of B1acks ln these occupatlons ln Southern 6tate

1lke North Carolina, and the lower percentage of all Jobs ln these classi-

f lcatlons in North Caroll-na.43

In contrast, ln North Carollna, BLack workers are :nore llkely to work

at blue co11ar Jobs (50.7"A of all workers) than tn any other 6tate ln the

Unlon, except South Carolina (557. of. all worker").44 The inportance of this

fact ls twofold. In the U.S., blue collar Jobs on the average pay less

than whlte collar Jobs; 1n North Carollna the earnl-ngs gap between whlte

collar and blue collar Jobs ls partlcularly 1.rg".45 Thus, Blacks Ln North

Carollna are concentrated ln Jobs whlch are nationally less well compensated

than whlte collar Jobs; Ln North Carollna these Jobs are partlcularly poorly

compensated. The net result ls a vsry large number of working poor or

near poor ln North Carollna. . .;.

Educational attalnment for Blacks contl.nues to be lower than for Wtrltes.

In 1970, l9Z of Whltes had four years of college or trore whlle only 82 of

Blacks had that much educatlon. On the other hand, 547i of, Blacks had not

conpleted hlgh school whlle 332 of. Whltes had less than a hlgh school

ed,r"atlon.46

Black students have been more

test, whlch has been lnstltuted ln

llkely to .fa11 the hlgh school competency

recent years, than t"'hltes.47 Thls no



\

t

Neely F.R. 19

doubt adversely affects future occupatlonal and educatlonal opportunttles
for these students' rn the Fa1l of 1978 when the competency test was flrst
adminlstered to the staters l1th graders, only 4z of. whltes fal1ed the
reading test while 257" of Blacks falled; the marhematics tesr was failed
by 77. of Whltes and,34Z of Blacks. After reresring those who fa11ed in'the Fall' the disparlties stl1l were presenr: 2z of wtrltes and 152 of
Blacks did not pass the readlng part elther tlme ; 3z of. g,hltes and 2oz of.
Blacks falled the math part both tlres.48 The legacy of a segregated
school systenn can stIl1 be seen, not only ln the publlc schools, but in
higher educatlon as we11. No predomlnantly whlte state unlverslty or
college has as many as L2z Btaeks tn 1ts student body; no predomlnantly
Black school has as many as 132 whlte students. The Dost lnteBrated campus
ls that of pembroke State universlty 1n Robeson county, and 1t 1s a speclal
case, having started as an Indlan normal school. In the Fa1l of 1919,
thls campus had 65.72 Lhlte srudents, 1l.2z Blacks and 23.12 orhers,
aloost all Indlar,".49 

!

The facts should not be construed as denylng or minlmizr.ng the real
accompllshments of the Black people of North carolina, nor the courage of
thelr long struggle for dlgnity and equallty. rn the face of ex treme
adversity, lnstltutlonallzed inJustlce, and even terror, Black workers,
farmers, professlonars and educators built strong fanllies, comnunltles,
churches and educationaL lnstltutlcns. Before the clvil rlghts moven.,enE,

Bracks ln North carolrna fought for sheer surv'val and alternatery
haneuvered and pushed for advancement wlthln the narrow boundarles that
existed for such actlons under the prevalllng racial system. And .when

Black people ar1 over the South rose up to charlenge segregatlon and the



Neely F.R. 20

systematlc vlolatlon of clvll rlghts, North Carolina Blacks played promJ.nent

roles. Nor do these facts presented here lmply that no changes have taken

place ln the course of the last twenty-flve years, although lt should be

noted as the hlstorlan Wi11lan H. Chafe has polnted out, that: t'The surge

for racial Justice 1n North Carollna came not from the Clty Hall 1n Greens-

boro nor from the State Capltal ln Ralelgh, tt emerged frosr a thousand

atreets in a hundred tor"rrs where Black people, young and old, acted to

reallze theLr vislon of'Justlce long deferred."59

Indlans in North Carollna:

The only sizable uinorlty group 1n the state beside Blacks ls composed

of Anerlcan Indlans, who make up slightly less than L7. of. the populatlon.

Of the flve Indian tribes ln the state only the Cherokee ls recognlzed by

the federal government; the Lumbees, Waccamaw-Soluan, the Halawl-Saponi and

the Coharlle are only recognlzed by the state goverruaent. Anong the five,

the Lunbees, Bost of whosr 1lve ln Robeson County, are by far the largest

group, wlth sorue estLmates placing thelr number at around 40rOOO.60

The Indian populatlon of North Carolina ls approx!.nately as under-

prlvlleged as the Black populatlon, Judging by socioeconomlc and health

status lndicators. Accordlng to a June 1979 report of the Publlc Health

Btatistlcs branch of the State Government, thls ls how Indlans compared

wlth Whites and Blacks on some lndicators of general well-b"lrrg:61

(See Tab1e 1, next page.)



