Loading...
RESOLUTION 91-20380 RESOLUTION NO. 91-20380 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, FINDING THAT THERE IS EVIDENCE THAT SUPPORTS AN INFERENCE THAT MINORITIES AND WOMEN HAVE NOT PROPORTIONATELY SHARED IN EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES, SETTING FORTH A POLICY TO PROMOTE THEIR INCREASED PARTICIPATION IN THE CITY'S WORK FORCE, AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO REPORT TO THE COMMISSION PERIODICALLY ON THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE CITY'S AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PROGRAM. WHEREAS, it has been and continues to be the policy of the City Commission of the City of Miami Beach, Florida, to foster equal employment opportunity for applicants for employment and members of the City's work force and to promote ethnic, racial and gender participation within the City's work force; and, WHEREAS, this Commission requested the City Manager to determine the degree of minority and female participation in the work force by investigating and assessing the present extent of their participation; and, WHEREAS, the City Manager found a statistically significant disparity between the representation of minorities and females within certain segments of the metropolitan area and their representation in the City's work force; and, WHEREAS, a copy of the report prepared by an independent consulting agency and relied upon by the City Manager is attached hereto as Exhibit "1" ; and, WHEREAS, this Commission hereby accepts and adopts the findings and conclusions of the City Manager; and, WHEREAS, the Commission recognizes that the report contains evidence that certain aspects of the City's past and present employment system support an inference that minorities and women have been adversely impacted in the work force; and, WHEREAS, the City has a compelling interest in increasing minority and female participation within its work force; and, WHEREAS, the City has a compelling interest in promoting a sense of harmony for all residents of the metropolitan area and the employees of the City; and, WHEREAS, the Commission believes that in order to effectively combat discrimination and the lack of minority and female participation and advancement in the work force, members of these groups must be provided every opportunity to enter and advance; and, WHEREAS, the City Commission believes that the Affirmative Action Program adopted by the City should maintain sufficient flexibility to enable the City to transact business; and, WHEREAS, the Commission believes that this goal may best be accomplished by the implementation of a voluntary Affirmative Action Program to remain in effect until the goal is met; and, WHEREAS, in order to implement a voluntary Affirmative Action Program for the City, there must be a finding of fact that minorities and women have not proportionately shared in employment opportunities; and, WHEREAS, the City Commission wishes to be informed periodically on the effectiveness of the City's Affirmative Action Program. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT DULY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, that: 1 . The City Commission of the City of Miami Beach hereby adopts the policy of developing programs and measures to alleviate the problem of lack of participation and advancement of minorities and women in the work force by taking Affirmative Action. 2. Any programs or procedures established pursuant to such Affirmative Action Program shall continue until its objectives are met, and must maintain sufficient flexibility to be able to achieve its purpose while still remaining viable in terms of the needs of the City to transact its business. 3. The City Manager shall monitor such programs and present periodic reports to the Commission as to their effectiveness and viability. PASSED and ADOPTED this 23rd day of October, 1991 . '''. 112"-4' . ------- , VICE-MAYOR Attest: ---6c)k.,,AA_ E :--C ,--6\.„),---- City Clerk Approved as to form: $ 44L. X S lob ijqf Legal Department PFL:me . &re/ 01 Wi4 I &4d FLORIDA 3 3 1 3 9 (1er(IN CRATED/* 'VA CA TIONL,4 NLS U. S. A. '' OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER CITY HALL 1700 CONVENTION CENTER DRIVE TELEPHONE: 6737010 MEMORANDUM NO. COMMISSION DATE: October 23, 1991 TO: Mayor Alex Daoud and Members of the City Commission FROM: Carla Bernabei Talarico '4(;ele F4R— City Manager SUBJECT: FINDING OF FACT THAT THERE IS EVIDENCE THAT SUPPORTS AN INFERENCE THAT MINORITIES AND WOMEN HAVE NOT PROPORTIONATELY SHARED IN EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES AND SETTING A POLICY TO PROMOTE THEIR INCREASED PARTICIPATION IN THE CITY'S WORK FORCE. BACKGROUND During the past year, the City has had to deal with many issues regarding allegations of discrimination relating to employment and promotional opportunities for minorities within the City's work force. Concurrent with these issues, is the changing demographics of our community as confirmed by the 1990 U.S. Population Census. In response to these and other issues, the Administration established as its number one priority for the 1991/92 fiscal year, "to increase minority representation within the City's work force" . To assist in accomplishing this goal , Mr. Milton Vickers, of Embassy Marketing & Consulting Services, a local minority owned company, was engaged to review our existing Affirmative Action policy, legislation, relevant Federal , State and local laws, and current work force statistics, and to make recommendations for the City to revise and implement an effective Affirmative Action Program. The review of our work force statistics was necessary to determine if minorities and women have proportionately shared in employment opportunities within the City of Miami Beach. A finding of fact is a necessary pre-requisite, prior to the City entering into any type of voluntary Affirmative Action Program. (City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co. , 109S.Ct.706 (1989) ; Peightal v. Metropolitan Dade County, U.S.L.W. (1991)) • • SUMMARY OF FINDINGS A statistical analysis of the City's work force was compared to that of the Dade County Population, the Miami SMSA, Metro-Dade County employees, and City of Miami employees using race, gender and ethnicity factors. • The results of this statistical analysis support an inference that minorities and women have not proportionately shared in employment opportunities with the City . of Miami Beach when compared to similar data for Dade County, the Miami SMSA, Metro-Dade County work's force, and City of Miami 's work force. • A copy of the report is attached. ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION The Administration recommends that the City Commission accept the findings of the attached report and adopt a resolution setting forth a policy to promote and increase the participation of minorities and women in the City' s work force pursuant to a voluntary Affirmative Action Program. • AGENDA A, PFL:me ITEM DATE ��� ?if • AGENDA ITEM R-7-A • October 23, 1991 •EM13ASSt EXHIBIT "1" MARKETING 8& CONSULTING SERVICES • Minority and Female Disparities City of Miami Beach Minority and female citizens in the South Florida Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area, face a number of disparities in their relative economic position. These differences P show up in virtually all areas, i.e. total employment, occupational distribution, and the money income which they receive. The disparity in employment is particularly large. To a considerable extent, the short-falls in minority and female economic and employment shares can be traced to the legacy of discrimination, either overt or covert. But some gaps reflect the impact of selection procedures that are neither job based are relevant to the task to be done. In general, the proportion of minority and female population in Dade C3 :::::j . the City of Miami Beach that is in the labor force is about the same as for Whites. Yet, relative joblessness among minorities and females are nearly twice what it is among White males. So, it is clear that minorities and females have a much harder time either finalizing employment and/or advancing up the career ladder. Individual and institutional discrimination has come under scrutiny since the 1950's; interesting conceptual and empirical research work has been done on the variations in discrimination. .In his classic, The Nature pf Prejudice, Gordon Allport (1958) focuses on. prejudice and documentation of individuals; he wrote that )re'udices often express P xP . themselves in a series of progressively more serious discriminatoryactions, ranging from antilocation, to avoidance, to exclusion, to physical attack. Since Allport's classic work the PY P • concept of institutional discrimination has been developed to capture the social,networking, and interlocking aspects of modern discrimination (racial, gender, religion). Institutional discrimination, refers to patterns of actions prescribed bythe norms of organizaticns (t � Employer) are by network of the dominant racial groups (social), actions that 72.i 04 300 Biscayne Boulevard Way, Suite 1014• Miami, Florida 33131 •Tel. (305) 377-4811 • Fax (305) 377-2716 negative impact on members of a subordinate racial group(Carmichael and Hamilton, 1967; Knowles and Prewitt, 1969; Feagan and Feagan 1986). The City of Miami Beach appears to have escaped overt forms of discrimination in past decades, but systemic and/or institutional exclusion appear to be the order of the day. In determining the impact or adverse-impact of these actions we must determine if a disparity exist in the work-force of the City. And, if a disparity is found you may develop Affirmative Programming that is narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling organizational interest (City of Miami Beach). A recent U.S. Court of Appeals ruling from the Eleventh Circuit, handed down on September 4, 1991, Alan A. Peightol v. Metro Dade County, set forth the requisite stapdar! for disparity. The statistical imbalance between minorities and non-minorities fn a a relevant work-force and available labor pool must be "approaching a prima facia case of a constitutional or statutory violation before a public employer may voluntarily adopt racial or gender preference." (Croson v. City of Richmond Virginia 488 U.S. at 500, 189 S.CT. also see Wygant 276 U.S. at 274-5, 106 S.CT.) "Court rulings have shown what sort of statistical disparity is required to make a prima facia case of direct or indirect discrimination." The "general rule"is that the disparity must be greater than two or'three-standard deviations before it can be inferred that the employer has engaged in illegal discrimination under Title VII, Castenda v. Partida. The Court has also called that sort of imbalance a "gross" statistical disparity. (Hayelwood 433 • U.S.) This opinion was also cited with. approval in Croson v. City of Richmond. The'standard deviation comparison reviewed by the City is the population of Dade County SMSA; Population applying`a seventy percent (70%) rule to each racial, ethnic ani' gender group; and a-compartson of two other major jurisdictions with the same or similar recruitment areas. 