Two Tales of Cities: Revisiting Sex-Based Occupational Segregation in U.S. Municipal Bureaucracies,1991-2015

Abstract

Drawing upon 24 years (1991-2015) of U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission data, we ask whether sex-based occupational segregation among professional and administrative employees in municipal bureaucracies is related to agency policy missions. We evaluate occupational segregation using two different benchmarks, 30% women and 50% women. At the 30% threshold in distributive and regulatory agencies, our findings suggest erosion of glass walls among professional workforces, but widespread occupational segregation among administrative workforces. At the 50% benchmark, we find a different story. Most cities reach or exceed gender parity in redistributive agencies; however, we observe widespread occupational segregation among administrative and professional workforces in distributive and regulatory agencies. Patterns of sex-based occupational segregation are related to agency policy missions. Analyses of glass walls should not be based on a single benchmark. One option is to supplement evaluations using the customary 30% threshold with evaluations employing a threshold of 50%, or true gender parity.

Keywords

glass walls occupational segregation gender politics municipal bureaucracies women’s employment

Introduction

This is the ultimate chicken and the egg situation. The chicken: Women will tear down the external barriers once we achieve leadership roles . . . The egg: We need to eliminate the external barriers to get women into those roles in the first place. Both sides are right. (Sandberg, 2013 National Public Radio transcript)

Glass walls, glass ceilings, glass escalators, glass cliffs, and sticky floors are metaphors for barriers women face in their attempts to ascend to leadership positions in organizational hierarchies (Guy, 1994; Powell, 2012; Ryan & Haslam, 2005; P. Smith, Caputi, & Crittenden, 2012; Williams, 1992). Studies using publicly available data have long documented the existence of both glass walls and glass ceilings in public sector agencies in the United States (Bullard & Wright, 1993; Caceres-Rodriguez, 2013; Crum & Naff, 1997; Kellough, 1989, 1990; Lewis & Emmert, 1986; Rosenbloom, 1977; Sabharwal, 2015; Stivers, 1993). In a few studies using restricted-access U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) public employment data, researchers have examined sex-based barriers in state- and/or municipal-level bureaucracies (Kerr, Miller, & Reid, 2002; Miller, Kerr, & Reid, 1999; Reid, Kerr, & Miller, 2003). More recent studies on gender-based occupational segregation examine federal- and state-level agencies (e.g., Caceres-Rodriguez, 2013; Choi, 2015; Riccucci, 2009; Sabharwal, 2015; A. E. Smith & Monaghan, 2013), while similar examinations of municipal bureaucracies are few and dated.

We focus on municipal government for several reasons. It is at this level that government services and resources are most directly delivered to constituents. There are a large number of jobs available to women in city governments. Many of these positions represent an important source of economic, social, and political progress for women. Positions in municipal governments are often conveniently located near attractive housing and educational opportunities (Miller et al., 1999). Women hold 61% of all jobs at the municipal level (as opposed to 43% at the federal level), and these functions include, among other things, education, public safety, family and children services, emergency medical services, parks, recreation, road repair, water, sanitation, housing, transportation, libraries, art, community development, youth activities, and so on (Guy, 2017). Guy (2017) cautions that although women hold a majority of positions at the municipal level, women are not proportionately represented across all types of agencies. “Women are concentrated in public schools, public health offices, and family and children’s services. Men are scattered more evenly across all jobs, but their concentrations are most notable in public safety” (Guy, 2017, p. 50). Our objective is to determine how well U.S. cities do in meeting two different thresholds—30% women and 50% women—among professional and administrative workforces across different agencies over time.

We extend, by 22 years, Miller et al. (1999) by examining the extent of sex-based occupational segregation in U.S. municipal-level bureaucracies among administrative and professional workforces and whether this segregation is related to agency policy missions. We examine occupational segregation using the customary measurement of 30% women (Miller et al., 1999; Tomaskovic-Devey, 1993). In addition, we supplement the analysis by introducing a new benchmark of 50%, which is consistent with the goal of absolute or true sex-based parity. Because performance measurement and data interpretation are often connected to economic and political interests (Levin-Waldman, 2004), we believe that there is a significant advantage to incorporating more than one measure of women’s progress toward leadership positions. The benchmark of 30% is often based on the critical mass argument (Tomaskovic-Devey, 1993). The assumption is that once agencies meet or exceed the threshold of 30% women, probabilities for equal representation, promotion, inclusion in decision making, leadership, and policy influence for women increase at a more rapid pace. Although the critical mass argument is important, it is also important to examine municipal governments on the dimension of true parity (i.e., 50% women) in administrative and professional positions. The 50% threshold—a straightforward measure based on the standard of true equality with men—is a defensible normative and empirical goal. As the United States is more than 160 years removed from the start of the women’s rights movement, setting the benchmark at 30% may be unfair to women. The 30% benchmark, widely accepted by scholars as a progressive marker some 30 years ago, should not be considered progressive by contemporary standards. Also, if a high level of descriptive representation is a requirement for legitimate democratic institutions, a 50% threshold of women is more desirable than a threshold of 30%. Alkadry and Tower (2015) contend that “proper representation of women in the workplace” should be at 50%, including 50% of leadership positions.

The overarching challenge here is to develop benchmarks and frameworks to examine whether the hiring of many women employees by municipal government agencies translates into either the hiring or promotion of women into quality leadership positions—those affording economic, social, and political progress (Ballard & Lawn-Day, 1992; Miller et al., 1999). Leadership positions are important both for the people occupying those positions and for the agency policies those leaders can influence (Caceres-Rodriguez, 2013; D’Agostino, 2014; Fraga, Martinez-Ebers, Lopez, & Ramirez, 2005; Lawless, 2004; Sabharwal, 2015; but see Donahue, 1997; Ford & Dolan, 1996; Hogue & Lord, 2007; Rosenthal, 2005).

We apply Frederickson’s (1990) compound theory of social equity, the segmented equality framework, to help identify sex-based occupational segregation in municipal administrative and professional workforces across different types of municipal government agencies (see also Kelly et al., 1991). Administrator occupations include the following: department heads, bureau chiefs, directors, deputy directors, controllers, wardens, superintendents, sheriffs, police and fire chiefs and inspectors, examiners (bank, hearing, motor vehicle, warehouse), inspectors (construction, building, safety, rent and housing, fire, Alcohol Beverage Control (A.B.C) Board, license, dairy, livestock, transportation), assessors, tax appraisers and investigators, coroners, farm managers, and kindred workers (EEOC, 1986, Form 164). Professional occupations include the following: 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 and lieutenants, librarians, management analysts, airplane pilots and navigators, surveyors and mapping scientists, and kindred workers (EEOC, 1986, Form 164).