TAsLE 1

Health Status of
Carollna by Race

Whltes

Populatlon of

Blacks

Neely F.R. 2L

Indlans

Soclo-Economlc and
North

Percent of famllles livlng beLow
poverty level 1970

Percent of persons 25-p1us to conplete
hlgh school or more, 1970

Percent of households livlng 1n
orrner-occupled unlt, 1970

Fetal death rares L973-L977

Neonatal death rates Lg73-1977

Postneonatal death rates 1973-L977

, Median age at death, 1977 Men

Women

Percent falllng High School
Competency Test on flrst try Readlng
Fall 1978b . Marh

a. Includes Indians and other races;
b. 'See 

Footnote 48 for the source.

425
734

Indlans constltute 887. of

11

42

39

23

46

19 .5

18.4

8.7

62.L

67 .1b .

38a.

27a.

49a.

L2.9

13.1

10.

54.6

63 .8

2L
28

this group.

66

10.7

11.4

3.9

66.9

7 5.3

The vast roaJorrty of North carollna rndlans are not eIlgible for
benefits that the federal government provldes for recognlzed tribes. The

reasons for nonrecognltl.on of the Lurnbees and other North Caroltna trl.bes
have hlstorlcal roots;62 r.r,y also believe that, the reLuctance to extend

recognltlon reflects the federal go/ernmentrs desire to avoid the addltlonal
exPense thls would entall. While many Intllans would like to 6ee a change



Neely F.R. 22

ln thls pollcy, fm.reasons of prlnclple as uel1 as needr lt ls also argued,

ac least for the Lumbees, that the fact that they Lrere never t,wards of the

6taterr had soue favorable consequences. Dlal and Eliades have wrltten that

'TJhen compar'ed wlth other Indlan trlbes throughout the country, the Lumbee

rate at the top of the scale polltically, soclally and economlcally. Few

lf any trlbes can point to as nuch polltical lnvolvement on the local, state

and natlonal levels as the Lumbees, nor to as nany college graduates, or as

many ecoiromlcally lndependent Indlan cltl.zens. The Lumbees, desplte the

nany problems of the past and present, know that they are relatlvely
fortunate, and credlt much of thelr success to thelr havlng never been

wards of the government, as well as to thelr fertlle, well watered fields,
trhich have glven them an economic base seldom found among other tribes.,,63

It should be repeated that, although nany Lumbees are Justiflably proud of

such accompllshnents ln the face of oppression and discrimination, their

Present situatlon ls favorable only when compared with the desperate condi-

tlon'of rnost other Arnerlcan Indlan groups on the United States today. And,

tn the clloate of enhanced ethnlc--lncludlng Indian--consciousness sLnce

the 1960s, the Lumbees, wlthout an Indlan language or religious tradition

to clearly define thelr ldentlty, face an even urore acute challenge than

other Indians in assertlng their exlstence as a people ln contemporary

Aner lca.

Iealth Status

The health starus

less satisfactory than

of the Black populatlon of the state is considerably

that of the White populatlon. The average lnfant



Neely F.R. 23

uortallty rate $ntrrg nonwhltes ln North carollna ln the perlod lg74-Lg7g

vas 24'8 (deaths Per 1000 llve blrths), 1.73 rlmes hlgher than anong whltes
(14'3)' rn 1978, the latest year for whlch we have detailed data, the gap

rras actually somewhat higher (23.9 for nonwhlres and 13.1 for l{hlres _

1'86 ratlo), although the rates lrere lower for both races than the average

over the five year period.50 The raclal dlsparlty 1n lnfant roortarlty
rates ls not unigue to North carolina, of course, but exlsts ln the Unlted
States as a whole and.Ls related to general economlc and socla1 inequalitles
between whltes and Blacks. For the speclflc case of North caroltna, the
Raleigh "News and observer" recently reported that: ,,The root cause of the
staters hlgh lnfant death rate ls the exlstence of lsolated pockets of

Psverty in far Eastern and Western North Carolina countlesr, according to

Dr. carlyle M. crenshaw, Jr., co-dlrector of the dlvrslon of perlnatal
nedlcine at Duke Unlversity. The low socloeconomlc level ln these areas

often means Poor nutrltlon for the nother, 1ittle access to health servlces
before a baby ls born, and a high percentage of women who becoure mothers

whl1e stlll ln theLr teens. . .51 These,lsolated pockets of povertyr,,
particularly the ones in the East, include a large proportlon of Bl_acks.

other health statl-stlcs are conslstent with those for lnfant nortality
rrith regard to racial dlsparltles. For example, the rate of verifled
tuberculosls cases per 1001000 In the populatlon ln North carolina tn Ig77

uas 9'a rot llhltes and 48.8 for nonwhltes. other lnfectlous dlseases show

a slnllar pattern.52 A greater percentage of nonwhites also suffer from
chronic dlseases: a recent study found 77.1 chronlc dlseases per roorooo Black
a<iulrs compared to 53.g anong Whlte adults.53



Neely F.R. 24

The health status of the Black pcpulatlon of North Carollna is a

functlon of a complex lnteractlon of factors lncludlng the disadvantaged

economlc and soclal status of the populatlon, lnadequate nutrltion and health

educatlon, the lneffectlveness of the systeu of publlc health, and the

lnaccesslblllty of nedical care, auong others. Governnent assistance programs

have clearly not ellnlnated the lnfluerce of econoolc and racial factors on

health status, even ln the area of'access to nedlcal care. A L977 study,

for example, found that ln one year, one guarter (24.87.) of Blacks ln the

sanple and s1lght1y over crne-flfrh of Whltes (20.87,) had falled to seek

uedical care when 1n need because of the "*r"*..54
Uneoployment among nonwhltes ln North Carollna Ls uore than twlce that

atrong Whltes. In L977, unemployment averaged 4.72 aaong l.Ihites and 10.72

ancng nonwhites, accordlng to U.S. Labor Departaent statlstics.55 goth

flgures were substantlally below the natlonal averages of 6.2 for l^lhites

and 13.0 for nonwhltes, although the ratlo of Black unenployurent to White

uneurployment was somewhat hlgher ln North Carollna (2.3) than for the U.S.

