|
Items in cart [0] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
| Copyright © 2009. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 292
I~ Occupational Desegregation in
C' CETA Programs
LINDA I. WAITE and
SUE E. BERRYMAN
This paper examines the occupational dis-
tributions in the Comprehensive Employ-
ment and Training Act (CETA) and the wage
implications of these distributions for men
and women of different racial and ethnic
origins. Our data come from two separate
projects on CETA, both conducted for the
National Commission on Employment Pol-
icy. One (Berryman et al., 1981) assessed
the nature and equity of men's and; women's
experiences in CETA, a substantial part of
the study being devoted to CETA's occu-
pational desegregation record for women.
The second (Berryman and Waite, 1982) as-
sessed ethnic and racial differences in CETA
experiences, focusing on whites, blacks, anal
Hispanics and on Hispanic subgroups.
CETA's occupational desegregation rec-
ord for women is important for several rea-
sons. First, one of CETA's legislated pur-
poses is to improve the economic prospects
of its clients. As we know, substantially more
female than male occupations pay poverty-
level wages (Sawhill, 19761. Persistent oc-
cupational segregation parallels the persist-
ent male-female wage differential, and dif-
ferences in male and female occupational
distributions account for over a quarter of
292
the wage differential (Chiswick et al., 19741.
Even when labor force attachment is con-
trolled, women also have much flatter life-
time earnings profiles than do men (Sawhill,
1973~. Theoretical arguments (Wolf and Ro-
senfeld, 1978) and fragmentary evidence
(Barrett, 1979) implicate occupational seg-
regation in these profile differences. Male
but not female occupations seem associated
with career paths that carry wage advance-
ment with experience.
Second, poverty in the United States is
becoming increasingly female poverty, pri-
marily as the result of the rising number of
female-headed households and the relation-
ship between households of this kind and
poverty. Thus, from the economic per-
spective, the issue of occupations and wages
for women is not transitory.
~ From 1969 to 1979 the percentage offemale-headed
households of all races increased by a third. For whites
and Hispanics the increase was about 25 percent; for
blacks, over 40 percent. Although the chances that a
household of this kind was poor declined slightly over
the decade, in 1979 they were still very high: 30 per-
cent for all races and almost 50 percent for black female-
headed households (Bureau of the Census, 1981~.
OCR for page 293
OCCUPATIONAL DESEGREGATION IN CETA PROGRAMS
293
Third, CETA has represented a major
federal lever for affecting occupational de-
segregation for women and women's wages.
From FY 1974 to FY 1980, 19 million in-
dividuals entered CETA in job training or
employment capacities, somewhat fewer than
half of these being women. Thus, over time
CETA has had the potential for affecting the
occupational preferences and skills of large
numbers of women.
Finally, CETA flows from early federal
manpower programs of the 1960s and can
be expected to affect future federal training
and employment programs. Thus, even if
CETA is virtually dismantled under the
Reagan administration, its occupational de-
segregation record for women is of more
than historic interest. As we show later,
women's occupational options in CETA are
affected by how CETA is structured and by
how men and women are funneled through
this structure. Our experience with CETA
has implications for designing future pro-
grams that would increase women's expo-
sure to occupations currently held mostly
by men.
The paper has five sections. The first briefly
describes CETA's legal structure its ti-
tles, their legislated purposes, and eligibil-
ity rules. The second describes the data base
used in the two studies that underlie this
paper. The third shows how the CETA title
under which individuals enter CETA and
their CETA activity (e.g., work experience)
affect their occupational options. The fourth
documents CETA's occupational desegre-
gation record for white, black, and Hispanic
women; and the final section shows the wage
consequences of women's occupational dis-
tributions in CETA.
DESCRIPTION OF CETA TITLES AND
ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS
For reasons of simplicity and of data re-
strictions, we deal only with CETA Titles I,
II, and VI.2 The major services available
under these titles were basic skills, job train-
ing, and jobs, although, as we describe later,
not all services are available in all titles. For
example, basic skills and job training are
essentially restricted to Title I. The pur-
poses of the jobs also vary by title. Most
Title I jobs, called work experience, are in-
come transfer jobs3 that are not intended as
a bridge to unsubsidized employment. Jobs
in Titles II and VI, known as public service
employment (PSE) jobs, are expected to lead
to unsubsidized employment, although the
economic environments in which these jobs
are offered presumably vary. Title II jobs
are available in areas with high, structural
unemployment; Title VI jobs, in areas with
short-term, cyclical unemployment.4
The eligibility by title varied, although,
as we discuss below, titles overlapped in
their eligibility requirements. All of the ti-
tIes had eligibility criteria of economic dis-
advantage, underemployment, or unem-
ployment. For Title I, eligibility was
restricted to those economically disadvan-
taged or unemployed or underemployed.5
2 These are the title numbers before the 1978 reau-
thorization of CETA; they correspond to the postreau-
thorization numbers of JIB, IID, and VI. This paper
does not discuss Title III because most slots in this title
(Title IIIA or the Summer Youth Program) are jobs of
short duration, intended as a mechanism of income
transfer, and without a training component.
3 By "income transfer jobs" we mean jobs used pri-
marily as a means of allocating money to people, not
as bridges to private or public sector jobs unsubsidized
by CETA.