Research Questions

We examine the following research questions:

Research Question 1: What is the distribution of female and male administrators and professionals in various functional policy areas (e.g., police, housing, corrections, fire, community development) in municipal governments?

Research Question 2: Is the underrepresentation and/or overrepresentation of female and male administrators and professionals related to agency missions?

Theory and Expectations

Previous research demonstrates that the relative proportion of men and women in professional and administrative positions differs by agency type/policy mission (Choi, 2015; Connell, 2006; Johnson & Crum-Cano, 2011; Miller et al., 1999; Newman, 1994; Reid, Kerr, & Miller, 2000; A. E. Smith & Monaghan, 2013; Sneed, 2007). Furthermore, Choi (2010) posits that policy types are key predictors of labor force diversity. Lowi (1985) argues that differences in policy missions are related to processes, relationships, and structures that affect personnel hiring and promotion patterns in federal bureaucracies. Previous research strongly suggests that bureaucratic culture should also be considered in studies that examine the existence and extent of glass walls and/or ceilings in federal- and state-level bureaucracies (Caceres-Rodriguez, 2013; Lowi, 1985; Newman, 1994; Riccucci, 2009; Saltzstein, 1986; Stein, 1986). In her analysis of Florida state-level bureaucracies, using Lowi’s (1985) theoretical argument, Newman (1994) finds the harshest discrimination in the hiring, retention, and promotion of women in distributive policy agencies as compared with redistributive and regulatory agencies. Using publicly available EEOC data (which combines city and state workforce data into single state-level pools), Lewis and Nice (1994) find a link between sex-based occupational segregation and pay disparities.

Miller et al. (1999) refine Lowi’s (1985) and Newman’s (1994) conceptual frameworks to examine bureaucratic culture and its effect on sex-based employment in distributive, regulatory, and redistributive agencies at the municipal level. Based on EEOC data from 1985 through 1993 and focusing on administrative and professional positions—the highest level positions in terms of discretion, policy implementation, salaries, and benefits—in municipal government bureaucracies, Miller et al. (1999) find women to be severely underrepresented in regulatory and distributive agencies. Although women are better represented in redistributive agencies, Miller et al. (1999) also find apparent salary inequities because, on average, redistributive agencies pay lower salaries than distributive and regulatory agencies.

The work by Kelly et al. (1991) is the first application of Frederickson’s (1990) compound theory of social equity to the analysis of women’s underrepresentation in public sector employment. Frederickson’s (1990) theory is a logical extension of Lowi’s (1985) theoretical framework on agency policy type. That is, Lowi’s (1985) framework, although useful for our analysis, is incomplete in that it speaks to the study of policy types with no reference to gender or representational equality. Specifically, Frederickson’s (1990) theory suggests that if the bureaucratic goal is to obtain representational equality, it is imperative to look beyond block equality (e.g., the agency’s personnel ranks in the aggregate) to segmented equality or proportional bureaucratic representation at each occupational level or strata of each agency as well as across varying types of municipal agencies. As such, we argue that locating representational equality at the highest administrative levels and across varied agencies is critically important for promoting the interests of traditionally disadvantaged and marginalized groups through similarly situated municipal-level agency leadership. Accordingly, we integrate Frederickson’s (1990) theoretical insights with Miller et al.’s (1999) refinement of Lowi (1985) and Newman (1994).

Based on past usage and recommendations (Lowi, 1964, 1972, 1985; Miller et al., 1999; Newman, 1994), we employ Lowi’s (1964) policy categories to guide our expectations for each functional area (see Table 1). The primary limitation of Lowi’s framework is that functions may not include policy missions that are mutually exclusive (Froman, 1968; Reid et al., 2003). Because missions in financial administration/general control and housing are more or less equally divided between policy types (see the appendix), we classify these two functions as indeterminate. Generally, our expectation is that we will find occupational segregation in regulatory and distributive agencies, but no occupational segregation in redistributive agencies. Furthermore, because Lowi’s policy categories were developed for federal-level policies, there is the potential for inconsistency.

Table 1.

Policy Type by Characteristics and Functions.

Policy type	Characteristics	Functions^a	EEOC functions
Distributive	Resistant to change due to mutually reinforcing relationships between clientele and their agencies; reliance on professional and occupational norms and highly specialized. Discretion and diversity are not valued^b	Development and management of water resources; construction and management of streets, highways, and bridges; provision and operation of historical sites, parks, and recreation; and community development (see the appendix for a description of EEO-4 form functions)^c	• Streets/Highways • Sanitation and sewage • Parks and recreation • Community development • Utilities/Transportation
Regulatory	Impose obligations and sanctions to control individual and collective actions and behavior^d	Corrections, fire, police, utilities and transportation, and so on (see the appendix for a description of EEO-4 form functions)	• Police • Fire • Corrections
Redistributive	Shift wealth and/or rights between groups and classes^c/^d often hiring from within the agency^c	Public welfare systems, employment security, hospitals and sanitariums, provision of public health services, programs for the aging, and vocational rehabilitation^c	• Welfare • Hospitals • Health

Note. EEOC = U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

All functions are performed by municipal governments.

Corson and Paul (1966), Lowi (1985), Lewis and Emmert (1986), and Newman (1994).

Kerr, Miller, and Reid (2002) and/or EEO-4 Form 164.

Lowi (1964, 1972).

Although there is potential for imprecision and inconsistency due to lack of cohesion between EEOC classification and Lowi’s (1964) policy categories, we believe this to be the most useful framework available. Peterson (1981) provides another framework to conceptualize municipal-level policy categories; however, his policy categories—developmental, redistributive, and allocational—correspond poorly to the functional areas listed on EEOC’s EEO-4 report, whereas the policy areas developed by Lowi correspond reasonably well (see the appendix).

Lowi’s (1964) typology serves as a loose conceptual framework (Reid et al., 2003). Although the shortcomings of this approach have been identified, we agree with past researchers that the analytical benefit in approaching municipal sex-based occupational segregation through consideration of policy categories outweighs the identified imperfections (see Froman, 1968; Reid et al., 2003).