(2.1) It should be noted that the rate of Black unemploynent ln North

Carollna ln 1977--a year ln whlch the economy hras already recovering fron

the 1974-75 recesslon--although 2.32 lower than the natlonal average' was

substantlally higher than that whlch would be consldered characterlstic of

a serlous recessl.on lf experlenced by the labor force as a whole. Moreover,

there 1s some evidence that these figures are serious underestfuates of

true un@ployment rates for Blacks. AccordLng to the North Carollna

cltlzen survey tn 1977, when dlscouraged Job seekers are counted along wlth

those actlvely seektng work, 4,91 of. Whltes and I4Z of Blacks uere unem-

ployed, a Black-l.lhlte unernployrnent raElo of. 2.956

\

I
(
I

t
I



Neely F.R. 24 a.

By 1978, wlth the contlnuing recovery, the unemproyurent rate ln North
carolina had dropped to 3.r7. fot whites and to 9.oz for nonwhltes by u.s.
Labor Department estlmates. rt should be noted that the rate of whlte
unemployurent decreased much more steeplry (342) than the rate of Black unen-
ployment (L67") between L977 and Lg78.57 Thts tnplles that at least thro.rgh

1978' Blacks 1n North carolina dld not partlclpate fully--in tertrs of
errplol'nent--ln the economic recovery. Thls pattern does not aeem to be

unique to North carollna, hor"r"r.58 But it nevertheress lnplies a ratio
of Black to lrrhite unenployrnent of 2.9 ln 1978 ln the state, before taklng
lnto account discouraged Jobseekers.

surmary, lt can be said that Black unernployment in North Carollna,
arthough lower than the natlonal average of Black unemployment, stands at
recesslon-like leve1s even durlng perlods of economic expansion. The rate
of Black uneuployment 1s between two and three tlmes (closer to three)
that of whlte unenplolment. Flnally, the enoplolment effects of the tg74-
1975 recession contlnued to be felt by Blacks lnto the late 1970s, even

as whlte unenploy'urent feII rapidly. Thls last polnt is of partlcular
concern for 1t rneans that Black unernploynent ln the state already stood

et a relatlvely high leve1 as the natlonal econony slowed down 1n 1979

and entered a recesslon 1n I9g0.

Some Populatlons Lrlth Speclal problems:
lliRrant and Seasonal Farmworkers

North Carollnars agrlculture eraploys a large number of nlgrant and

seasonal farmworkers to harvest the farm products--tobacco, vegetables and

apples especially--whlch are vltal to the state's economy. But the wealth
that tobacco'and otllcr crops bring to the state are not reflected in the



Nee1y, F.R.

rHE NEED FOR EMPLOTMENT PARITY FOR }IINORITIES AND WOMEN

IN NORTH'CAROLINA STATE GOVERNMENT

In order to evaluate the positlon of ulnoritles and.women ln North

Carollna State Government, lt is useful to assess thelr overall represen-

tatlon ln state government as lt compares wlth thelr availabllity 1n the

local' labor force, thelr dlstrlbutlon in the state government departments,

and thelr dlstributlon among the Federal EEO Job categorles. This paper

expl.ores the lssues of representational parlty, occupational segregatlon

and patterns of rank segregation, utlllzlng an lndex of dlsslnllarlty.

Representational Parltv

, Tables 3 and 4 show the number (and percentages) of Elnorltles and

women in the 1oca1 labor force, and ln North CarolLna State goverruDent.

The parlty lndex for a given group ls the percentage of that group repre-

sented ln state government, dlvided by the percentage of that group repre-

sented I'n the local labor force. Table 5 presents a parlty index for race

and sex SrouPs ln state government fron 1976 to tglg. This parlty lndex

was computed by dlvldlng the percentage of (e.g.) white males Ln state

Sovernment by the Percentage of white raaLes 1n the loca1 labor force.

Thus a parity lndex of 1.0 means that whlte males are found ln state govern-

Eent (or ln a Partlcular Job category, as ln Table 6) at exactly the same

ProPortlon as. ln the overall labor force ln the area. An lndex of .5 means

that they are found only half as often, while an lndex of 2.0 would lndicare

that they are found twlce as often as r.n the local labor force.l

Data ln Table 5 lndlcate that while females and Blacks are underrepre-

eented ln state goverruDent (a parlty lndex of .84 for tonen, .90 for Blacks

48

f

t
r
t
I
i



Table 3.