2 • 05 300 Biscayne Boulevard Way, Suite 1014• Miami, Florida 33131 •Tel. (305) 377-4811 • Fax (305) 377-2716 EMPLOYMENT CATEGORIES UNDER STUDY Officials/Administrators Occupations in which employees set broad policies, exercise overall responsibility for execution of these policies, or direct individual departments or special phases of the agency's operations, or provide specialized consultation on a regional, district or area basis. Includes: department heads, bureau chiefs, division chiefs, directors, deputy directors, controllers, examiners, wardens, superintendents, sheriffs, police and fire chiefs, inspectors, and kindred workers. Professional Occupations which require specialized and theoretical knowledge which is usually acquired through college training or through work experience and other training which provides comparable knowledge. Includes: personnel and labor relations workers, social workers, doctors, psychologists, registered nurses, economists, dieticians, lawyers, systems analysts, accountants, engineers, employment and vocational rehabilitation counselors, teachers or instructors, police and fire captains, lieutenants, and kindred workers. Technicians Occupations which require a combination of basic scientific or technical knowledge and manual skill which can be obtained through specialized post-secondary school education or through equivalent on-the-job training. Includes: computer programmers and operators, drafters, surveyors, licensed practical nurses, photographers, radio operators, technical Illustrators, highway technicians, technicians (medical, dental, electronic, physical sciences), assessors, inspectors, police and fire sergeants, and kindred workers. Protective Service Workers Occupations in which workers are entrusted with public safety, security and protection from destructive forces. Includes: police patrol officers, fire fighters, guards, deputy sheriffs, bailiffs, correctional officers, detectives, marshals, harbor patrol officers, and kindred workers. Para-Professional Occupations in which workers perform some of the duties of a professional or technician in a supportive role, which usually require less formal training and/or experience normally required for professional or technical status. Such positions may fall within an identified pattern or staff development and promotion under a "New Careers" concept. Includes: library assistants, research assistants, medical aids, child support workers, policy auxiliary, welfare service aides, recreation assistants, homemakers aides, home health aides, and kindred workers. Office/Clerical Occupations in which workers areresponsible for internal and external communication, P . recordingand retrieval of data and/or information and other paperwork required in an office. Includes: bookkeepers, messengers, office machine operators, clerk-typists, stenographers, court transcribers, hearing reporters, statistical clerks, dispatchers, license distributors, payroll clerks, and kindred workers. Skilled Craft Workers Occupations in which workers perform jobs which require special manual skill and a comprehensive thorough and knowledge of the processes involved in the work which is g u ac ired through on-the-job training and experience or through apprenticeship or other qg formal training programs. Includes: mechanics and repairers, electricians, heavy equipment , o eratorsstationaryengineers, skilled machining occupations, carpenters, compositors, P typesetters, and kindred workers. Service/Maintenance Occupations in which workers perform duties which result in or contribute to the comfort, convenience, hygiene or safety of the general public or which contribute to the upkeep and care of buildings, facilities or grounds of public property. Workers in this group may operate machinery. Includes: chauffeurs, laundry and dry cleaning operatives, truck drivers, bus drivers, garage laborers, custodial employees, gardeners and groundkeepers, refuse collectors, and construction laborers. 67 SUMMARY WORKFORCE ANALYSIS Official/Administrators White males, make-up 72% of the City of Miami Beach workforce in this category, with White females making up the next highest percentage of 11.39%. White females, however, is underrepresented when compared to Metro Dade's 16.16%yet exceed the City of Miami's 6.02%. Miami Area SMSA reflect White males carrying a 41.84% share of the labor force and White females with an 18.92% share. Finding: There is under representation of White females in this category of the workforce. Disparity Finding Yes X No Black females, Black males total 6.33% of the City of Miami Beach total workforce and 6.21% of the Miami Area SMSA and 20.55% of the population when applying the seventy percent (70%) rule, Black males and females make-up 14.39%. Black representation is higher in both the Cityof Miami and Metro Dade, with the City of Miami carrying a 24.81% • g share and Metro Dade 20.02%. Finding : SMSA data show the Cityof Miami Beach achieved parity. However, when compared to population and the two major jurisdictions with the same recruitment area the consultant believes disparity exist. Disparity Finding • Yes X No Hispanic males, females make-up 8.86% of City of Miami Beach workforce and 49.21% of the general population. Hispanic males share 22.53% and Hispanic females 9.38% of the Miami Area SMSA. Finding : Comparisons with City of Miami and Metro Dade show clear disparity. Disparity Finding • Yes X No C8 Professionals White males, White females total 73.27% of the City of Miami Beach's workforce; White males carrying the largest share of the population (44.55%) and White females 28.71%. The City has achieved parity with the Miami Area SMSA data (27.71%). The City of Miami Beach exceeds Miami and Metro Dade in this area of comparison. Finding: White females show excellent achievement in the professional category. Disparity Finding White males White females Yes No X Yes No X Black females/males are underrepresented in the City of Miami Beach in a head to head comparison with the City of Miami and Metro Dade. Black representation in both the generai