We develop our expectations based on Lowi’s (1985) three policy types as expanded by Frederickson (1990) and Kelly et al. (1991) and later refined by Newman (1994) and Miller et al. (1999). First, we argue that among the administrative and professional ranks in distributive agencies, we will observe sex-based occupational segregation, due, in part, to agency missions that are heavily reliant on professional and occupational norms, the tendency to promote specialists (rather than generalists), and relatively high levels of discretion. Distributive agencies are often characterized by organizational cultures largely insensitive to discriminatory practices and procedures. Johnson and Crum-Cano (2011) refer to distributive agencies as public work agencies. These functions are streets and highways, sanitation and sewage, parks and recreation, community development, and utilities and transportation (see the appendix). Because we examine municipal government workforces, we classify utilities and transportation as distributive (rather than regulatory). The authority of municipal governments in this functional area extends primarily to public transit and airports.

Second, agencies with redistributive policy commitments tend to hire and promote women, and as such, we expect to find, as did Miller et al. (1999), that “. . . the character of gender segregation among municipal-level administrative and professional workforces tends to pack women into redistributive agencies” (p. 226). Redistributive policies shift wealth and/or rights between groups and classes (Lowi, 1964). Accordingly, at the city level, these policy commitments include public welfare, public health, and hospitals. Arising from welfare, social justice, and public health, these commitments are also consistent with theoretical arguments that women naturally possess an ethic of care (Gillian, 1982; Guy, 2017; Kymlicka, 1990). Furthermore, previous research finds that redistributive agencies achieve greater gender balance (Johnson & Crum-Cano, 2011; Sneed, 2007). Consequently, we expect to observe little to no sex-based occupational segregation among municipal administrative and professional workforces.

Third, we expect to find disproportionate representation of men in managerial ranks in regulatory agencies such as policing, corrections, and fire. This expectation is based on findings that gender segregation remains rampant in regulatory agencies (Johnson & Crum-Cano, 2011) and that gender balance is not promoted within more authoritative agencies (Cayer & Sigelman, 1980; Riccucci, 1986; Warner, Steel, & Lovrich, 1989). Moreover, in traditional policing agencies, there are a number of practices that exclude women from higher level ranks (see Mladenka, 1991; Newman, 1994; Stein, 1986). Guy (2017) finds that women hold only 12% of police officer posts, and a recent Department of Justice Bulletin reports women hold approximately 3% of all U.S. police chief positions (U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2015, p. 5). Following previous studies, if an administrative or professional workforce in a city does not reach or surpass 30% women, we interpret this as evidence of occupational segregation which suggests the presence of a glass wall. However, if women hold at least 30% of the administrative and/or professional positions in an agency, we find that the city has met the wall goal. We also employ the 50% benchmark, called gender parity. This standard is met by cities if women constitute at least 50% of the administrative or professional workforce in a function. The 30% threshold is the basis for the first tale of cities; the 50% threshold is the basis for the second tale. In sum, at the 30% threshold we expect (a) cities will not achieve the wall goal in administrative and professional positions in distributive agencies or regulatory agencies, with the highest levels of occupational segregation occurring in police and fire (glass wall expectation), and (b) cities will achieve the wall goal in administrative and professional positions in redistributive agencies (wall goal expectation). At the 50% threshold of gender parity, we expect to find widespread gender parity in the administrative and professional ranks in agencies with redistributive policy commitments (gender parity expectation), but the percentage of cities reaching this benchmark will be consistently lower than the percentage achieving the 30% threshold. We expect to find high levels and widespread patterns of female underrepresentation in the administrative and professional ranks of distributive and regulatory agencies.

Research Design: Data, Variables, and Method

Data

The data for our analysis are provided by the EEOC and are not publicly available.¹ The data include EEO-4 reports from all U.S. cities that are required to file with the EEOC (cities with more than 100 employees must file reports every odd-numbered year), and as such, these reports represent the most comprehensive source of U.S. municipal-level employment data available. Beginning in 1997, cities with less than 1,000 employees were no longer required to file their reports by functional area (EEOC, 2015). Accordingly, we limit our analysis to cities with 1,000 or more employees in each year. This restriction makes the data roughly consistent over time. Following previous research, if a city has fewer than five employees in their administrative or professional workforce within a function, we omit the city for that year (Miller et al., 1999). The number of cities available for analysis varies between five (administrators in hospitals in 2011) and 260 (professionals in police in 2003) depending upon the job category, functional area, and year under examination.

Variables and Method

Our objective was to determine whether city administrative and professional workforces in different functional policy areas show evidence of occupational segregation at the 30% and 50% benchmarks. Accordingly, we compare the distribution of women and men in administrative and professional positions by functional policy area for the period 1991 through 2015 employing a cutoff point of 30% of women in the first analysis (Miller et al., 1999; Tomaskovic-Devey, 1993; Tomaskovic-Devey, Kalleberg, & Marsden, 1996) and a cutoff point of 50% women in the second analysis. Policy commitments (or agency missions) in the functional policy areas can be thought of as factors related to the distribution of women and men in administrative and professional positions. Consistent with Lowi (1964, 1972) and Miller et al. (1999), we divide the functional categories (see the appendix for descriptions) into one of the following three areas based on dominant policy missions: distributive, regulatory, or redistributive. If missions fall fairly equally into two or more functional categories, we classify these as indeterminate. At the municipal level, streets and highways, sanitation and sewage, parks and recreation, community development, and utilities/transportation have predominately distributive policy commitments. Police, corrections, and fire are classified as regulatory. Health, hospitals, and public welfare are categorized as redistributive. Financial administration/general control and housing are categorized as “indeterminate.”²

Table 2 reports the total number of municipal administrators and professionals for 1991, 2003, and 2015 by functional area.³ For 2015, the most recent year in our data set, the EEOC’s EEO-4 reports include 45,784 administrators and 147,897 professionals for a total of 193,681 management-level municipal employees. The total number of administrative positions decreases by 6% between 1991 and 2015, whereas the total number of professional positions decreases by about 4%.

Table 2.

Number and Percentage of Female Administrators and Professionals by Year and Functional Area.