4 Title II was targeted on regions with lingering un-
employment. Title VI was designed to reduce the pre-
sumably short-term unemployment associated with the
recession of the mid-1970s. However, as Mirengoff and
Rindler (1978) observe, the unemployment rate used
to define an area's eligibility for Title II was surpassed
in most places by that used to define an area's eligibility
for Title VI funds. Thus. de facto the distinction be-
tween the two titles was eliminated.
5 To receive one of the small number of PSE jobs in
Title I the individual had to be unemployed or under-
employed.
OCR for page 294
2 ~
LINDA [. WAITE AND SUE E. BERRYMAN
For Title II, individuals had to reside in
areas of substantial unemployment. They also
had to be unemployed for at least 30 days
prior to application or underemployed.
Before January 1977 indivicluals were el-
igible for Title VI if they had been unem-
ployed for 30 days, or if they resided in an
area with excessive unemployment and had
been underemployed or unemployed for at
least 15 days. After January 1977 the eligi-
bility rules became more complicated.
However, in general, individuals could en-
ter if they were (1) unemployed or under-
employed; or (2) a member of an economi-
cally disadvantaged family and either a
member of an Aid to Families With De-
pendent Children (AFDC) family, or un-
employed and an unemployment insurance
recipient, or unemployed and ineligible for
unemployment insurance, or unemployed
and an insurance exhaustee.
DATA
Continuous Longitudinal Manpower
Survey (:CLMS)
Both studies on which this paper is based
used Continuous Longituclinal Manpower
Survey (CLMS) data. The Bureau of the
Census has conducted the CLMS quarterly
since January 1975, sampling respondents
from the previous quarter's new enrollees
in CETA. Respondents are sampled from
four CETA functional activities: public serv-
ice employment, employability develop-
ment, direct referrals, 6 and youth work ex-
perience (including summer programs).
The CLMS has two main objectives. First,
it is designed to obtain characteristics of the
CETA participants and the services they re-
ceived, thus providing data not available from
6 In a direct referral, CETA refers the individual to
a job vacancy. The individual does not receive any
other CETA services and does not necessarily get the
job to which he or she is referred.
the usual sources, the prime sponsors re-
porting system. Second, the CLMS is in-
tended to measure the effect of CETA pro-
grams on participants, including earnings and
labor force status.8
The CLMS comprises an initial intake in-
terview, an activity record, and several other
interviews during and after the CETA en-
rolIment. In the initial interview, the CLMS
determines what CETA service the enrollee
received (e.g., public service employment)
and, if the service was a job or job training,
the enrollee's occupation and wages. The
CLMS also obtains information on the en-
rollee's attitudes toward manpower pro-
grams and services received, what service
and occupation the enrollee wanted from
CETA, his or her trade or vocational train-
ing before entering CETA, veteran status,
marital status, number of dependents, fam-
ily composition, receipt of government
transfer payments (food stamps, subsidized
housing, AFDC, Supplemental Security In-
come, unemployment benefits, and other
public assistance), the enrollee's employ-
ment/schooling history in the previous year,
wages or salary in the last year, and personal
and family income by source. The CLMS
contains information on the highest grade
or year of regular school the enrollee at-
tended, whether that grade had been com-
7 The federal government administers decentralized
CETA programs through administrative units called
prime sponsors. Federal funds for these programs are
allocated to the prime sponsors. State, county, or local
governments can be prime sponsors if they govern a
minimum population of 100,000. State governments
tend to become prime sponsors for governmental units
within the state that do not meet the minimum pop-
ulation requirement.
8 The CLMS—sponsored by the Employment and
Training Administration—samples mainly decentral-
ized CETA programs, i.e., programs operated by CETA
prime sponsors. Thus, special-purpose programs such
as the Job Corps (Title IV, reauthorized as Title IVB),
Young Adult Conservation Corps (Title VIII), and sev-
eral Title III (reauthorized as various Title IV) programs
are not included in the CLMS file.
OCR for page 295
OCCUPATIONAL DESEGREGATION IN CETA PROGRAMS
_
295
pleted by the time of CETA enrollment, and
whether the enrollee had a high school
equivalency certificate or General Educa-
tional Development (GED) certificate. Our
analysis relies especially on detailed data on
the enrollee's ethnic origin or descent and
on whether the enrollee was limited in the
amount or type of work he or she could do
because of problems in speaking English.
We use all of this information in various
sections of our analysis, either as dependent
or as independent variables.
In our analyses we use only data from the
initial questionnaire and activity record, since
our purpose is to assess the services pro-
vided within CETA ant! not to assess the
impact of CETA services on later outcomes.
We included all CETA enrollees surveyed
by the CLMS during the period October
1975 through September 1978 in order to
(1) maximize the period covered by our
analyses and (2) maximize the number of
cases available for analysis.9 In each quarter
the CLMS sampled between 3,500 and 4,000
CETA enrollees and completed initial in-
terviews with 3,300 to 3,600. To have suf-
ficient numbers of observations for race/eth-
nic groups by sex we pooled information for
all quarters in the October 1975 to Septem-
ber 1978 or March 1979 time period (Bar-
rett, 19791. Pooling observations across time
periods provides large sample sizes that al-
low us considerable flexibility in the types
of analyses we do and that allow us to dis-
9 We begin with October 1975 because the CLMS
did not record CETA title until the second quarter of
FY 1976 (October 1975~. The sample for the multivar-
iate analysis ends with March 1979 because CETA was
reauthorized in October 1978 and regulations govern-
ing the revised act were released to prime sponsors in
April 1979. Since those enrolled in CETA in the third
and fourth quarters of 1979 entered under revised
guidelines, the data for these quarters are not com-
pletely comparable with early data, and we eliminated
them to ensure comparability. The sample for the cross-
tabular analysis ends with September 1979 because
data to this date only were available at the time this
analysis was done (Berryman et al., 1981~.
aggregate the sample by sex and race/eth-
nicity. For the October 1975 to March 1979
period, the CLMS contains approximately
42,000 initial interviews.