population and Zhe Miami area SMSA far exceed their representation in the City of Miami Beach's workforce. Finding: Black employment shares in City of Miami Beach is 3.96%, Miami SMSA is 12.20% with their population share of 20.55%. Significant disparity exist. Disparity Finding Male/Female Yes X No Hispanic males/females show a 21.78% share of City of Miami Beach's workforce with 31.93% of the Miami Area SMSA. When comparing Miami and Metro Dade, the City of Miami Beach is close to its jurisdictional counterpart. Hispanic females are underrepresented with a share of only 2.97%. Finding: Hispanic females hold a significantly low presence in professional positions. Disparity Finding Hispanic males/females Yes X No • C9 • Technician White males make-up 69.53% of the City of Miami Beach workforce with White females makingupthe next highest percentage of employee shares (10.94%). White male g representation exceed their numbers in the Miami SMSA (35.72%) and White females under their Miami area SMSA numbers of 20.87%. Findin : Comparisons with Miami (30.87%) and Metro Dade (25.89%)show significant over representation in this category with White females under represented. Disparity Finding Females Yes X No Black males/females: Blacks represent 5.47% in this category yet Blacks make-up 12.70%of the Miami SMSA. In reviewing Miami (22.96%) and Metro Dade (27.25%) both jurisdictions show better performance in this area. Finding: Significant Disparity Disparity Finding Male/Female Yes X No Hispanic males/females account for 14.06% of City of Miami Beach workforce and 29.10% of Miami Area SMSA. Hispanic males take a 12.50% share and females 14.06% of the City's work force. Both City of Miami and Metro Dade both show higher percentage in this category. Findin : Significant Disparity Disparity Finding • Male/Female Yes X No ___ Protective Services Miami SMSA data unavailable in this category. White males make-up 74.50% of the City's workforce while White females represent 4.98%. In using only population and the City of Miami and Metro Dade to compare White males representation. White males in this category far exceed there representation in the workforce. While White females are under represented. Finding: In using any of the measure available White females do not come close to fair representation in this area. Disparity Finding White Females Yes X No Black Male/Females: Black employees total 3.39% of the workforce in the category, where as their overall population is 20.55% and the City of Miami achieved 19.38% and Metro Dade 26.49%. Black males 2.19%, Black females 1.20%. Findin : Every measure used to compare the City of Miami Beach achievement shows Disparity. Disparity Finding Yes X No Hispanic males/females: Hispanic carry a 16.73% share of the work-force in this category with Hispanic males 14.94% and Hispanic females 1.79%. Finding: Hispanic representation in both the City of Miami and Metro Dade exceed City of Miami Beach achievement. The number reflect disparity. Disparity Finding Yes X No Paraprofessional/Administrative Support/Skilled Crafts and Service/Maintenance. These categories of employment traditionally reflect large,sometimes over utilized employee shares for minorities and women. The City of Miami Beach employee breakdown follows the same tradition. Some categories are less populated minorities than others, but they all reflect closer to SMSA and population than other categories of employment within the City of Miami Beach. • • (. 10-15-15+51 ° City of Miami Beach EEO C:;^�oarative Analysis ' Y Page Category -- Csficials/Administrators �►` r-. Dade County General Population Male.•.•.••.•....•• ...Female All White Black Hisp. Other Total White Black Hisp. Other Total White Black Hisp. Other Total Population • . % of Total • . * * * Data unavailable for this employment category * * * Std. Devs. r,._ Dade County Population (70Y rule) . • ;, •...Male - Female .•• All }.. White' Black Hisp. Other Total White Black Hisp. Other Total White Black Hisp.p Other Total .'p. Population . of Total • * * * Data unavailable for this employment category * 4, Std. Devs. , , Miami Area SMSA y,'` . Male .............Female ...............All White Black Hisp. Other Total White Black Hisp. ' ' Other Total White Black Hisp. Other Total >> Population 39196 3198 21125 767 64286 17721 2616 8787 264 29388 56917 5814 29912 1031 93674 of Total 4.1.84 3.41 22.55 0.82 68.63 18.92 2.79 9.38 0.28 31.37 60.76 6.21 31.93 1.10 100.00 Std. Devs. 1 1 1 1 141 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 ;.. . Metro Dade County Employees Male • ..•....Female All White Black Hisp. Other Total White Black Hisp. Other Total White Black Hisp. Other Total rft: IP i Population 392 104 147 6 649 155 88 63 4 310 547 192 210 10 959 % of Total 40.88 10.84 15.33 0.63 67.67 16.16 9.18 6.57 0.42 32.33 57.04 20.02 21.90 1.t)4 100.00 • ..,•,`=' s Std. Devs. 1 1 1 2 1 1 ;,..,: 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 :. City of Miami Employees • :;: r;. 41 e Male. . Female White Black Hisp. Other Total White Black Hisp. Other Total White Black Hisp. Other Total .. Population 41 22 43 2 108 8 , 11 6 0 25 49 33 49 2 133 r:. of Total 30.83 16.54 32.33 1.50 81.20 6.02 8.27 4.51 0.00 18.80 36.84 24.81 36.84 1.50 100.00IP . Std. Devs. 1 2 2 2 • 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 0 City of Miami Beach Employees . ' F;. ....Male Female All C �.. White Black- Hisp. Other Total White Black Hisp. Other Total White Black Hisp. Other Total Population 57 3 7 1 68 9 2 0 0 11 66 5 7 1 79 of total 72.15 3.80 8.86 1.27 86.08 11.39 2.53 0.00 0.00 13.92 83.54 6.33 8.86 1.27 100.00 .