HEN

WOMEN

TOTALS

1"!oI Force by Sex and Mlnorlty Sratus _
."1)

Blacks Other Minorlties

L0.87:
(N=27,650)

tL.5%
(N=29,400)

22.37.
(N=5 7 ,050)

o.37"
(N=360)

0.17.
(N=350)

0.47"
(!l=1,040)

I.Jhltes

44.9.t
(N=114.750)

32.42
(N=82,960)

77.3i(
(n=t97,7L0)

Neely, F.R. 49

Total

55.97"
(N=143,090)

44./.
(N=112 r 710)

L007"
(N=255,800)

Table 4. permanent,

UEN

I.IO}(EN

TOTALS

ExcLud

Blacks

LL"I
5,384

9'l
4,396

207.
9,770

I.Ihltes

5L.3.1
25,013

27.97"
13,545

7g"l
38,559

Government

Total

62.97"
30,701

37.L'l
18,101

1007"
48,902

._1"11 Tlne Enployees, North CarolLna Srate'Universities) July 1, LgTg

Other Mlnoritles

0.67.
304

0.3"1
169

1.0"1
473

ln 1979), their proporrions have lncreased s1lghtly since Lgr6. Ttre galn
for Blacks has been nore noticeabre than the one for women. The total
nrtrn$g3 of ernployees was 45rg47 in Decemb er, L976. rt lncreased to 4gr2l5
ln October of 1979, and 49,g54 ln July, LgTg

Table 6 shows ln greater detall the types of Jobs in which women and

rnlnorlties are rDost apt to be found, and lndrcates any changes that have
occurred ln this dlstrlbution slnce December :,tgl6. I.Jhlte uales are sti1l
heavlly overrePresented I'n the category of offlctals and admlnlstrators
(a partty ratlo of 1.68 1n lgTg), alrhough there has been some reduction



Neely, F.R. 50

Table 5. Parlty Representatlon of l.ttrlte Males, Females, and Blacks
ln North Carollna State Government

December 1976

Whlte Total Total
Males Females Blacks

I{hlte Total Total
Hales Females Blacks

Whlte Total Total
Males Females Blacks

1.20 .82 .81 1.15 .84 .85 1.14 .84 .90

(Proportlonate representatlon of Blacks and fernaLes ln North Carollna
State Boverrfient, conpared wlth thelr avallablllty 1n the Durharn/Wake
County/Orange SMSA labor force)

slnce the 1976 flgure of 1.85. Womenrs parlty ratlo ln thls category has

lncreased from .32 to .44, and whlle the ratlo for Blacks has also

lncreased, there ls sti1l less than a thlrd as Eany Blaek officials and

administrators in state governtrent as Black rrorkers 1n the 1ocal labor

force.

In the professlonal category, l,ltrlte males are once agaln overrepre-

sented. Women are somewhat underrepresented, but agaln, Blacks are Dost

serlously underrepresented.

I,louen and BLacks are overrepresented ln the technj.clan category and

the pattern suggests that this concentration w111 continue to Lncrease.

Paraprofesslonals show an lncreasLng proportlon of Blacks, who were already

overrepresented ln 1975. Women, however, are very close to a parlty posl-

tlon ln the paraprofesslonal category.

'Protectlve servlce has been an area ln whlch there are very few women.

I{hlte males are overrepresented, and the representatlon of Blacks, whlle

less than parlty, shows an l-ncrease between 1976 and 1979.

Sktlled craft Jobs go oalnly to llhlte roales. Women are conslstently

and narkedly underrepresented, and Blacks, although not as narkedly under-



Neely, F.R. 51

represented as rromen, are nevertheless very conslstently underrepresented
over the three year perlod.

There has been eome lncrease

Jobs slnce L976, alrhough they are

ln the overall loca1 labor force.

represented Ln €he clerical area.

cal workers are twlce as 1lke1y to

as a whole.

ln the number of Blacks 1n clerlcal
stlll at slx-tenths thelr proportlon

lJooen are, and contlnue to be, over_

North Carollna State goverorDent cleri_
be fenale as ls the 1ocal labor force

Blacks continue to be heavlly overrepresented eraoDg servlce and

maintenance personnel. I,Jtrlte males are approxlnately at parlty wlth their
percentage dlstrlbutlon ln the populatlon. women, agaln, are underrepre_
sented conslstently over the three year period.

rn suunary, there are clusters of Jobs for whlch nlnoritles are
approaching parlty and others 1n which changes are toward further concen-
tratlon or underutillzatlon. The Job categorles ln whlch wonen seen to
have made strl-des toward parity wlth the local labor force aval1abl1ity
are (a) professlonals (sllght galn, .80 to.84), (b) offlclals and admini-
atrators (larger galn, frou .32 to .44), and (c) paraprofessr.onars (now

at vlrtuar parlty, .99). Job categorles in uhich the dlrection of change

has been away from parlty (either towards increaslng concentratlon or
underurilizatlon), are (a) techniclans (1.0 to l.09), (b) skilled crafr
(.18 to.11), (c) service and maintenance (.59 to.56), and (d) offlce
and clerical (1'41 to 1.97). The protectlve servlce category has renalned
remarkably stable wlth very few females (.Og).