Analytic Strategy
We assessed the impact of race and eth-
nicity on enrollees' experience in CETA in
two ways.~° First, we estimated a general
linear mode} of each CETA outcome sepa-
rately for men and women in which we con-
trolled for all characteristics of the enrollee
and the enrollment that were relevant for
CETA assignment. i~ This mode! included a
series of dummy variables for race/ethnicity:
white, black, and Hispanic. Second, we per-
formed an analysis of covariance for each
CETA outcome in which we tested for dif-
ference between race/ethnic groups in the
slope coefficients in the model.
CETA AS A SYSTEM OF OPPORTUNITIES
We can think of CETA as a system for
distributing opportunities of several kinds:
(1) participation in CETA; (2) a CETA serv-
ice or activity- basic education, job train-
ing in a classroom setting, on-thejob train-
ing, work experience, and public service
employment; (3) an occupation for those in
jobs or job training; and (4) a CETA wage
for those in jobs or job training. Since this
paper focuses on CETA's contribution to oc-
cupational desegregation for women, CETA
occupations are the resource of primary con-
cern. However, to interpret the data on oc-
~° We follow census definitions; persons of Hispanic
origin may be of either race. We divide enrollees into
whites (non-Hispanic), blacks (non-Hispanic), and His-
panics of both races. We omit those of other races who
are not Hispanic.
ii These included age, marital status, poverty status,
labor force experience, educational attainment, desired
CETA services, and problems with the English lan-
guage all at the time of enrollment, plus, for males,
veteran status.
OCR for page 296
296
LINDA I. WAITE AND SUE E. BERRYMAN
cupations it is important to understand the
process by which a CETA participant is as-
signed an occupation, either in the form of
a job or job training.
An individual enters CETA under a title
and a CETA activity that is authorized for
that title. If the activity is job training or a
job, the individual is assigned to an occu-
pation and receives a wage in connection
with it. Eligibility rules determine if an in-
dividual can enter CETA, and under what
title he or she may enter. Although these
rules vary for different CETA titles, indi-
viduals can be eligible for more than one
title, giving CETA prime sponsors some dis-
cretion in their title assignments.
Titles affect CETA service or activity as-
signments in that not all CETA services are
available in all titles. Titles II and VI consist
only of public service employment (PSE)
jobs, and almost all of these jobs occur in
these two titles. Title I consists primarily of
basic education, job training in a classroom
setting, on-thejob training (OlT), and work
experience activities, and these services oc-
cur only in Title I. In sum, Titles II and VI
imply a public service job; Title I, a basic
education, job training, or work experience
activity. If a CETA participant is only eli-
gible for Titles II or III, his or her CETA
activity is determined. If the participant is
only eligible for Title I, his or her activity
options are constrained but not determined.
As Table 16-1 shows, each CETA service
has a different occupational distribution and
therefore different occupational assignment
probabilities. All of the occupations avail-
able in CETA are available in each of the
services, but the occupational emphases dif-
fer for each CETA service. Relative to the
distributions for the other services, cIass-
room training has the highest percentage of
clerical openings; on-thejob training, the
highest percentages of crafts and operatives
options; work experience, the highest per-
centage of service jobs; and public service
employment, the highest percentages of
professional/technical and laborer jobs.
TABLE 16-1 CETA's FY 1976-FY 1979 Occupational Structure by CETA Activity
(percent)
CETA's Occupational Structure
All
CETA Classroom
Activities Training
Occupational Categorya
Professional/technical
Managerial/administrative
Sales workers
Clerical
Crafts
Operatives
Transportation
equipment
operatives
Laborers
Service
Totals
N (000)
a These are the 1-digit census occupational categories. They exclude three categories that do not occur in the
CETA occupational structure: Farmers and Farm Managers, Farm Laborers and Supervisors, and Private House-
hold Workers.
b Columns may not add to 100 due to rounding.
SOURCE: Table 31, Berryman and Waite (1982), p. 79.
OJT
4.9
2.9
3.7
16.3
21.5
28.0
Public
Work Service
Experience Employment
6.7
0.9
0.9
32.1
6.7
4.2
10.7
2.3
1.0
27.2
12.0
2.7
15.2
21.5
100.0
2,770
6.9
0.4
1.2
38.0
20.3
14.9
1.2
1.2
15.8
100.0
389
3.6
8.6
10.4
100.0
319
15.8
3.6
0.3
23.5
10.3
2.1
2.1
13.8
32.8
100.0
3.3
22.0
19.0
100.0
790 1,272
OCR for page 297
OCCUPATIONAL DESEGREGATION IN CETA PROGRAMS
297
The process by which a CETA participant
is assigned an occupation varies across time
for any given CETA office and across CETA
offices at any given time. Any specific oc-
cupational assignment reflects several fac-
tors: (1) the participant's title eligibility and
the subsequent activity and occupational
constraints that are associated with each ti-
tie; (2) the participant's activity and occu-
pational needs and preferences; (3) the ac-
tivity and occupational vacancies available
at any given time as a function of the local
labor market, the CETA office's efforts to
develop particular opportunities, and the
amount of federal money then available for
different CETA titles; and (4) judgments by
CETA assignment personnel about what
kinds of occupations are appropriate for what
kinds of people.