• Std. Devs. 2 1 2 1 .2 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 ,:, • _======== :F s' Male Female All . White Black Hisp. Other Total White Black Hisp. Other Total White Black Hisp.p Other Total 41) ,,<' Average % 46'.43 8.65 19.77 1.06 75.90 13.12 5.69 5.12 0.18 24.11 59.55 14.34 24.88 1.23 Std. Dev. 17.84 •6.27 10.06 0.39 9.12 . 5.67 3.53 3.94 0.22 9.15 19.12 9.53 12.37 0.19 { . 10-15-1991C •-•, City of Miami Beach EEO Comparative Analysis Page 2 r Category - Professionals Dade County General Population • • Male............... Female ...............All............... s;. • White Black Hisp. Other Total White Black Hisp. Other Total ,White Black Hisp. Other Total aII . Population. opu l•at ionw. % of Total * * * Data unavailable for this employment category +. Std. Devs. . . • 110 Y Dade County Population (70•% rule) :; • Cv. Male Female ...............A11 ': 'White Black Hisp. Other Total White Black Hisp. Other Total White Black Hisp. Other Total R;• Population • ;f of Total .•* * * Data unavailable for this employment category * * * : Std. Devs. Miami Area SMSA - •, ID ..,, Male.:............. Female All ........ ... .. ..........OOOOO ,, White Black Hisp. Other Total White Black Hisp. Other Total White Black Hisp. + Population 30954 3816 12341 773 47884 24721 7069 8805 744 41339 55675 10885 2114 Other Totall. 6 1517 89223 Y. of Total 34.69 4.28 13.83 0.87 53.67 27.71 7.92 9.87 0.83 46.33 62.40 12.20 23.70 1.70 Std. Devs. 100.00 1 1 • 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 Metro Dade County Employees Male .............Female All............... White Black Hisp. Other Total White Black Hisp. Other Total White Black Hisp. Other Total • Population 960 *403 615 52 2030 486 503 481 29 1499 1446 906 1096 81 3529 • % of Total 27.20 11.42 17.43 1.47 57.52 13.77 14.25 13.63 0.82 42.48 40.97 25.67 31.06 Std. Devs. 2.30 100.00 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 12 -City of Miami Employees • Male Female All........ White Black Hisp. Other Total White Black His --�•�-' Population 218• 59 115 8 400 48p Other Total White Black Hisp. Other Total 45 64 1 158 266 104 179 9 558 of Total 39.07 10.57 20.61 1.43 71.68 8.60 8.06 11.47 0.18 28.32 47.67 18.64 32.08 Std. Devs. 1 1 2 1 2 2 1.61 100.00 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 City of Miami Beach Employees r Male.. ............. Female All White Black Hisp. Other Total White Black Hisp. Other Total White Black Hisp. Other Total Population 45 1 19 1 66 29 3 3 0 35 • 74 4 22 1 101 Y. of Total 44.55 0.99 18.81 0.99 65.35 28.71 2.97 2.97 0.00 34.65 73.27 3.96 21.78 0.99 100.00 ri .: Std. Devs. 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 . 2 C Male Female All White Black Hisp. Other Total White Black Hisp. Other Total White Black Hisp. Other Total Average % 36.38 6.82 17.67 1.19 62.06 19.70 8.30 9.49 0.46 37.95 56.08 15.12 27.16 1.65 Std. Dev. 7.31 5.01 2.87 0.29 8.00 , 10.06 4.62 4.59 0.43 8.02 14.53 9.25 5.14 0.54 r W . -- -- - - __„ --• •••o...a .... ccu Lompiarative Analysis Page 3 • 41, Category Technicians • 3 Dade County General Population ....Male............... .............Female.............. All............... • White Black Hisp. Other Total White Black Hisp. Other Total White Black Hisp. Other Total Population of Total * * * Data unavailable for this employment category * * * • Std. Devs. Dade County Population (70% rule) • Male .............Female.............. ...............A11............... • • White Black Hisp. Other Total White Black Hisp. Other Total White Black Hisp. Other Total Population of Total * *.* Data unavailable for this employment category * * * Std. Devs. 3 Miami Area SMSA 40 ..............Male .............Female.............. ...............All............... White Black Hisp. Other Total White Black Hisp. Other Total White Black Hisp. Other Total Population 8191 1073 4233 191 13688 4786 1839 2439 176 9240 12977 2912 6672 367 22928 10 % of Total . 35.72 . 4.68 • 18.46 0.83 59:70 20.87 8.02 10.64 0.77 40.30 56.60 12.70 29.10 1.60 100.00 Std. Devs. • 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Metro Dade County Employees 40 ..............Male .............Female.............. ...............All............... White Black Hisp. Other Total White Black Hisp. Other Total White Black Hisp. Other Total Population 363 184 338 23 908 123 198 161 12 494 486 382 499 35 1402 •% of Total 25.89 13.12 24.11 • 1.64 64.76 8.77 14.12 11.48 0.86 35.24 34.66 27.25 35.59 2.50 100.00 Std. Devs. 1- • 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 City of Miami Employees .:...:.:........Male ....:........Female. ...............All White Black, Hisp. Other Total White Black Hisp. Other Total White Black Hisp. Other Total S Population 117 41 109 1 268 32 46 33 0 111 149 87 142 1 379 of Total 30.87 10.82 28.76 0.26 70.71 8.44 12.14 8.71 0.00 29.29 39.31 22.96 37.47 0.26 100.00 Std. Devs. 1 1 2 1 • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 City of Miami Beach Employees. : Male. .............Female All White Black Hisp. Other Total . White Black Hisp. Other Total White Black Hisp. Other Total Population . .89 6 • 16. 0 111 14 1 2 0 17 103 7 18 0 128 II Y. of Total 69.53. 4.69 12.50 0.00 86.72 10.94 0.78 1.56 0.00 13.28 80.47 5.47 14.06 0.00 100.00 Std. Devs. 2 1 2 . 1 2 1 2 2 - 1 2 2 2 2 1 Male Female All White Black Hisp. Other Total White Black Hisp. Other Total White Black Hisp. Other Total Average % 40.50 8.33 20.96 0.68 70.47 12.26 8.77 8.10 0.41 29.53 52.76 17.10 29.06 1.09 Std. Dev. 19.77 4.30 7.03 0.73 11.75 5.83 5.89 4.50 0.47 11.72 20.75 9.85 10.60 1.17 W a a • 10-15-1991 City of Miami Beach EEO Comparative Analysis Page 4 Category - Protective Services . .. : Dade County General Population ID• ...:., Male................ Female ...............A11............... White Black Hisp. Other Total • White Black Hisp. Other Total ,White Black Hisp. Other Total 411 Population Y. of Total * * * Data unavailable for this employment *category * * * Std. Devs. i Dade County Population (74! rule) • Male .. ...........Female ...............All White Black Hisp. Other Total White Black Hisp. Other Total White Black Hisp. Other Total Population of Total *. * * Data unavailable for this employment category * * * 41 Std. Devs. 9 y Miami Area SMSA 0 ............ ..Male.. Female ............:..All .White Black Hisp. .Other Total White Black Hisp. Other Total White Black Hisp. Other Total 0 Population of Total ° * * * Data unavailable for this employment category * * * Std. Devs. O Metro Dade County Employees 41 ..............Male............... .............Female.............. ...............A11 White Black Hisp. Other Total White Black Hisp. Other Total White Black Hisp. Other Total Population 2133 815 1142 32 4122 350 566 171 4 1091 2483 1381 1313 36 5213411 of Total 40.92 15.63 21.91 0.61 79.07 6.71 10.86 3.28 0.08 20.93 47.63 26.49 25.19 0.69 ` 100.00 Std. Devs. 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2692D+38 2 1 1 1 1 • City of Miami Employees II IPMale Female ...............All White Black Hisp. Other Total White Black Hisp. Other Total White Black Hisp. Other Total Population 399 203 578 12 1192 54 55 28 2 139 453 258 606 14 of Total 29.98 15.25 43.43 0.90 89..56 4.06 4.13 2.10 0.15 10.44 34.03 19.38 45.53 13310 0 Std. Devs. 1.05 100.00 1 • 1 2 2 1 1 1 1692D+38 1 1 1 2 1 • City of Miami Beach Employees • ._ C. • Male:.............. Female 1. All White Black Hisp. Other Total. White Black Hisp. Other Total White Black Hisp. Other Total C. Population 374 11 75 2 462 25 6 9 0 40 399 17 84 2 502 of Total 74.50 2.19 14.94 0.40 92.03 4.98 1.20 1.79 0.00 7.97 79.48 3.39 16.73 0.40 100.00 Std. Devs. 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 1692D+38 1 2 2 1 1 G • � 41Male Female All White Black Hisp. Other Total White Black Hisp. Other Total White Black Hisp. Other Total Average S 48.47 • 11.02 26.76 0.64 86.89 5.25 5.40 2.39 0.08 13.11 53.71 16.42 29.15 0.7141 Std. Dev. 23..19 7.66 14.85 0.23 6.82 1.35 4.95 0.79 0.00 6.89 23.34 11.83 14.80 0.35 . 10-15-1991 City of Miami Beach EEO Comparative Analysis Page 5 • Category.- Paraprofessionals • Dade County General Population .. Male............... .........:...Female.............. ...............A11............... White Black Hisp. Other Total White Black Hisp. Other Total White Black Hisp. Other Total Population of Total * * * Data unavailable for this employment' category * * * k. Std. Devs. Dade County Population (70% rule) • .4.- Male F � � Female. ...............All............... White Black Hisp. Other Total White Black Hisp. Other Total White Black Hisp. Other Total Population % of Total * * * Data unavailable for this employment category * * * Std. Devs. Miami Area SMSA ............:.Male:.............. Female.--........ ...............A11............... White Black Hisp. Other Total White Black Hisp. Other Total White Black Hisp. Other Total Population •• % of Total. • * * * Data unavailable for this employment category * * * Std. Devs. Metro Dade County Employees • ..............Malmo F ............... emale.............. ...............A11............... White Black Hisp. Other Total White Black Hisp. Other Total White Black Hisp. Population 44 72 . 56 .3 175 93 377 135 5 610 137 449 191Other Total 8 785 % of Total .5.61 9.17 7.13 0.38 . 22.29 11.85 48.03 17.20 0.64 77.71 17.45 57.20 24.33 1.02 10 2 1 2 1 100.00 Std. Devs. 2 1 1 1 1 • 1 • 1 2 1 1 City of Miami Employees . ... Male.........,...... Female.............. ...............A11............... x White Black Hisp. Other Total White Black Hisp. Other Total White Black Hisp. Other Total Population 11 . 16 23 1 . 51 13 19 22 . • 0 54 24 35 45 % of Total 10.48 15.24 21.90 0.95 48.57 12.38 18.10 20.95 0.00 51.431 105 1. 22.86 33.33 42.86 0.95 100.00 Std. Devs. 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 _ City of Miami Beach Employees Male............... Female ...............All t White Black Hisp. Other Total White Black Hisp. Other Total White Black Hisp. Other Population 11 2 11 0 24 42 14 16 0 72 Total +. 53 16 27 0 96 f:: % of Total 11.46 2.08 11.46 0.00 25.00 43.75 14.58 16.67 0.00 75.00 55.21 16.67 28.13 0.00 10 1 2 1 1 1 . - 2 1 0.00 Std. Devs. 1 1 1 2 • 1 1 2 },, n• Male Female ...............All :- White Black Hisp. Other Total White Black Hisp. Other Total White Black Hisp. Other Total Average '% 9.18 8.83 13.50 0.44 31.95 22.66 26.90 18.27 0.21 68.05 31.84 35.73 31.77 0 66 Std. Dev. • 3.15 6.59 7.58 0.48 14.47 18.27 18.39 2.37 0.38 14.43 20.42 20.38 9.80 0.56 10-15-1991 City of Miami Beach EEO Comparative Analysis Pae 6 ' . Category - Administrative Support Dade County General' Population II .:..: Male............... .............Female.............. ...............A11............... White Black Hisp. Other Total White Black Hisp. Other Total White Black Hisp. Other Total Population411 of Total * * * Data unavailable for this employment category * * * Std. Devs. ID Dade County Population (70% rule) Male 4 Female.. ...............All............... White Black Hisp. Other Total White Black Hisp. Other Total White Black Hisp. Other Total Population 411 of Total * * * Data unavailable for this employment category * * * Std. Devs. MiamiArea SMSA41 .......... ....Male............... Female ............. ..A11............... O White Black Hisp. Other Total White Black Hisp. Other Total White Black Hisp. Other Total Population 16461 5241 14810 482 36994 57734 14789 40612 1024 114159 74195 20030 55422 1506 151153 % of Total 10.89 3.47 . 9.80 0.32 24.47 38.20 9.78 26.87 0.68 75.53 49.09 13.25 36.67 1.00 100.00 Std. Devs. 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1ID Metro Dade County'Employees • 4 Male..:...........: • .............Female ...............A11............... White Black Hisp. *Other. Total White Black Hisp'. Other Total White Black Hisp. Other Total Population 272 250 472 . 