Functional area	1991			2003			2015
	Administrators			Administrators			Administrators
	Female	Percent female	Total	Female	Percent female	Total	Female	Percent female	Total
Distributive	2,853	15	19,142	4,149	21	19,898	2,898	28	10,196
Regulatory	652	7	9,913	2,108	13	16,689	2,775	17	16,423
Redistributive	3,076	51	6,040	4,544	57	7,965	2,376	59	4,056
Indeterminate	4,548	33	13,786	6,597	41	16,079	6,952	46	15,109
Total	11,129	23	48,881	17,398	29	60,631	15,001	33	45,784
Functional area	Professionals			Professionals			Professionals
Functional area	Female	Percent female	Total	Female	Percent female	Total	Female	Percent female	Total
Distributive	11,974	31	39,044	17,937	37	48,886	17,818	40	44,793
Regulatory	3,336	11	31,437	6,976	19	36,509	7,187	22	32,007
Redistributive	35,209	70	49,946	38,801	75	51,879	21,429	74	28,974
Indeterminate	14,783	43	34,182	21,710	51	42,783	22,099	52	42,123
Total	65,302	42	154,609	85,424	47	180,057	68,533	46	147,897

Note. Raw numbers are numbers across all cities with at least 1,000 employees.

Empirical Results

Occupational Segregation Among Municipal Administrative Workforces by Functional Area and Year

Table 3 reports the percentage of municipalities with administrative positions reaching the 30% wall goal, Tale 1, and the percentage of cities reaching the 50% parity goal, Tale 2.

Table 3.

Occupational Segregation Among Administrators by Functional Area and Year: Cities Meeting Wall Goal and Parity.

	1991		1995		1999		2003		2007		2011		2015
Distributive
Streets—total	131		118		104		113		114		104		93
Number/wall goal	4	3%	5	4%	11	11%	17	15%	17	15%	15	14%	22	24%
Number/parity	0	0%	0	0%	1	1%	1	1%	3	3%	1	1%	2	2%
Sanitation—total	77		80		71		75		64		71		70
Number/wall goal	1	1%	6	8%	9	13%	7	9%	10	16%	15	21%	16	23%
Number/parity	1	1%	1	1%	2	3%	1	1%	2	3%	4	6%	5	7%
Parks and recreation—total	168		148		117		127		127		107		109
Number/wall goal	64	38%	64	43%	60	51%	76	60%	81	64%	67	63%	72	66%
Number/parity	16	10%	13	9%	15	13%	25	20%	29	23%	23	21%	31	28%
Community development—total	107		110		94		110		110		101		99
Number/wall goal	39	36%	46	42%	48	51%	67	61%	67	61%	68	67%	67	68%
Number/parity	13	12%	13	12%	18	19%	21	19%	24	22%	28	28%	30	30%
Utilities/transportation—total	146		136		123		139		119		115		114
Number/wall goal	4	3%	8	6%	10	8%	24	17%	23	19%	20	17%	30	26%
Number/parity	2	1%	1	1%	2	2%	4	3%	3	3%	3	3%	4	4%
Regulatory
Police—total	121		117		103		129		124		119		130
Number/wall goal	13	11%	21	18%	29	28%	44	34%	43	35%	43	36%	49	38%
Number/parity	5	4%	5	4%	11	11%	15	12%	11	9%	15	13%	19	15%
Fire—total	156		138		123		144		139		133		144
Number/wall goal	2	1%	0	0%	2	2%	4	3%	6	4%	7	5%	9	6%
Number/parity	1	1%	0	0%	1	1%	1	1%	0	0%	0	0%	1	1%
Corrections—total	16		12		18		15		11		10		16
Number/wall goal	5	31%	5	42%	8	44%	11	73%	8	73%	7	70%	13	81%
Number/parity	4	25%	0	0%	5	28%	2	13%	2	18%	4	40%	6	38%
Redistributive
Welfare—total	19		21		19		20		18		19		18
Number/wall goal	19	100%	20	95%	18	95%	16	80%	15	83%	18	95%	17	94%
Number/parity	12	63%	14	67%	14	74%	15	75%	10	56%	17	89%	15	83%
Hospitals—total	36		33		24		25		7		5		6
Number/wall goal	31	86%	30	91%	21	88%	25	100%	5	71%	5	100%	6	100%
Number/parity	25	69%	24	73%	21	88%	22	88%	5	71%	4	80%	5	83%
Health—total	46		47		43		45		43		35		39
Number/wall goal	38	83%	42	89%	31	72%	35	78%	35	81%	32	91%	36	92%
Number/parity	15	33%	18	38%	15	35%	21	47%	25	58%	23	66%	30	77%
Indeterminate
Financial administration and general control—total	254		247		192		216		207		209		218
Number/wall goal	132	52%	163	66%	146	76%	177	82%	182	88%	184	88%	201	92%
Number/parity	22	9%	38	15%	38	20%	53	25%	65	31%	75	36%	92	42%
Housing—total	65		72		53		71		63		59		56
Number/wall goal	20	31%	28	39%	27	51%	32	45%	23	37%	27	46%	24	43%
Number/parity	5	8%	6	8%	16	30%	14	20%	7	11%	10	17%	11	20%

Note. Total is the number of cities reporting at least five administrators in the functional area. The wall goal is the percentage of cities that employ at least 30% female administrators in a functional area. Shown here is the number and percentage of cities meeting the wall goal. Parity is the percentage of cities that employ at least 50% female administrators in a functional area. Shown here is the number and percentage of cities reaching parity.

Distributive functions

Table 3 indicates that city-level administrative workforces in distributive agencies still show sex-based occupational segregation. For example, sex-based occupational segregation is still common in sanitation, streets, and utilities/transportation agencies as only 23%, 24%, and 26% of cities, respectively, met the 30% benchmark in 2015. In contrast, by 2015, 68% of cities met the wall goal in community development and 66% met the goal in parks and recreation. Community development and parks and recreation agencies serve business interests as well as the interests of rank-and-file citizens. Activities include affordable housing starts and grants, planning, zoning, beautification, playgrounds, pools, auditoriums, museums, and zoos. This may help explain why cities perform better in community development and parks than in other distributive agencies.

At the 50% benchmark, a mere 2% of cities achieve parity by 2015 in streets, only 4% of cities reach parity in utilities, and only 7% of cities achieve parity in sanitation and sewage. At the 50% threshold, community development agencies show greater progress toward parity, increasing from 12% to 30% of cities between 1991 and 2015. By 2015, only 28% of cities achieved gender parity among their administrative workforces in parks and recreation. As expected, we find little evidence for gender parity among administrative workforces in municipal distributive agencies.