Our analyses show that in FY 1976 to FY
1978, relative to their eligibility, women 18
to 65 years of age were underrepresented
in all CETA titles for all three fiscal years
except Title I in FY 1978. The underrepre-
sentation varied from 64 to 87 percent, de-
pending on fiscal year and title. Incus, women
did not receive CETA resources, including
occupational experiences, at rates commen-
surate with their eligibility. The discrepancy
between eligibility and participation was
greater for Titles II and VI than for Title I. i2
When we looked at how female and male
CETA participants distributecl across titles,
a logistic regression showed that relative to
men with the same placement-relevant
characteristics (see note 11), women were
more likely to enter CETA under Title I
and less likely to enter CETA under Titles
II and VI. Thus, they were more likely than
t2 Available eligibility estimates for this time period
are by sex and by race and other ethnicity separately.
Thus, we cannot assess racial and ethnic differences in
women's CETA participation, relative to eligibility. We
can note that, relative to eligibility, whites are under-
represented and blacks are overrepresented in all three
titles, and Hispanics are overrepresented in Title I and
underrepresented in Titles II and IV.
were men to receive basic eclucation, job
training, and work experience services and
less likely to get public service jobs.
Although sex affected title assignment,
Berryman and Waite (1982) found few ef-
fects anal no important effects of race/
ethnicity on the CETA title under which
enrollees enter CETA. Whites of both sexes
entered CETA under Titles I and II slightly
more often than did blacks or Hispanics with
similar characteristics. But these differences
never exceeded about 3 percentage points
and, although statistically significant, were
hardly substantively so.
As noted, Title I consists of several CETA
services: basic education in a classroom, job
training in a classroom setting, OlT, work
experience, and a small number of PSE jobs.
Again, multivariate analyses showed that race
and ethnicity had no or only trivial effects
on assignment to CETA services. However,
relative to males in Title I, women in this
title were placed more frequently in cIass-
room training and work experience jobs and
less frequently in OIT and PSE jobs. Al-
though the percentages declined across fis-
cal years, even in FY 1978 a third of all
women in CETA were in Title I classroom
training.
Thus, relative to men's occupational op-
tions, women's options were more apt to be
those associated with classroom training and
work experience. They were less apt to be
those associated with OIT and PSE jobs.
We would like to use multivariate anal-
yses to assess CETA's occupational sex seg-
regation for racial and ethnic groups. How-
ever, Berryman et al. (1981) did not conduct
multivariate analyses of occupational seg-
regation by sex and race and ethnicity. Ber-
ryman and Waite (1982) conduct multivar-
iate analyses separately by sex and by race
and ethnicity an :1 have no direct measure of
the sex composition of occupations for these
groups. The occupational measure used in
Berryman and Waite was occupational sta-
tus, a measure that does not directly bear
on occupational segregation. However, we
OCR for page 298
ZD9
LINDA I. WAITE AND SUE E. BERRYMAN
can use our multivariate results for the ef-
fects of race and ethnicity on CETA title,
CETA service, occupational status, and
CETA wages to draw tentative inferences
about these effects on occupational segre-
gation in CETA by race and ethnicity.
We have already noted that there are few,
if any, effects of race and ethnicity on CETA
title and service assignments. Our analyses
of the impact of race/ethnicity on the oc-
cupational status of CETA jobs and job train-
ing showed mixed results. As Table 16-2
shows, we found no differences among white,
black, and Hispanic males in status of job
training, but we found lower occupational
status for white ant] black than for Hisuanic
females, net of other characteristics. For job
status we found lower scores for whites and
blacks of both sexes than for Hispanics. As
before, the differences tended to be statis-
tically significant but substantively unim-
portant. The largest coefficient for race/eth-
nic groups appeared for black females in
occupational status of job training and equaled
5 points on a 100-point scale, the Duncan
Socioeconomic Index.
Our results for race/ethnic differences in
CETA wages, shown in Table 16-3, rein-
TABLE 16-2 Effects of Race and
Ethnicity on Occupational Status of CETA
lob Training and CETA lob
Unstandardized Regression Coefficients, Net of Social,
Economic, and Demographic Characteristics of the
CETA Entranta
Males
Females
Job training
White
Black
Job
White - 2.4285b
Black —2. 7244b
.5086
.5447
_ 3.3100b
—3. 9040b
_ 3.3197b
_ 4. 9859b
a These characteristics are listed in note 11 of this
paper.
b p < .05. This indicates effects that would appear
by chance less than 5 times out of every 100 analyses.
SOURCE: Tables 42 and 43, Berryman and Waite
(1982), pp. 97 and 99.
TABLE 16-3 Effects of Race and
Ethnicity on Hourly Wage of CETA Job
Training and CETA Job
Unstandardized Regression Coefficients, Net of Social,
Economic, and Demographic Characteristics of the
CETA Entranta
Males Females
Job Training
White
Black
Job
White
Black
.0001 - .0225
_ . o555b
.0065
—. 0396b
—. 0149b
—. 0285b
a These characteristics are listed in note 11 of this
paper.
b p < .05. This indicates effects that would appear
by chance less than 5 times out of every 100 analyses.
