The Impact of Proposition 209 on Public Employment in California

1. The Impact of Proposition 209 on Public Employment in California Michael D. Sumner, PhD Thelton E. Henderson Center for Social Justice UC Berkeley School of Law California Equal Rights Professionals (CAERP) Conference June 17, 2009

2. Proposition 209 • SEC. 31. (a) The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.

3. The Aftermath • Public contracting • Public education

4. Public Contracting - Caltrans % to certified DBEs

5. Public Employment • Trends up to 1990 and through today • Key factors regarding public employment: • Stability • Strength of programs • Past history

6. Public Employment – Methodology • Raw Data: • Data for civil servants obtained from the California State Personnel Board • Data for working age population obtained from US Census estimates • Analyses: • Quantitative analyses of workforce diversity • Future studies will look at job quality, including promotions and wages

7. Population Characteristics

8. California Working Age Population and Civil Workforce

9. Civil Service Departments

10. Analyses by Gender

11. Representation, by Gender

12. Representation, by Gender

13. Representation and Working Age Pop., by Gender

14. Representation, by Gender

15. Representation, by Gender Elimination of goals and disparity-reduction requirements Gov. Wilson signs Exec. Order W-172-98 Proposition 209 enacted Connerly v. SPB Proposition 209 passes Proposition 209 on ballot Gov. Wilson signs Exec. Order W-124-95

16. Analyses by Race/Ethnicity

17. California Working Age Population

18. California Working Age Population and Civil Servants

19. Representation, by Race/Ethnicity

20. Representation, Relative to Working Age Population

21. Analyses by Race/Ethnicity and Gender

22. Representation for White Americans and People of Color, by Gender

23. Representation, Relative to Working Age Population

24. Representation, by Race/Ethnicity and Gender: White Americans

25. Representation, by Race/Ethnicity and Gender: Hispanic/Latino Americans

26. Representation, by Race/Ethnicity and Gender: African Americans

27. Representation, by Race/Ethnicity and Gender: Asian Pacific Islander Americans

28. Further Analyses

29. Wages for Full-time Employees, by Race and Gender

30. Wage Disparity Index for Full-time Employees, Relative to White Men

31. Workforce Diversity, Career Executive Assignment Category

32. CEA, Relative to Working Age Population

33. CEA, Relative to Overall Workforce Diversity

34. Summary • White men • White women • Men of color • Women of color

35. Impact of Proposition 209 • Absence of clear negative trends • Longer study • Success of past programs • Limited success of past programs • Agency by agency approach needed • Absence of clear positive trends

36. Recommendations • Data collection & continued research • Equal opportunity programs, utilizing legal best practices, within the boundaries of the law • Next steps: • Reports on job quality in public employment in California • Report on best practices in public employment and public contracting

37. Acknowledgements • Thank you to: • Ariana Ceja • Jessica Borja • Monique W. Morris • Mary Louise Frampton • Mary Elliott • Wilda White • Major funding provided by: • Fulfilling The Dream Fund/Public Interest Projects Contact: Michael Sumner: msumner@law.berkeley.edu www.law.berkeley.edu/HendersonCenter.htm