For Blacksr noderate gains have been made toward parlty ln the cate-
gorles of offlcials and adrninlstrarors (.tg to .29), clerlcal (.49 to .60)
and protectlve servlces (.5g to .g5). Sma11 galns have been rnade ln the

I

t

l



Neely, F.R. 52

. Professlonal and the skilled craft categorles. Movement away from parlty

1s eeen ln the technicl.an category (1.30 to 1.52), and nnroDg paraprofes-

slonals (1.57 to 1.70). Serrrlce and nalntenance has remalned falrly
stable, at a falrly hlgh degree of concentratlon of ulnorltles (1.84 to

1.86). In addltlon to the parity lndex, a complementary lndex of segre-

gatl.on was developed and ls presented ln the followlng sectlon.

OccuPatlonal Seg:'egrtlot

A measure of occupatlonal Begregation hras enployed as wel1. In order

to sunrmarlze the aggregate anounts of segregatlon of Blacks and wooen by

' the Federal EEO Job categories, Tables 6 and 7 show the percentage dlstrl-

butlons of workers ln the Federal EEO Job categorles ln North Carolina

state government. By suurning up the absolute dlfferences between the
I

Percentage of Blacks and the percentage of l.thites ln each Job category,

and divldlng the resultlng sum by t!ro, one obtalns an lndex of dlsslnl-

larlty, or an lndex of segregation (Gross, 1968). Thls flgure can be

lnterpreted as the percentage of Blacks (or Whites) who would have to

chahge Job categorles 1n order for the races to be dlstrlbuted ln the

8ameProPort1ons1ntheFedera1EEoJobcategor1es.0rtecanconc1ude

from the data presented ln'these tables that about 327, of elther Whltes

or Blacks would have to change Job categorles, as of August, L979, for

thelr dlstrlbutlon to be equlvalent. Table 9 shows thls lndex of segre-

gatlon by race has decreased somewhat slnce Decenber of. 1976, although the

decrease ls snall. Table 8 shows that Job segregatlon by sex ls more

Pronounced than by race (and actually lncreased, accordlng to Table 9)

from December of 1976 to July of tglg, Black worDen and Whlte erolren are

dlstrlbuted throughout the Job structure nore slml1ar1y to each other than

to males of elther race.



Table 6.

Jo-b .Categorv

Officlals and
Adolnistrators

Professlonals

fechn lclans

Protectlve
Servlce

.. Paraprofesslonals

Offlce and
Clerlcal

Skilled
,Craf t

Service and
Halntenance

fnvaltd Job
Category

Totals

SEGREC'ATION BY RACE IN EEDERAT 
-EEO JOB CETEGORIESry

Percent of
8lacks

l.3Z

12.32

27.o2

Lo.62

6.gz

11.32

g.lz

2l.gz

o.7Z

--_100.02

Perceut of
Uhltes

4.gz

25.42

13.22

Ll,4Z

2.72

18.32

15.12

7,62

1.32

100.02

Neely, F.R. 53

3.5I

13.lz

13.gr

. 0.gz

4.22

7.02

7.oz

14,32

o.6Z

64.32
Index of. Segregation - 64.3

2 - 32.15

f:3:'1,":;""jl"r?, of elrher t,hlre emproyees
i.". r y 

-",1:; ":;"i ;:, : ::;rff; T. f':" l:*i:i:
black enployees uould
be dlstrlbuted equlva_

or
to

Abcolute



Nee1y, F.R. 54 I
i

t
I

SEGREGATIO}i BY SEX IN FEDERAL EEO.NORTH CAROLINA

Job CateRory

Off lclals .and
Ldolnlstrators

Profes s lonals

Techniclans

Protectlve
Servl.ce

Parapro fesslonale

Offlce and
Cl er1cal

Sktlled
Craft

Servlce and
Halntenance

Invalld Job
Cacegory

Totals

Percent of
Males

5.22

22.92

.13.22

L7.2-l

3.27

3.62

20.72

L2.62

l.4Z

100.02

Perceat of
Females

2.22

22.72

20:62

l.lz
4.32

39.42

l. gz

7.lz

0. gz

-

100.02

Abrolute
glftere"ce

3.02

o.2Z

7.47

15. lz

l.1Z

35.9:

18. gz

5.5U

0.52

-

8b.52

Index of Segregatlon - 88.5
TI 44.25

Approxlura tely 442 of elther oale or
:-!.ne:. Job categorles for tfr. ser(esover the Federal EEO Job ""r"eorf"".

feaale euployeee
to be dlst,rl.bured

would have to
equlvaleatly

Table 7.
JOB CATEGORIES

I



Neely, F.R. 55

Decenber 1975 Ocrober 1978

tJhlte Total Total tftrlte TotalHales Fernales Blacks Hales Females

Julv 1979

lfhlre Total ToraI
llales Females Blacks

T<l ta I

l)fficlals
and Ad-
nlnl st ra tors

l. g5 .32 .19 1.71 .43 .27 I .68 .44 .29

Table 8.