SOURCE: Tables 46 and 47, Berryman and Waite
(1982), pp. 105 and 107.
forced the conclusions we reached for
cupational status. Table 16-2 presents re-
sults of the regression of the Duncan
Socioeconomic Index of CETA job training
or CETA job on assignment-relevant char-
acteristics (see note 11) of the individual.
Since these models omit the variable for the
"Hispanic" race/ethnicity category, the
coefficients show the deviation of white and
black occupational status from that for His-
panics, controlling for the other character-
istics of the enrollee. Among males in job
training, we fount] no differences in wages,
but among males in jobs, black males re-
ceived wages 4 percent lower than those of
Hispanic and white males with comparable
characteristics. For females, we found very
small differences on the order of 1 or 2
percent- but those that did exist favored
Hispanics.
The analyses of covariance allowed us to
test the hypothesis that the process which
determines CETA occupational status and
wages clepencls on race/ethnicity. We found
evidence of some rather minor differences.
These analyses showed cli~erent effects of
the variables in the models for race/ethnic
groups on occupational status of CETA job
OCR for page 299
OCCUPATIONAL DESEGREGATION IN CETA PROGRAMS
299
training for males but not for females and
for status of CETA jobs for both males and
females. But few sizable differences ap-
peared in individual coefficients in any of
these models.
In sum, when we considered males and
females separately, we found small or no
effects of race/ethnicity on CETA title, ac-
tivity, occupational status, or wages. The
differences that existed tended to favor His-
panics over blacks and whites. These results
suggest that, given an appropriate measure
of occupational segregation, we would have
found that the process of occupational seg-
regation dicl not depend on race and eth-
nicity.
The remainder of this paper focuses on
CETA's occupational distribution and its wage
implications by sex, without regard to race
or ethnicity. The conclusions from our mul-
tivariate analysis of the impact of race/eth-
nicity on CETA experiences argue for this
approach. In addition, analysis of two sexes
and three racial/ethnic groups becomes too
cumbersome for the resulting small gain in
analytic detail.
OCCUPATIONAL DESEGREGATION IN
CETA
Since FY 1974 millions of adult women
have participated in CETA. In connection
with the reauthorization of CETA in Octo-
ber 1978, CETA regulations directed state
and local CETA administrators to reduce sex
stereotyping in employment and training.
We only had data for October 1975 to Sep-
tember 1978 for these analyses. Thus, we
can only describe CETA's occupational seg-
regation record prior to the introduction of
the desegregation directive and cannot as-
sess CETA's responses to this directive.
At the same time, even prior to CETA's
1978 reauthorization, CETA—especially
Title I was expected to improve the eco-
nomic prospects of its clients. Since female-
dominatec! occupations command lower
wages than those of mixer! and maTe-domi-
nated occupations, it is reasonable to look
for evidence that CETA tried to train and
employ women in mixed and male occu-
pations.
In describing CETA's occupational de-
segregation record, we use the CETA's def-
initions. In a male-dominated occupation fe-
males constitute less than 25 percent of that
occupation's labor force; in a mixers occu-
pation, 25 to 74 percent; and in a female-
dominated occupation, 75 percent or more.
Table 16-4 shows the distribution of CETA
jobholders among male, female, and mixed
CETA jobs by sex and race. For FY 1976 to
FY 1978, although only about 10 percent of
the women in CETA jobs (work experience
or PSE jobs) worked in male-dominated jobs,
CETA placed about 25 percent in mixed
occupations. Data published elsewhere show
that CETA's occupational desegregation
record for jobholders improved across the
three fiscal years, the percentage of adult
TABLE 16-4 Distribution of FY 1976-FY 1978 CETA Jobholders by Sex Composition of
Occupation and Sex (percent)
Sex and Race/Ethnicity
Sex Composition of "Female
Occupation
.
Male-dominated
Female-dominated
Mixed
Total
Male
Hispanic Total
Total
White Black
White
71.4
8.0
20.6
100.0
407,838
Black
Hispanic
N
10.8
64.1
25.1
100.0 100.0
10.9
62.8
26.3
401,176 256,073
11.9
64.4
23.7
100.0
115,261
6.2
74.4
19.4
100.0
29,842
71.1
8.3
20.7
100.0
605,484
70.3
8.2
21.4
100.0
150,568 47,078
70.1
11.0
18.9
100.0
SOURCE: Table 9, Berryman et al. (1981), p. 31.
OCR for page 300
Sex Composition of
Occupation
Male-dominated
Female-dominated
Mixed
Total
Total
White
11.6 12.6
49.3 46.2
39.1 41.2
100.0 100.0
Black
Hispanic Total
JU,
LINDA I. WAITE AND SUE E. BERRYMAN
TABLE 16-5 Distribution of FY 1976-FY 1978 CETA Trainees by Sex Composition of
Occupation ant} Sex (percent)
Sex and Race/Ethnicity
Female
Male
White
68.1
4.1 3.0
30.1 28.9
100.0 100.0
Black
63.3
6.8
30.0
100.0
Hispanic
57.1
6.5
36.4
100.0
9.5
55.8
34.7
100.0
9.1
55.8
35.1
100.0
65.9
N 56,264 38,030 13,359 13,792 104,828 74,169 16,867 4,875
SOURCE: Table 11, Berryman et al. (1981), p. 38.
women employed in male-clominated CETA
jobs increasing from 7 to almost 12, the per-
centage in female-dominatec} CETA jobs de-
creasing from 68 to 62, and the percentage
in mixed jobs remaining stable (Berryman
et al., 19811. Adult females showed slightly
more distributional change across time than
that for adult males, but neither sex shower]
large changes.