Regulatory functions

We expect to observe sex-based occupational segregation at the administrative level in regulatory agencies at both the 30% and 50% benchmarks. The strongest evidence of sex-based occupational segregation is in fire protection, with only 6% of cities meeting the 30% threshold by 2015. In police in 2015, 38% of cities achieve or surpass the wall goal. Of all regulatory agencies, corrections shows the most progress toward the wall goal, increasing from 31% of cities in 1991 to 81% of cities in 2015.

At the 50% benchmark, the results provide support for widespread female underrepresentation in regulatory agencies. In the fire and policing agencies, we observe that just 1% and 15% of cities, respectively, achieve parity in 2015. In corrections, we observe modest progress as 25% of cities achieved parity in 1991 and 38% did so by 2015. In sum, we find support for the existence of glass walls in the administrative ranks of municipal regulatory agencies, especially in policing and fire.

Redistributive functions

We expect large percentages of cities to reach the 30% and 50% benchmarks (wall goal and parity) in municipal-level administrative workforces in redistributive agencies. The findings in Table 3 indicate that women are well represented in welfare (94%), hospitals (100%), and health (92%) administrative positions at the 30% benchmark in 2015. At the 50% gender parity threshold, approximately 80% of cities achieve the goal by 2015 in health, welfare, and hospitals. The number of cities reporting at least five administrators in hospitals drops from 36 to six over 28 years. This decrease in N is likely a reflection of downsizing/efficiency as well as the fact that many cities have closed hospitals. At the 50% benchmark, the administrative ranks of health agencies experienced the greatest increase in parity over time from 33% of cities in 1991 to 77% in 2015. In sum, the percentage of cities meeting the 30% wall goal and 50% parity threshold is highest for redistributive agencies, compared with other types of agencies. Municipal redistributive agencies have the least amount of sex-based occupational segregation among administrative cadres.

Indeterminate

Functions with a varied range of missions are categorized “indeterminate.” We observe substantial gains in financial administration and general control, where 92% of cities reached the 30% wall goal for administrative positions by 2015. However, when we shift to the 50% benchmark, only 42% of cities achieve absolute parity. Even less progress is observed in housing. Table 3 indicates that in 2015 only 43% of cities met the 30% threshold, and fewer, that is, only 20% of cities achieve or surpass the 50% threshold. Sex-based occupational segregation appears to be much more of an issue in the indeterminate function when employing the standard of true parity. We turn now to an analysis of occupational segregation among professional workforces for all functional areas for 1991-2015.

Occupational Segregation Among Municipal Professional Workforces by Functional Area and Year

Distributive functions

Although sex-based occupational segregation is not as prevalent in the professional ranks of distributive functions as in the corresponding administrative ranks, we do observe evidence of segregation (see Table 4). In transportation/utilities, for example, in 2015, 26% of cities met the wall goal of 30% women in administrative positions, whereas 58% of cities met the wall goal for professional positions. In contrast, between 1991 and 2015, both community development and parks and recreation made impressive gains in meeting the 30% threshold for administrative positions (36%-68% and 38%-66%, respectively), as well as the 30% benchmark for professional positions (71%-91% and 83%-88%, respectively). We do not observe similar and uniform progress in cities reaching the parity benchmark in distributive agencies. In community development and parks and recreation, we observe an increase in the percentage of cities reaching the 50% threshold among professional cadres from 22% to 52% and 43% to 58%, respectively. In streets/highways, only 5% of cities reached the 50% parity benchmark among their professional workforces in 2015. Although some cities are progressing toward parity in professional ranks in distributive agencies, we still observe widespread evidence of sex-based occupational segregation.

Table 4.

Occupational Segregation Among Professionals by Functional Area and Year: Cities Meeting Wall Goal and Parity.

	1991		1995		1999		2003		2007		2011		2015
Distributive
Streets—total	179		164		138		148		153		142		148
Number/wall goal	18	10%	30	18%	28	20%	43	29%	52	34%	63	44%	63	43%
Number/parity	4	2%	1	1%	6	4%	8	5%	10	7%	12	8%	7	5%
Sanitation—total	110		122		106		117		111		112		120
Number/wall goal	30	27%	45	37%	48	45%	49	42%	55	50%	64	57%	67	56%
Number/parity	8	7%	11	9%	10	9%	13	11%	11	10%	17	15%	19	16%
Parks and recreation—total	193		205		159		178		173		172		176
Number/wall goal	161	83%	160	78%	137	86%	152	85%	153	88%	150	87%	154	88%
Number/parity	83	43%	87	42%	77	48%	89	50%	90	52%	95	55%	102	58%
Community development—total	201		202		153		168		169		162		165
Number/wall goal	143	71%	143	71%	127	83%	139	83%	147	87%	143	88%	150	91%
Number/parity	45	22%	40	20%	53	35%	62	37%	73	43%	69	43%	85	52%
Utilities/transportation—total	149		153		142		160		149		156		166
Number/wall goal	38	26%	49	32%	57	40%	83	52%	90	60%	89	57%	97	58%
Number/parity	5	3%	7	5%	9	6%	10	6%	15	10%	15	10%	19	11%
Regulatory
Police—total	247		237		225		260		232		238		234
Number/wall goal	32	13%	42	18%	62	28%	94	36%	88	38%	112	47%	104	44%
Number/parity	5	2%	13	5%	18	8%	24	9%	37	16%	36	15%	44	19%
Fire—total	238		225		190		214		201		200		206
Number/wall goal	5	2%	6	3%	7	4%	12	6%	24	12%	20	10%	24	12%
Number/parity	0	0%	2	1%	3	2%	5	2%	16	8%	12	6%	12	6%
Corrections—total	32		30		27		31		27		27		31
Number/wall goal	26	81%	24	80%	23	85%	26	84%	26	96%	26	96%	29	94%
Number/parity	9	28%	14	47%	12	44%	16	52%	13	48%	14	52%	16	52%
Redistributive
Welfare—total	50		45		36		47		42		36		41
Number/wall goal	49	98%	45	100%	35	97%	46	98%	42	100%	35	97%	40	98%
Number/parity	47	94%	43	96%	31	86%	44	94%	38	90%	35	97%	39	95%
Hospitals—total	41		36		27		27		9		7		7
Number/wall goal	41	100%	35	97%	27	100%	27	100%	7	78%	7	100%	7	100%
Number/parity	41	100%	34	94%	27	100%	27	100%	6	67%	7	100%	7	100%
Health—total	90		90		72		79		69		68		68
Number/wall goal	87	97%	87	97%	70	97%	78	99%	67	97%	66	97%	65	96%
Number/parity	82	91%	79	88%	68	94%	76	96%	63	91%	61	90%	60	88%
Indeterminate
Financial administration and general control—total	255		247		196		219		212		212		222
Number/wall goal	233	91%	233	94%	189	96%	214	98%	207	98%	206	97%	217	98%
Number/parity	97	38%	118	48%	103	53%	143	65%	145	68%	154	73%	172	77%
Housing—total	100		113		92		105		93		99		97
Number/wall goal	57	57%	76	67%	70	76%	83	79%	78	84%	79	80%	82	85%
Number/parity	28	28%	41	36%	39	42%	47	45%	45	48%	51	52%	51	53%