Pro fes-
s lonal s l, 3r .80 .45 r.29 .82 .45 L.27 .84 .49

l'ec hn ic 1a n s .96 1.00 1.30 .85 1. 09 1.49 .85 1.09 1.52

Protect lve
Servlce 1.8 7 .07 .58 1. 78 .o7 .81 L.74 .08 .85

Parapro-
fessionals .78 l. tr 1. 57 .80 1. 02 1.61 .78 .99 1.70

0ff ice and
Cler ica I .76 l.4r .49 .27 1.95 .54 .25 l. g7 .60

Sk il led
Crafr 1.87 .19 .49 1. 92 .11 ,49 1.gg .11 .52

Service 6
lrarnten-
ance

l.o2 .59 ,. t: 1.02 .57 1.84 1.02 .56 1.86

This parlty lndex is obtalned by. divldtng the percentage of rrorkers in acateEory by thelr overall availablllry fi tfr" i,rrtaa,/Orange/tlake SHSA laborforce' 'A parlty lndex of 1.0 r-'ould tndlcate that porkers-ln thls categ,oryare found in the same proportion as in the local labor for"u. A parlty indexof 2'o .rould lndicat" itt"t 
" gtoup of r.rorkers ere found in thrs Job categorytuice as ofren as 1n the rocai'raLor force r;; urhole. A parlty lndex of..5

;::::. 
lndlcate rhar they are found onry half as ofren as la the rocal labor



Neely, F.R. 55

Table 9.

Date

December, L976

June, 1977

June, 1978

June, 1979

Job Segregatlon
North Carollna
December, L976 to June. L979

ln EEO Job Categorles by Race and Sex
State Government Employees

Index of Segregatlon

Bv Race Bv Sex

33.96 34.9s

34.10 44.99

31.83 44.67

30.64 44.42

Thls lndex of segregatlon can be lnterpreted as the percentage of uinorlty
(or White) workers who would have to change EEO Job categories 1n order for
the races to be dlstributed equivaj.ently ln these categorles; the inter-
pretatlon for sex segregatlon ls the sane.

Table 10 shows the lndlces of occupational segregation by both race and

sex ln eight departments ln state government which the Afflrmative Actlon

Research ProJect is studylng, and thelr prog,ress (or lack of it) 1s traced

frou 1977 to 1979.

There appears to be no uniform overall trend toward a reductlon ln Job

segregatlon. Departments whlch have reduced the anount of Job segregatlon

by race over the two year p"tfoa are the Department of Admlnlstratlon (a

reductlon of flve percentage polnts), Natural Resources and Co"'.unlty Devel-

oPBent (less than four percentage polnts), and Revenue (about three percentaBe

polnts). Hore progress ln the area of reduction of Job segregatlon by sex

can be seen: the Department of Adninlstratlon shorrs a reductlon of elght

Percentage points, as does Natural Resources and Consrunlty Developnent. The

Departroent of Human Resources shows a reduction of almost ten percentage

i
I
I

t
t
I
t



Table 10.

D.O.A.

47 .69

58. 93

43. 03

52.95

42.55

N. R.C.D.

26.00

7 5.34

28,49

69.95

22,32

D.H.R.

37 .64

D.O. C.

19. 17

57.52

18.43

57.33

17.51

REVENUE

27.69

79.63

25.8s

77.90

24.62

75.79

AND SEX
L977-L9?

COM}IERCE

15.66

49.76

16.03

49,62

15.96

D.0.?.

35.40 .

86 .93

35.60

85.23

t4.hl

JOB SEGREGATION IN EEOggnr NORrH CAROLTNA STATE
JOB CA?EGORIES BY RACE

YEAR

BY MCE:

L977

BY SEX:

BY MCE:

-
1978

BY SEX:

-BY R/ICE:

-
1979

BY SEX:

31. 02

38. 55

20.93

37,49

49.19 93.45

can be lnterpreted as thefor the two groupo under

c. e. /P. S.

g. g5

89.21

9.27

84.29

8.05

81.96

Percentage of
compartson Co

50,74 6?,26 21.32 56.13

Il: iirrre of aegregarton ueed le rheone group of workers who rrould trave tobe dlstrlbured equlvalen.it-ii"oughour

Index of Dtsafrntlarlcy, rhlch
change Job categorles in ora",the Job categoriee.

zo
o
Hv
E,

F

t,rl



Neely, F.R. 58

points. Somewhat loore modest, but 6t111 notable, ls Crloe Control and pub-

llc Safetyrs reduetlon of Job segregation by sex of over slx percentage

polnts. Revenue and the Departtrent of Transportatlon show a reduction of

three to four Percentage polnts, and Comrerce and CorrectLon show llttle or

no Progress.

Rank Segresatlon

A related, but trore speciflc picture of the dlfferentlal- reward struc-

ture for Dlnorlties and tromen ln state governrDent 16 presented by the data

ln Table 11, on the dlstributlon of wonen and nlnorities ln the pay grade

. atructure. (Thls analysls excludes those at pay grades of NC or FR, whlch

have varylng rates of pay whlch are not ldentlflaUfe.2) The number of the

race/sex grouP which fal1s ln each pay grade category is llsted ln the top

bf the ce1l. In the lower left-hand corner of each ceI1 ls the percenrage

of the race or sex group whlch that ce1l represents. In the lower rlght-
hand corner of the ce11 Ls the cumulative percent of the race/sex group

whlch falls at that pay grade or below.