CETA's occupational desegregation re-
cord in job training may be a better test of
its desegregation success than is its record
for jobholders. Since clients in job training
presumably lack human capital in any spe-
cific occupation, CETA's occupational as-
signments should be less constrained by
clients' prior occupational investments. More
importantly, training can provide women with
skills and credentials to enter male-domi-
natec3 occupations.
Table 16 5 shows the distribution of those
in CETA job training among male-clomi-
nated, female-dominated, and mixed occu-
pations. Although CETA trained about the
same percentage of women in male-domi-
nated occupations as it employed in those
occupations, it did train higher percentages
in mixed occupations, reducing the per-
centage in female-dominated occupations to
a little under 50 percent.
As the data in Table 16-1 suggest and data
published elsewhere (Berryman et al., 1981)
show, where training occurs (in a classroom
or on the job) is clearly relater] to the sex
composition of the occupation in which the
person is trained. As noted earlier, the causal
relationships between activity and occupa-
tional assignments vary: an activity assign-
ment may precede an occupational assign-
ment, or vice versa, and in some cases both
may be simultaneously determined by a third
factor, such as title eligibility. Without ad-
dressing causality, we can note that women
in classroom training were 60 percent more
likely to be trained in a sex-typical occu-
pation and about 60 percent less likely to
be trained in a mixed occupation than were
women in on-thejob training. Although
classroom training assignments reduced fe-
male chances of being trained in a male-
dominated occupation, the effects were not
as great for this as for the other two occu-
pational types.
The data reveal that women in on-thejob
training were more likely to be trained in
mixed and male-dominated occupations pri-
marily as a function of OlT's occupational
mix. oTT contains much larger proportions
of male-dominated and mixed occupations
than does classroom training. Although
women were substantially overrepresented
in the female-dominated occupations in OIT,
the smaller numbers of female-dominated
occupational slots in OIT produced some
occupational desegregation. These data in-
clicate that if CETA increases women's OIT
participation, it should simultaneously in-
crease occupational desegregation for women.
OCR for page 301
OCCUPATIONAL DESEGREGATION IN CETA PROGRAMS
301
TABLE 16-6 Occupation of Last Pre-CETA Job by Occupation of CETA Job for Males
and Females (FY 1976-FY 1978) (percent)
Occupation in Pre-CETA Job
Female
Male- Female-
Dominated Dominated
37.6
43.4
19.0
100.0
24
Occupation of
CETA Job
Male-dominated job
Female-dominated job
Mixed job
Total
N (000)
Mixed
Male
Male-
Dominated
Fe male -
Dominated
39.4
37.2
23.4
100.0
Mixed
54.0
7.6
38.4
100.0
6.8
75.8
17.4
100.0
9.9
44.8
45.3
100.0
138 83
84.0
4.2
11.9
100.0
279
27
114
-
SOURCE: Tables 13 and 14, Berryman et al. (1981), pp. 36-37.
Table 16-6 shows whether adult female
and male CETA jobholders stayed in the
same occupational type as their last pre-
CETA job or moved to a new one. Thus,
this table shows how much CETA changed
participants' occupational patterns.
About 75 percent of adult females in fe-
male-dominated pre-CETA jobs entered fe-
male-dominated CETA jobs. Of those who
moved out of female-dominated pre-CETA
jobs, more than two-thirds entered mixed
CETA jobs.
CETA retained less than 40 percent of
adult females whose pre-CETA job was in
a male-dominated occupation in their pre-
CETA occupational type and placed more
than 40 percent in female occupations. For
females who had pre-CETA mixed jobs,
CETA retained 45 percent in the same oc-
cupational type and placed more than 40
percent in female-dominated occupations.
Adult males had patterns similar but not
identical to those of their female counter-
parts; where CETA assignment altered oc-
cupation it tendec! to move both males and
females to occupations dominated by the
same sex. A smaller percent of males than
offemales shifted out of sex-typical pre-CETA
jobs (16 and 24 percent, respectively). Males
shifted out of sex-atypical pre-CETA jobs at
almost the same rate as that offemales; they
shifted out of mixed occupations at some-
what higher rates.
In sum, CETA changed the occupational
type of proportionately more females than
of males who had pre-CETA occupations
typical for their sex. For those with pre-
CETA mixed occupations or occupations
atypical for their sex, CETA retained the
same or a higher percentage offemales than
of males in CETA occupations of the same
type. However, CETA shifted only one-
quarter of those females in female-domi-
nated pre-CETA occupations into mixed or
male-dominated occupations. It did not re-
tain even half of those women in pre-CETA
mixed or sex-atypical occupations in occu-
pations of the same type and placed most of
the changers in female-dominated occupa-
tions, not mixed or male-dominated occu-
pations.
Finally, we can ask about CETA's record
in meeting clients' occupational prefer-
ences, as expressed in terms of its sex com-
position.~3 The data on occupational pref-
erences should be treated with caution.
Participants answered the preference ques-
tion after they had enrolled in CETA, and
most had been assigned to an occupation.