Note. Total is the number of cities reporting at least five professionals in the functional area. The wall goal is the percentage of cities that employ at least 30% female professionals in a functional area. Shown here is the number and percentage of cities meeting the wall goal. Parity is the percentage of cities that employ at least 50% female professionals in a functional area. Shown here is the number and percentage of cities reaching parity.

Regulatory functions

In Table 4, we observe uneven progress across regulatory agencies in meeting the 30% mark among professional ranks. The percentage of police departments reaching the wall goal increased from 13% in 1991 to 44% in 2015, whereas corrections progressed from 81% to 94%. The percentage of fire departments reaching the 30% wall goal for professionals grew from just 2% to 12% of cities, indicating strong support for the presence of glass walls in most cities. Using the gender parity benchmark (50%), no cities achieve parity among their professional fire workforces in 1991, whereas only 6% reach parity in 2015. Among professional workforces in police departments, only 2% of cities reached parity in 1991—and by 2015, only 19% of cities achieved the 50% benchmark. In corrections, the percentage of cities reaching parity varied between 28% in 1991 and 52% in 2015. Although sex-based occupational segregation among professionals was not as prevalent in the regulatory function at the 30% benchmark (with the exception of fire) as in the corresponding administrative ranks, occupational segregation is pervasive when we move the benchmark to true parity.

Redistributive functions

Among professional workforces in redistributive agencies, we observe the strongest support for cities reaching the wall goal of 30%. Since 1991, all redistributive functions report between 96% and 100% of cities either meeting or surpassing the wall goal for professionals. In hospitals, 100% of cities are gender-balanced in 1991 and in 2015. These patterns for redistributive agencies are roughly the same using the 50% gender parity benchmark. From 1991 to 2015, hospitals continue to maintain 100% cities reaching gender parity; welfare and health agencies show 94% to 95% and 91% to 88% of cities, respectively, reaching true gender parity in their professional cadres. We did not expect sex-based occupational segregation to be present at either the 30% or 50% benchmarks in professional workforces in redistributive agencies. The findings are consistent with our expectations. Although the gains in this functional area are impressive, it is important to remember these agencies include the lowest salaried positions in municipal governments (Lowi, 1985; Miller, Kerr, & Reid, 1999).

Indeterminate

Professional workforces in financial administration/general control and housing show uneven progress at both benchmarks. At the 30% benchmark, 91% of cities reached the wall goal in 1991 in financial administration/general control, whereas 98% reached the goal in 2015. At the 50% benchmark, the corresponding percentage of cities in financial administration reaching the benchmark is 38% in 1991 and 77% in 2015. In housing for the same years, we observe 57% to 85% of cities met the 30% wall goal—and 28% to 53% of cities achieve or surpass the 50% threshold.

In summary, we observe substantial progress for women across many functional areas and municipal agencies. The patterns we observe are consistent with Lowi’s (1985), Frederickson’s (1990), and Miller et al.’s (1999) theoretical arguments.

In this section, we present selected findings in two line graphs designed to help illustrate the narratives about municipal-level progress and lack of progress for women among administrative and professional workforces. The empirical results for gender parity (50% women) do indeed tell a different tale than the results from the glass wall analysis (30% women). The findings show widespread progress in cities reaching the glass wall goal in regulatory agencies such as corrections (i.e., professionals at 94% and administrators at 81% in 2015). When we examine parity for regulatory agencies, corrections only reaches 52% for professional workforces and 38% for administrative workforces (see Figure 1). Furthermore, using the 50% parity standard, Figure 1 indicates that the percentage of cities reaching the goal among their administrative and professional cadres in police and fire is not above 20%, even as recently as 2015. This finding suggests widespread occupational segregation.

Figure 1.

Gender parity by year in the regulatory function for administrators and professionals.

As reported in Figure 2, in the professional ranks of sanitation, we observe impressive strides in terms of the 30% glass wall benchmark (27%-56%), compared with the parity benchmark (7%-16%). The gap between the percentage of cities reaching the 30% goal and the percentage reaching the 50% goal is about 40 percentage points (i.e., 56% vs. 16%). Based on these two groups of findings, we maintain that calculating the wall goal for female employees at the customary 30% threshold presents an overly optimistic picture—tells an overly optimistic tale—of women’s progress.

Figure 2.

Occupational segregation by year in sanitation for professionals.

Summary and Discussion

Overall, based on the 30% benchmark, improvements in representational equality have been made across functional areas in U.S. cities from 1991 to 2015. Consistent with Miller et al. (1999) and Newman (1994) and key findings of Guy (2017), we find far more sex-based occupational segregation in distributive and regulatory functions than in redistributive functions. The data show some improvement in highways and parks/recreation as well as evidence of increasing levels of women administrators and professionals in community development. We observe the most extensive occupational sex-based segregation in regulatory agencies (especially police and fire) where we found support for our glass wall expectation for administrators; however, for professionals, we observe some erosion of glass walls. Similar to Miller et al. (1999), we observe widespread overrepresentation of women in redistributive agencies; however, as noted by Lowi (1985) and later by Miller et al. (1999), compared with other types of agencies, redistributive agencies are characterized by lower salaries. In financial administration/general control, we find evidence of widespread and increasing shares of women in both professional and administrator positions by 2015.