25 1019 882 1415 1221 57 3575 1154 1665 1693 82 4594411 of Total 5.92 5.44 10.27 0.54 22.18 19.20 30.80 26.58 1.24 77.82 25.12 36.24 36.85 1.78 100.00 . Std. Devs. 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 41 City of Miami Employees Male Female 4 White Black Hisp. Other Total White Black Hisp. Other Total White Black Hisp. Other Total Population 12 17 47 0 76 37 184 182 6 409 49 201 229 6 485 40 of Total 2.47 3.51 9.69 0.00 15.67 7.63 37.94 37.53 1.24 84.33 10.10 41.44 47.22 1.24 100.00 Std. Devs. 2 , 1 1 1 2 • 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 City of Miami Beach Employees C Male • Female All White Black Hisp. Other Total White Black Hisp. Other Total White Black Hisp. Other Total Population 22 1 13 0 36 63 25 43 1 132 85 26 56 1 168 ; �; , of Total 13.10 0.60 • 7.74 0.00 21.43 37.50 14.88 25.60 0.60 78.57 50.60 15.48 33.33 0.60 100.00 Std. Devs. 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 E ___=====a . • Male Female All White Black Hisp.. Other Total White Black Hisp. Other Total White Black Hisp. Other Total 41 Average % 8.10 3.26 9.38 • 0.22 .20.94 25.63 23.35 29.15 0.94 79.06 33.73 26.60 38.52 1.16 -'� Std. Dev. 4.79 1.98 1.06 •0.25 3.72 14.89 13.22 5.58 0.36 3.81 19.60 14.32 6.00 0.47 0 10-15-1991 City of Miami Beach EEO Comparative Analysis Page 7 40 Category - Skilled Craftspeople Dade County General Population . ..............Male............... .............Female.............. ...............A11............... White Black Hisp. Other Total White Black Hisp. Other Total White Black Hisp. Other Total Population % of Total . • * * *.Data unavailable for this employment category * * * Std. Devs. • Dade County Population -(70% rule) . • ............Male............... .............Female............. ...............A11............... _White Black Hisp. Other Total White Black Hisp. Other Total White Black Hisp. Other Total Population . . % of Total • * f * Data unavailable for this employment category * * * Std. Devs. . • Miami Area SMSA . ' ..............Male................ .............Female...: ....:..........A11............... 40 White Black Hisp. Other Total White Black Hisp. Other Total al White Black Hisp. Other Total Population 36747 9529 34141 629 81046 2491 1320 5459 94 9364 39238 10849 39600 723 90410 • % of Total 40.64 10.54 37.76 0.70 89.64 2.76 1.46 6.04 0.10 10.36 43.40 12.00 43.80 0.80 100.00 Std. Devs. 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 Metro Dade County Employees ....:.........Male.......:....... .............Female ...............All............... White Black Hisp. Other Total White Black Hisp. Other Total White Black Hisp. Other Total : Population '669 477 682 40 1868 7 5 7 1 20 676 482 689 41 1888 % of Total 35.43 25.26 36.12 2.12 98.94 0.37 0.26 0.37 0.05 1.06 35.81 25.53 36.49 2.17 100.00 _ _ Std. Devs. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 City of Miami Employees AO ...............Male................ .............Female.............. ...............A11.................. • White Black Hisp. Other Total White Black Hisp. Other Total White Black Hisp. Other Total Population 27 59 72 3 161 1 2 0 0 3 28 61 72 3 164 40 % of Total 16.46 35.98 43.90 1.83 98.17 0.61 1.22 0.00 0.00 1.83 17.07 37.20 43.90 1.83 100.00 Std. Devs. 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 41 City of Miami Beach Employees Male .............Female All II White Black Hisp. Other Total White Black Hisp. Other Total White Black Hisp. Other Total _ Population 43 24 . 20 0 87 0 0 0 0 0 43 24 20 0 87 II Std. of Total 49.43 27.59 22.99 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 49.43 27.59 22.99 0.00 100.00 Std. Devs. 1 1 , 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 • _===== Male........ ............ Female All White Black Hisp. Other Total White Black Hisp. Other Total White Black Hisp. Other Total II Average .% 35.49 24.84 35.19 _1.16 96.69 0.94 0.74 1.60 0.04 3.31 36.43 25.58 36.80 1.20 Std. Dev. 13.94 10.60• 8.81 0.99. .4.69 1.24 0.70 2.97 0.06 4.76 14.05 10.38 9.81 0.99 • N . • C <. 10-15-1991 City of Miami Beach EEO Comparative Analysis Page 8 Category - Service/Maintenance Dade County General Population ..............Male............... .............Female ................All............... White Black Hisp. Other Total White Black Hisp. Other Total White Black Hisp. Other Total Population of Total ' * * * Data unavailable for this employment category. * * * Std. Devs. 4 Dade County Population (70% rule) 40........:.....Male............... .............Female ...............All............... White Black Hisp. . Other Total . White Black Hisp. Other Total White Black Hisp. Other Total Population . .. . of Total * * * Data unavailable for this employment category '''' Std. Devs. • Miami Area SMSA ..............Male............... .............Female.............'. ...............All............... White Black Hisp. Other Total . White Black Hisp. Other Total White Black Hisp. Other Total Population 7663 8562 11377 223 27825 1069 1466 3699 50 6284 8732 10028 15076 273 34109 ' of Total 22.47 25.10 33•.35 0.65 81.58 3.13 4.30 10.84 0.15 18.42 25.60 29.40 44.20 0.80 100.00 Std. Devs. 2 2 2 1 2 . 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 • Metro Dade County Employees ...............Male............... .............Female ...............All............... White Black Hisp. Other Total . White Black Hisp. Other Total White Black Hisp. Other Total Population 373 1876 988 33 3270 30 268 50 2 350 403 2144 103841 35 3620 . % of Total 10.30 51.82 27.29 0.91 90.33 0.83 7.40 1.38 0.06 9.67 11.13 59.23 28. 67 0.97 100.00 ., ;: Std. Devs. 