Their responses may be biased in the di-
rection of their postenroliment occupational
i3 The occupational preference data came from ques-
tions on the CLMS that asked: "Did you want a certain
kind of (~ob/job training) when you visited the man-
power office?" [If Yes] "What was the (,ob/job training)
that you wanted?"
OCR for page 302
302
LINDA J. WAITE AND SUE E. BERRYMAN
TABLE 16-7 Distribution of Desired Occupation by Obtained Occupation for Male and
Female CETA Jobholders (FY 1976-FY 1978) (percent)
. . . ~
Desired Occupation
Female Male
Occupation of Male- Female- Male- Female-
CETA Job Dominated Dominated Mixed Dominated Dominated Mixed
,
Male-dominated job 41.6 6.1 9.7 84.6 31.9 50.1
Female-dominated job 40.5 77.9 43.4 4.2 43.9 7.6
Mixed job 17.9 16.0 46.8 11.3 24.2 42.3
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
N (000) 22 140 81 253 26 104
SOURCE: Table 17, Berryman et al. (1981), p. 42.
assignments. If they had no pre-enrolIment
preferences, they may have responded to
this question by naming their assigned CETA
occupation. If they were assigned to an oc-
cupation different from their preference, they
may have accommodated to the discrepancy
by modifying their original preference. Both
of these potential biases would produce
overestimates of the match between pre-
ferred and actual assignment. As such, our
data on the match between preferred and
actual occupational assignments represent
the maximum responsiveness of CETA to
clients' preferences.
In each fiscal year more than half of the
adult female respondents indicated that they
had had occupational preferences at the time
of CETA entry. i4 For those women who ex-
pressed preferences, a small but increasing
proportion wanted male-dominated jobs
across time (5 percent to 10 percent). An
increasing proportion (from 26 percent to 35
percent) wanted mixed jobs, and a declining
majority (from 69 percent in FY 1976 to 55
percent in FY 1978) wanted jobs in female-
dominated occupations.
Table 16-7 shows the CETA occupational
distribution of adult females relative to their
preferences at CETA entry. Fewer than half
of the females who wanted male-dominated
i4 Me percentages were 65, 57, and 59 for FY 1976,
FY 1977, and FY 1978, respectively.
or mixed jobs got them. Of the females who
wanted and failed to get sex-atypical jobs,
69 percent ended up in femaTe-dominated
jobs. Similarly, of the females who wanted
but did not get mixed jobs, 82 percent ended
up in female jobs. More than 75 percent of
Me women who wanted female jobs got them;
and of those who failed to get desired female
jobs, almost three-quarters got mixed, not
male, jobs.
In sum, from FY 1976 to FY 1978 CETA
employed or trained fewer than half of its
female participants in male-dominated or
mixed occupations. The percentages in-
creased across fiscal years and were higher
in on-thejob training than in CETA's cIass-
room training or job services. Relative to
their representation in the particular CETA
service, females in on-thejob training were
much more likely to be assigned to female-
dominated occupations than were females
in classroom training. OIT's better occu-
pational desegregation record was attribut-
able to the small number of female occu-
pational slots in that activity. For women
whose pre-CETA job had been a male or
mixed occupation, CETA employed fewer
than half in occupations of the same sex-
composition type, shifting almost half of the
"movers" into female occupations. For
women whose pre-CETA job had been a
female-dominated occupation, CETA shifted
25 percent to a mixed or male occupation
primarily to the former. Finally, for women
OCR for page 303
who had occupational preferences at CETA
entry, the match between preferred and ac-
tual CETA occupation was much higher for
those with preferences for female-clomi-
nated jobs than for those with preferences
for male or mixed jobs.
WAGE IMPLICATIONS OF CETA
OCCUPATIONS
The low wages of female-dominated oc-
cupations are one of the primary reasons for
trying to desegregate occupations for women.
From this perspective wages are the critical
basis for judging women's occupational ex-
periences in CETA. We examine their wages
cluring CETA and the wages paid in the
labor force as a whole for the CETA occu-
pation in which they trained or were em-
ployed.
In-CETA Wages
We assess sex differences in the CETA
wage implications of female CETA occu-
pational assignments in three ways: by 1-
digit census occupational codes, the CETA
service, and the sex-typicality of the occu-
pation.
Table 16-8 shows the real average hourly
CETA wage by sex for the 1-digit census
occupational codes. Without exception males
earn higher hourly wages than do females
in the same occupational category.~5
Table 16-9 shows the real average hourly
wage by sex ant] CETA activity. Both sex
and CETA activity affect CETA wages. If
we look at wages by sex for the same CETA
activity, males again get systematically higher
wages than do females. The effects of CETA
activity are the same for males and fe-
males and, as data publishecl elsewhere
show, for whites, blacks, and Hispanics
i5 The large sample sizes make tests of signif~c~ce
relatively uninformative. We examine wages for dif-
ferences large enough to be significant substantively.
89.
OCC1JPATIONAL DESEGREGATION IN CETA PROGRAMS
303
TABLE 16-8 Average Hourly Wage of
CETA Occupations by Sex (FY 1976-FY
1979) (constant cloliars)
N
Occupation (000)
N
Males (000) Females
Professional/
technical
Managerial/
administrative
Sales workers
Clerical
Crafts
Operatives
Transportation
equipment
operatives
Laborers
Service
Average
(136) 3.56
(39)
(11)
(98)
(249)
(121)
3.78
3.24
3.05
3.25
3.19
(63) 3.04
(380) 2.97
(326) 2.86
(1,422) 3.10
(133) 3.39
(21) 3.56
(12) 2.49
(537) 2.69
(20) 2.72
(43) 2.67
(7) 2.75
(32) 2.71
(217) 2.54
(1,023) 2.76
SOURCE: Table 37, Berryman and Waite (1982), p.