It is of critical importance to recognize that a conservative benchmark such as 30% will underestimate the extent of sex-based occupational segregation in municipal public sector workforces. Given the increases in the percentage of cities meeting the glass wall benchmark, we conducted further analysis using a true parity benchmark of 50%. Widespread parity exists neither in regulatory agencies nor in the majority of distributive agencies for either professionals or administrators. Although redistributive and indeterminate agencies demonstrate impressive rates of gender balance at the 30% goal, far fewer municipalities achieve or surpass the parity benchmark in the redistributive and indeterminate categories. Therefore, using the 30% benchmark tells a far more optimistic tale of progress than considering true gender equality. That is, although analyses based on the glass wall benchmark demonstrate significant (with a few exceptions) progress for women in urban bureaucracies, relying on this analysis alone is misleading. When the bar is raised to true parity with men, a majority of cities fail to achieve consistent gender parity across different types of agencies. Cities still have quite a way to go before achieving true sex-based equality among managers in municipal government agencies. Accordingly, in future research, the 30% benchmark should not be used as evidence of women “breaking through” the glass wall, nor should this benchmark be used as the only indicator in analyses. Future work should consider using multiple indicators of women’s progress.

We believe our two tales lend support to Levin-Waldman’s (2004) contention regarding the advantage of using more than one measure in complex and highly political areas such as sex-based occupational segregation. For example, liberal or progressive stakeholders sympathetic to feminist and equality values will highlight those findings arising from the standard of absolute parity. However, less progressive or conservative stakeholders will highlight results stemming from a 30% threshold and perhaps ignore or disparage results based on a higher threshold like absolute parity/50%. Furthermore, those favoring more than incremental change may prefer the absolute parity/50% threshold, whereas those content with the status quo may prefer the 30% benchmark (Hunt, Rucker, & Kerr, 2020). Thus, we believe there is value in using both the 30% and 50% thresholds, although we argue that in future research, the 30% benchmark should not be used as evidence of women “breaking” the glass wall. We believe our observations also highlight the importance of looking for representational equality both within municipal agency levels or strata (Frederickson, 1990) and across all agency types (Lowi, 1985). In fact, Sheryl Sandberg’s chicken and egg comment, where we began this study, exemplifies and demands a more comprehensive analysis in the future. That is, until we can examine precisely where women are concentrated or overrepresented in these important municipal-level governmental agencies, we cannot necessarily expect to accurately measure women’s progress in achieving leadership positions across all various agency types—hence the chicken and egg dilemma. Perhaps, Guy’s (2017) recent work can give us another avenue of inquiry. That is, in her examination of the persistence of sex-based occupational segregation in two of the most populated local government functions, public education and law enforcement, Guy (2017) found that the emotive demands of the job operate (e.g., job descriptions, interview and evaluation policies and practices) to keep women vastly underrepresented in law enforcement positions, Dad Work, and overrepresented in public education positions, Mom Work. Guy’s (2017) insights hold promise for inclusion in our future research. In sum, and as we further move into the 21st century, to be truly meaningful, assessments of women’s progress into the middle class, into jobs with status and security, and into positions of power must apply the benchmark of 50%.

Footnotes

Appendix

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

ORCID iDs

Valerie H. Hunt

Larra Rucker

Author Biographies

Valerie H. Hunt is an associate professor of political science and associate director of the Public Policy PhD program at the University of Arkansas. Her research focuses on social inequality, bureaucratic representation, and intersectionality. Her work has appeared in such journals as Race, Class, and Gender and Journal of Sociology Welfare.

Larra Rucker is a doctoral candidate of the Public Policy PhD program at the University of Arkansas. Her research focuses on child care policy, issues specific to the early childhood education workforce, and gender-based occupational segregation.

Brinck Kerr is professor of political science and director of the Public Policy PhD program at the University of Arkansas. His research focuses on representation, race/ethnicity, and gender. His work has appeared in many journals including American Journal of Political Science, Public Administration Review, and American Review of Public Administration.

References

Alkadry

M. G.

Tower

L. E.

(2015). Women and public service: Barriers, challenge and opportunities. New York, NY: Routledge.

Ballard

Lawn-Day

(1992). Affirmative action in municipal government: Anatomy of a failure. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 12, 3, 5-18.

Bullard

Wright

D. S.

(1993). Circumventing the glass ceiling: Women executives in American state governments. Public Administration Review, 53, 189-202.

Caceres-Rodriguez

(2013). The glass ceiling revisited: Moving beyond discrimination in the study of gender in public organizations. Administration & Society, 45, 674-709.

Cayer

N. J.

Sigelman

(1980). Minorities and women in state and local government: 1973-1975. Public Administration Review, 40, 443-450.

Choi

(2010). Diversity in the U.S. Federal Government: Antecedent and correlates of diversity in federal agencies. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 30, 301-321.

Choi

(2015). Pay equity in government: Analyzing determinants of gender pay disparity in the U.S. Federal Government. Administration & Society, 50, 346-371.

Connell

(2006). Glass ceilings or gendered institutions? Mapping the gender regimes of public sector worksites. Public Administration Review, 66, 837-849.

Corson

J. J.

Paul

R. S.

(1966). Men near the top. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

10.

Crum

Naff

K. C.

(1997). Looking like America: The continuing importance of affirmative action. Public Productivity & Management Review, 20, 272-287.

11.

D’Agostino

M. J.

(2014). The difference that women make: Government performance and women-led agencies. Administration & Society, 47, 532-548.

12.

Donahue

(1997). It doesn’t matter: Some cautionary findings about sex and representation from school committee conversations. Policy Studies Journal, 25, 630-647.

13.

Ford

Dolan

(1996). Contemporary women state legislators: A diverse group with diverse agendas. In Duke

L. L.

(Ed.), Women in politics: Outsiders or insiders? (pp. 157-172). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

14.

Fraga

L. R.

Martinez-Ebers

Lopez

Ramirez

(2005). Strategic intersectionality: Gender, ethnicity, and political incorporation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Western Political Science Association, August 31-September 4, Oakland, CA.

15.

Frederickson

H. G.

(1990). Public administration and social equity. Public Administration Review, 50, 228-237.

16.

Froman

(1968). The categorization of policy contents. In Ranney

(Ed.), Political science and public policy (pp. 41-52). Chicago, IL: Markham Publishing.

17.

Gillian

(1982). In a different voice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

18.

Guy

M. E.

(2017). Mom work versus dad work in local government. Administration & Society, 49, 48-64.

19.

Guy

M. E.

(1994). Organizational architecture, gender, and women’s careers. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 14, 77-90.

20.

Hogue

Lord

R. G.

(2007). A multilevel, complexity theory approach to understanding gender bias in leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 18, 370-390.

21.