'The modal category for whlte maLes ls pay grade cetegory 60-62, wlth
20 percent of all Whlte males in state government falling Ln that category.

The uodal category for Whlte females and Blacks of both sexes is the 54-56

category.

Over three quarters of al.l Black famllles fa11 at grade 59 or be1ow.

Nearly 65 percent of Black rnales and 62 percenr of Whlte fenales fall at

grade 59 or be1ow. By contrast, less than one thlrd of all !trhlte uales are

at or below pay grade 59. Correspondingly, at the upper end of the salary

distributlon, 16 percent of all Whtte males 1n state government are at pay

grade 72 ot above (annual salary, hlrlng rate, for pay grade 72 Ls $16,1gg,

I

'i.

t
t
I

r
I

t

t
t.
l,

I

t;
t,;
l.i

t

t

-._*.a-.\



Table 11.

Eev Gradcs

a8-50

tr-53

54-56

57-59

63-65

66-68

69-71

72-t4

75-7t

8r-83

9 r-95

3368

13.8t ir.z

0.11 100.0

DAt GMDE DISTRIBUTIO;: OF EI{PI'YEES BY R.]\CE AXD SEX
rrrnen: Full r:rae Enployces ln liorth crrollne st.EG Govcrnoent t/,9

N.2(.311 'll-l3,lO7 N-507 l
Blec k

ll-42 4 5

Neely, F.R. 59

506

lr.9z u.9
t02

,.tt l9.O

lrTE

61.9t 60.9

740

lr.4t ,8.4

6.ql E4.4

2r0

6.42 90.7

234

5.5r 9.2

255

63

l.5z

72

l.7t
l,

o.4l

9t.7

99.4

99.8

100. o

99.9

99.9

100.0

0

100.0

lcrcent3 rtrttttded to near.st Gonth of r pGrcant. a tnrtlcetcs Du.ber too oaall to colrputath€ gcrc..nt!f,c. .tbch ccll 3lvcs thc nuabcr of caployecs ln the top ccnter; ln the louer tcft lo thcPorccntnA'': uf tlrac group folllng ln !het pay grrtle crtcg,ory. Tlre lovcr rlght hend flgutclr the crrEtrlatlvc pcrccn(, lndlietil5 tlrc perc"nt of lhe groug fnlltng ln ihet gay gredrcal clior)' or bc t.ou tr.

40r I a47

t.lz l.l I a.gz E.s

tt505

34.42 42.O

2580

19.7t 51.'

1139

E.7t 70.4

468

1.92 98.5

164

0.7t 99.2

83

0.31 99.5



Neely, F.R. 60

rnd the upper end of the ealary range ls $22 1428). Only 4.8 percent of White

females, 3.2 percent of Black males, and 2.3 percent of B1ack females fa1l

wlthln a pay grade of. 72 or above.

Another way of 6rrmrnsr'!2{ng the extent of the dlsslmllarlty between the

pay grade dlstrlbutlons of race and sex groups 1n state government 1s to use

the lndex of dlsslmtlarlty, or segregatlon, whlch lras presented ln the dls-

cussion of Job segregatlon by federal EEO Job category. Table 12 shows the

extent of thls rank segregatlon by race and by sex slnce Lg75. Currently,

rank segregatlon by race ls very sinllar to segregatlon by sex- The trend

slnce 1975 ls for race segregation in pay grades to decllne, while aex segre-

gatlon ln pay grades shows no unlform trend. Wtren sex ls controlled for,

we aee that race segregatlon ls much more pronounced anong uale workers than

atrong fenale workers (and ls decllnlng among male workers uuch nore rapidly

than among fenale workers). Thls indlcates that fenales of both races are

uuch more slrullarly rewarded than are Whlte and. mlnority nales. Furthermore'

the disparlty between B1ack females and B1ack males ls lncreaslng as Black

uales coure to be dlstrlbuted nore llke l{hlte males anoDB the pay grade cate-
.t

gorles, and Black feroales nore 1lke White females.

In order to accurately assess the sources of these dl.fferences ln pay 
t_

grade dlstrlbutLons of nlnorltles and feuales, the Affltmative Actlon Re-

search ProJect ls preparlng a report analyzlng the relatlve welght of various

uerltocratic and non-rnerLtocratlc predlctors of salary anong North Carolina

State Government workers wlth regresslon analysls.

Susgiary

The data lndlcate 6ome progress but not a great deal wlth resPect to

uinorlty and female representatl.on ln North Carollna State Government. A

partlcular problem for women ls thelr contlnued concentratlon ln clerlcal



Pay Grade (Rank) Segregatron Anong North carollna state Governmenr

Index of_Dlsslmilarltv

Neely, F.R. 61

29.3

Groups Belng July July

34.1

July

32.7

Coopared B;; 
eu4r 

"urY JulY July

Whlte vs. Minority
Enployees 35.5

29.9

Table 12.