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 City of Miami Employees . ' . r` 40 1 Male Female ...............All White Black Hisp. Other Total White Black Hisp. Other Total White Black Hisp. Other Total Population 24 287 140 0 451 • 2 21 1 0 24 26 308 141 0 475 of Total 5.05 60.42 29.4'x . 0.00 94.95 0.42 4.42 0.21 0.00 5.05 5.47 64.84 29.68 0.00 100.00 Std. Devs. 2 1 1 r 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 City of Miami Beach Employees • G r f -, ..............Ma e. .. Female ....All............... • .... White Black, Hisp. Other Total White Black . Hisp. Other Total White Black Hisp. Other Total € . • . Population 40 125 45 1 211 3 5 2 0 • 10 43 130 47 1 221 % of Total 18.10 56.56 20.36 0.45 95.48 1.36 2.26 0.90 0.00 4.52 19.46 58.82 21.27 0.45 100.00 Std. Devs. 1 . 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 • • • S Male Female All s:'. White Black Hisp. Other Total White Black Hisp. Other Total White Black Hisp. Other • Total Average % 13.98 48.48 27.62 0.50 90.59 1.44 4.60 3.33 0.05 9.42 15.42 53.07 30.96 0.�.�b S � Std. Dev. 7.80 15.96 5.43 0.39 6.34 1.19 2.10 5.03 0.08 6.42 8.88 16.03 9.57 0.42 rA i 10-15-1991 City of Miami Beach EEO Comparative Analysis Page 9 ' 10 Category All Categories Combined Dade County General Population . . 'Male Female All White • Black Hisp. Other Total White Black Hisp. Other Total White Black Hisp. Other Total . Population . 28233 18858 45750 0 92841 30336 20941 49541 0 100818 58569 397995 9291 0 193659 --- % of Total 14.58 9.74 23.62 0.00 47.94 15.66 10.81 25.58 0.00 52.06 30.24 20.55 49.21 0.00 100.00 Std. Devs. 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 Dade County Population 470% rule) .....Male Female ......... ......All............... White Black Hisp. Other Total White Black Hisp. Other Total White Black Hisp. Other Total Population 28233 18858 45750 0. 92841 30336 20941 49541 0 100818 58569 39799 95291 0 193659 % of Total 10.21 6.82 16.54 0.00 33.56 10.97 7.57 17.91 0.00 36.44 21.17 14.39 34.44 0.00 70.00 Std. Devs. . 2 1 1 2 . 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 3 Miami Area SMSA Male Female All ao White Black Hisp. Other Total White Black Hisp. Other Total White Black Hisp. Other Total Population 139212 31419 98027 3065 271723 108522 29099 69801 2352 209774 247734 60518 167828 5417 481497 . S of Total 28.91 • 6.53 20.36 0.64 56.43 22.54 6.04 14.50 0.49 43.57 51.45 12.57 34.86 1.13 100.00 41 Std. Devs. 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 Metro Dade County Employees .....Male Female All White Black Hisp. Other Total White Black Hisp. Other Total White Black Hisp. Other Total 3 Population 5206 4181 4440 214 14041 2126 3420 2289 114 7949 7332 7601 6729 328 21990 S of Total 23.67 19.01 20.19 0.97 63.85 9.67 15.55 10.41 0.52 36.15 33.34 34.57 30.60 1.49 100.00 Std. Devs. 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 City of Miami Employees • 3 Male --•••• Female All -- White Black Hisp. , Other Total White Black Hisp. Other Total White Black Hisp. Other Total Population 849 704 1127 27 2707 195 383 336 9 923 1044 1087 1463 36 3630 of Total . 23.39 19.39 31.05 0.74 74.57 5.37 10.55 9.26 0.25 25.43 28.76 29.94 40.30 0.99 100.00 i , Std. Devs. 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 D City of Miami Beach Employees • ....Male Female All i White Black Hisp. Other Total White Black Hisp. Other Total White Black Hisp. Other Total Population 681 173 206 5 1065 185 56 75 1 317 866 229 281 6 1382 % of Total 49.28 12.52 14.91 , 0.36 77.06 13.39 4.05 5.43 0.07 22.94 62.66 16.57 20.33 0.43 100.00 Std. Devs. 2 1 2 • 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 11 • ' ' . . .Male _ Female All • White Black Hisp. Other Total White Black Hisp. Other Total White Black Hisp. Other Total Average % 25.01 12.34 21.11 0.45 58.90 12.93 9.10 13.85 0.22 36.10 37.94 21.43 34.96 0.67 Std. Dev. 13.68 5.73 5.77 0.41 16.55 5.87 4.08 7.18 0.23 10.93 15.74 8.92 9.63 0.63 Us , 6 , , a • CITY OF MIAMI BEACH EEO COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS Sources Data 1. Dade County General Population 1990 Census (See Note below). 2. Dade County Population (70% rule) 1990 Census (See Note below) The 70% rule was applied to the percentages. 3. Miami Area SMSA Florida Department of Labor and Employment Security - Division of Labor, Employment, and Training. Miami SMSA (Dade County) Table 3 - Occupation of the Labor Force by Sex and Minority Status, 1980 Source: Census of population 1980. 4. Metro Dade County Employees Metropolitan Dade County- Equal Employment Opportunity Survey- County Totals Computer Report J335220/5335225 - 6/30/91 (Actual Employees). 5. City of Miami Employees Payroll/Personnel System - Equal Employment Opportunity Report. City Wide Permanent Employees by Job Cat. - Computer Report 360-300 - 6/30/91. 6. City of Miami Beach Employees Payroll/Personnel System - Equal Employment Opportunity Report by Func. Computer Report PPSR447 - 10/07/91. 4 NOTE 1: a) The population is reported in tens (not units). b) There is a 28,000 overlap between Blacks and Hispanics (Black Hispanics) which results in a comparable undercount for Non-Hispanic Whites (which also includes other races). NOTE 2: All categories combined for the Miami Area SMSA population is the sum of the categories appearing in this report. It is not the sum of all the employment categories for the entire Miami Area SMSA population. OR:GINAL RESOLUTION NO. 91-20380 finding that there is evidence that supports an inference that minorities and women have not proportionately shared in employment opportunites, setting forth a policy to promote their increased participation in the City's work force, and directing the City Manager to report to the Commission periodically on the effectiveness of the City's Affirmative Action Program.