Hunt

V. H.

Rucker

Kerr

(2020). Reconsidering sex-based occupational segregation and agency missions: An analysis of U.S. state bureaucracies (1987-2015) using two different thresholds. Administration & Society, 52, 431-465. doi:10.1177/0095399719836741

22.

Johnson

B. J.

Crum-Cano

B. D.

(2011). Glass walls in urban planning: An examination of policy type and gender segregation within a profession. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 31, 386-409.

23.

Kellough

J. E.

(1989). Federal equal employment opportunity policy and numerical goals and timetables: An impact assessment. New York, NY: Praeger.

24.

Kellough

J. E.

(1990). Integration in the public workplace: Determinants of minority and female employment in federal agencies. Public Administration Review, 50, 557-566.

25.

Kelly

R. M.

Guy

M. E.

Bayes

Duerst-Lahti

Duke

L. L.

Hale

M. M.

. . . Stanley

J. R.

(1991). Public managers in the states: A comparison of career advancement by sex. Public Administration Review, 51, 402-412.

26.

Kerr

Miller

Reid

(2002). Sex-based occupational segregation in U.S. state bureaucracies, 1987-97. Public Administration Review, 62, 412-423.

27.

Kymlicka

(1990). Contemporary political philosophy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

28.

Lawless

J. L.

(2004). Politics of presence? Congresswomen and symbolic representation. Political Research Quarterly, 57, 81-99.

29.

Levin-Waldman

O. M.

(2004). Policy orthodoxies, the minimum wage, and the challenge of social science. Journal of Economic Issues, 38, 139-154.

30.

Lewis

G. B.

Emmert

M. A.

(1986). The sexual division of labor in federal employment. Social Science Quarterly, 67, 143-156.

31.

Lewis

G. B.

Nice

(1994). Race, sex, and occupational segregation in state and local governments. The American Review of Public Administration, 24, 393-410.

32.

Lowi

T. J.

(1964). American business, public policy, case studies, and political theory. World Politics, 16, 677-715.

33.

Lowi

T. J.

(1972). Four systems of policy, politics, and choice. Public Administration Review, 32, 298-310.

34.

Lowi

T. J.

(1985). The state in politics: The relation between policy and administration. In Noll

(Ed.), Regulatory policy and the Social Sciences (pp. 67-104). Berkeley: University of California Press.

35.

Miller

Kerr

Reid

(1999). A national study of gender-based occupational segregation in municipal bureaucracies: Persistence of glass walls? Public Administration Review, 59, 218-230.

36.

Mladenka

(1991). Public employee unions, reformism, and Black employment in 1200 American cities. Urban Affairs Quarterly, 26, 532-548.

37.

Newman

M. A.

(1994). Gender and Lowi’s thesis: Implications for career advancement. Public Administration Review, 54, 277-284.

38.

Peterson

P. E.

(1981). City limits. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

39.

Powell

G. N.

(2012). Six ways of seeing the elephant: The intersection of sex, gender, and leadership. Gender in Management: An International Journal, 27, 119-141.

40.

Reid

M. F.

Kerr

J. B.

Miller

(2000). A study of the advancement of women in municipal government bureaucracies: Persistence of glass ceilings? Women & Politics, 21(1), 35-53.

41.

Reid

M. F.

Kerr

J. B.

Miller

(2003). Glass walls and glass ceilings: Women’s representation in state and municipal bureaucracies. New York, NY: Praeger.

42.

Riccucci

N. M.

(1986). Female and minority employment in city government: The role of unions. Policy Studies Journal, 15, 3-16.

43.

Riccucci

N. M.

(2009). The pursuit of social equity in the federal government: A road less traveled? Public Administration Review, 69, 373-382.

44.

Rosenbloom

D. H.

(1977). Federal employment opportunity: Politics and public personnel administration. New York, NY: Praeger.

45.

Rosenthal

C. S.

(2005). Women leading legislatures: Getting there and getting things done. In Thomas

Wilcox

(Eds.), Women and elective office: Past, present, and future (2nd ed., pp. 197-212). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

46.

Ryan

M. K.

Haslam

S. A.

(2005). The glass cliff: Evidence that women are over-represented in precarious leadership positions. British Journal of Management, 16, 81-90. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8551.2005.00433.x

47.

Sabharwal

(2015). From glass ceiling to glass cliff: Women in senior executive service. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25, 399-426.

48.

Saltzstein

G. H.

(1986). Female mayors and women in municipal jobs. American Journal of Political Science, 64, 140-164.

49.

Sandberg

(2013, March 11). Lean in: Facebook’s Sheryl Sandberg explains what’s holding women back. NPR Interview. Retrieved from http://www.npr.org/2013/03/11/173740524/lean-in-facebooks-sheryl-sandberg-explains-whats-holding-women-back

50.

Smith

A. E.

Monaghan

K. R.

(2013). Some ceilings have more cracks: Representative bureaucracy in federal regulatory agencies. The American Review of Public Administration, 43, 50-71. doi:10.1177/0275074011420997

51.

Smith

Caputi

Crittenden

(2012). A maze of metaphors around glass ceilings. Gender in Management: An International Journal, 27, 436-448.

52.

Sneed

B. G.

(2007). Glass walls in state bureaucracies: Examining the difference departmental function can make. Public Administration Review, 67, 880-891.

53.

Stein

(1986). Representative local government: Minorities in the municipal workforce. Journal of Politics, 48, 694-713.

54.

Stivers

(1993). Gender images in public administration. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

55.

Tomaskovic-Devey

(1993). Gender and racial inequality at work. Ithaca, NY: ILR Press.

56.

Tomaskovic-Devey

Kalleberg

A. L.

Marsden

P. V.

(1996). Organizational patterns of gender segregation In Kalleberg

A. L.

Knoke

Marsden

P. V.

Spaeth

J. L.

(Eds.), Organizations in America (pp. 276-301). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

57.

U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2015). Local police departments, 2013: Personnel, policies, and practices. Retrieved from https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/lpd13ppp.pdf

58.

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (1986). EEOC form 164, state and local government information (EEO-4). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

59.

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2015). U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s 2015: Instructions for EEO4 special reporting procedures. Retrieved from https://egov.eeoc.gov/eeo4/pdf/Computer_Printout.pdf

60.

Warner

Steel

Lovrich

(1989). Conditions associated with the advent of representative bureaucracy: The case of policing. Social Science Quarterly, 70, 562-578.

61.

Williams

(1992). The glass escalator: Hidden advantages for men in the “female” professions. Social Problems, 39, 253-267.