Hale vs. Female
Enployees 31.9 32.4 33.0 31.4 30.8

Minorlty Females
vs. I.ltrlte Females 2L.7 21,5 20.0 18.3 19.0

Ulnorlty Males
vs. Whlte Males 40.3 38.7 38.0 34.0 34.8

l,lhlte Fenales
vs. llhlte Males 32.2 32.8 33.5 31.8 31.5

Mlnorlty Females
vs. Mlnority Males 23.9 24.3 26.0 26.6 27.4

Note: The pay grades- were grouped lnto the following categorles for the purposeof computlng rhe tndex oi-drssruir"iity-f""ei"E"ii;;i;- 48_50 , s4_s6,s7_s9, 60_62, 6G_68, 6s_7L, 72_74: ii_it,.z6_sd, 8i_6i, 84_86, 87_8e,90-92' 93-95' The Ineasure used 1; ;;" ina"* of disslnitarrty, which canbe lnterpreted as.the percentage of one group of workers who would haveto change pay grade categories ln order ior ir," .ro-f;;;p" under comparl-aon to have an ldent1ca1 dlstrlbutlon thioughout the pay grade categorles.



Neely, F.R. 62

Posltlons. For Blacks there are very dlfferent probleus for women and men.

That ls to say, Black males have made Dore progress wlth regard to pay than

have Black females, although there ls stlll a large dlsparlty Ln the salarles

of alnorlty males and l.Ihite uales. As Black males Eove lnto whlte co11ar

occupatlons they are concentrated lnto the lower paylng grades.

The baslc conclusions point toward the need for pollcy declslons. For

example, should nen be encouraged to apply for.clerlcal Jobs, where they

are slgnificantly underutilized? At least those areas where females and

Blacks are underutlllzed should be targeted for recrultment. .Should Whlte

oales be frozen at present levels ln areas where they are overrepresented?

Career counsellng for women and Blacks coupled wlth lateral and vertical

uobility plans could potentlarly reduce thelr overutllizatlon.



Nee1y, F.R. 53

FOOTIIIOTES

lushg the overall avallablllty of nlnorltles and wotren ln the loca1
labor force es the base for thls parlty ratlo lgnores the fact thst they
oay be quallfled for varlous Job categorles 1n different proportlons than
whlte uares' Partly thls base flgure was used because it was the oorly one
currently avallable: there lrere no avallablllty.data for nlnorltles and
rrotren ln the 10ca1 labor force broken dcrnr lnto the Federal EEo Job
categorles' although the AfflmatLve Actlc,n dr.vlslon ln state governE*nt
ls preparrng thls inionnatlon. rn a larger Bense, horever, the authors
would argue that the tyPes of Job quallflcatlons obtalned by nlnorltles
and feoales ln the local labor force are thenserves heavlly influenced by
dlrect educational and enployment dlscrlulnatlon, and by Blacks, and feroalesr
understdrdlng of wtrat Jobs are available and ,approprlate,, for theu.- (see
Gurln, 1977, for a dlscusslon of how market factors lnfluence eapl0yee
ootlvatlons and declslons to aecure tralnlng and aeek promotlons; other
authors, g'E-., Blau and Jusenr.us, 1976, clte the prooess of dlfferentlal
tracklng of lncomLng enployees, even those wlth sruilar tnltlar tralnlng
or preparation. Most D.ulagers and ad-{nistrators, for exaple, do not
have educatlonal trainlng Ln oanageEnnt or adnlnl6tratlon, but learn these
skills on the Job, often after recelvlng a protrotlon rather than before).
For these reasons, uslng overall avallablllty flgures for ulnorltles and
eooen ln corputlng parlty ratlos Day Dre adequately reflr:ct the true
extent of enploysrent dlscrlnlnatlon thsr trse of arrailabtllty of workers
riro already have speclfic Job quallflcatlons.

!!+E .Ertr.%frh
rrq:r-*rcr-'



Neely, F.R. 64

tn r"f"t6 to Flat Rate, crd deelgnates euployees pald alnllar to a

consultlng bas1s. Itrey are usually, but not allrays, ln the hlglrer paid

categorles. Ihe dlstrlbutlon by race and aex tsz 29 llhlte oales, 11 ltrlte

feuales, 4 ntnorlty nales, snd 1 ulnorlty feuale. NG refers to a tralnlng

grade, aesigned td tralnees before they enter fu11 Job stattrs. These try

be tralnees for any 1evel Job, and are dlstrlbuted throughout the pay

grade Et::ucture. NG grade 1s asslgned to 657 llhlte uaIes, 447 l,lhlte females,

317 nlnority rnales, and 157 nlnortty fenales.

I



Neely, F.R. 65

NETERENCES

Blau, Franclne, and Carol Jusenlus

1975 'Econosrists t Approaches to Sex Segregatlon Ln the Labor Market:

An Appraisal.,'Slms 1(3): 1g1-199 (Sprlag),

Gross, Edward

1968 t'Plus Ca Change? Ttre Sexual Stnrcture of occupatlons oyer Tlner',

9oclal. Elolleue 16: 198_209 (Fa11).

Gurin, ,".J
1977 ttlhe Role of tlorker Expectancles ln the Study of Eryloyoent

Dlscrlnlnatlon.rr Pp. 13-37 ln l{allace, phylIls, and Annett Ldtond

(eds'.) . Women. Mlnoritles. and Employu,nt D[scrirolnatlon.

Iexington, Mass.: D.C. Ileath.