(Berryman and Waite, 1982~. As the last col-
umn of Table 16-9 shows, the rank order of
wages by CETA activity is: public service
employment ~ on-thejob training > work
experience > classroom training. We noted
earlier that females are more apt than males
are to be funnelecl into Title I. Once in Title
I, they are more apt than males are to be
funnelecl into classroom training and work
experience activities. Thus, a much larger
percentage of CETA females than of CETA
males are in the two activities (work expe-
rience and classroom training) that receive
the lowest CETA wages.
Table 16-10 shows that women in CETA
training and in CETA jobs received lower
wages than men (lid in each of the three sex-
composition occupational categories (Ber-
ryman et al., 19811. The wage difference
between the sexes was greatest for the fe-
male-dominatec] occupations, less and about
the same size in the male-dominated anal
mixed occupations.
Women in CETA job training received
somewhat lower hourly wages if they trained
in a female-dominated occupation than if they
trained in either a male-cTominated or mixed
OCR for page 304
304
LINDA I. WAITE AND SUE E. BERRYMAN
TABLE 16-9 Average Hourly Wage by CETA Activity and Sex (FY 1976-FY 1979)
(constant dollars)
N N N
CETA Activity (000) Males (000) Females (000) Total
Classroom training (210) 2.23 (297) 2.06 (507) 2.13
OJT (207) 3.22 (109) 2.70 (316) 3.04
Work experience (398) 2.51 (400) 2.38 (797) 2.45
Public service employment (794) 3.30 (476) 3.09 (1,270) 3.24
SOURCE: Table 44, Berryman and Waite (1982), p. 102.
Occupation. However, training in a female-
clominated occupation dic3 not reduce the
wages of men relative to the wages of those
training in male-clominatec! and mixed oc-
cupations.
Women in CETA jobs received the lowest
wage rates in female-dominated occupations
and the highest in mixed occupations. Al-
though men in CETA jobs also received the
highest wage rates in mixer! occupations,
working in a female occupation clid not de-
press their wages relative to the wages as-
sociated with male occupations.
However we categorize CETA occupa-
tions by census code, CETA activity, or
sex-typicality within each category wom-
en's wages were on average about 90 per-
cent of the men's wages. It is not clear how
to judge this wage record. Although the av-
erage difference between male ant! female
wages in CETA was small, men consistently
made higher wages than women did, and
for two reasons the smallness of the differ-
ence between them may be less impressive
than it initially appears. First, CETA wages
were subject to floors and ceilings, thus
compressing the wage range for both sexes.
Second, however we categorize CETA oc-
cupations, participants in the same CETA
activity or CETA occupation were probably
more homogeneous even on unmeasured
characteristics that affect wages than were
members of an occupation in the general
labor force.
Post-CETA Wages
We do not know the relationship between
the occupation of the CETA job or job train-
ing and that of participants' post-CETA jobs.
However, if CETA clients train or work in
occupations whose counterparts in the labor
TABLE 16-10 Average Hourly Wage for CETA Trainees and CETA Jobholders by Sex
Typicality of Occupation (FY 1976-FY 1978) (constant dollars)
CETA Activity/Sex Male Female
Typicality of Occupation Total White Black Hispanic Total White Black Hispanic
-
~ .
fannies
Male-dominated 3.63 3.66 3.61 3.46 3.00 3.04 2.96 2.82
Female-dominated 3.52 3.64 3.39 3.46 2.79 2.77 2.78 2.93
Mixed 3.32 3.37 3.19 3.25 2.89 2.88 2.94 2.94
N (000) 103 70 16 13 56 37 13 5
Job Holders
Male-dominated 3.34 3.43 3.11 3.25 3.12 3.21 2.95 3.18
Female-dominated 3.34 3.41 3.25 3.10 2.90 2.94 2.84 2.79
Mixed 3.53 3.60 3.36 3.42 3.35 3.39 3.18 3.45
N (000) 609 396 145 46 407 251 112 29
SOURCE: Tables 20 and 21, Berryman et al. (1981), pp. 50-51.
OCR for page 305
OCCUPATIONAL DESEGREGATION IN CETA PROGRAMS
305
TABLE 16-11 FY 1976-FY 1979 CETA Occupational Distribution by Sex and CETA
Activity and the 1979 Unemployment Rates and Median Wages of Occupations in the
Unsubsidized Sector
Males Females Unsubsidized Sector
1979 Median
Weekly EarningsC
CETA CETA CETA CETA 1979 (Full-time Wage and
Occupational Training Job Training Job Unemploy- Salary Workers)
Categorya (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent) ment Ratesb (dollars)
Professional/
technical 5.6 10.8 6.4 14.4 2.4 316
Managerial/
administrative 2.0 2.8 1.0 2.2 2.1 349
Sales workers 2.5 0.3 2.1 0.8 3.9 254
Clerical 6.1 7.2 53.3 53.5 4.6 195
Crafts 35.5 14.4 4.3 1.4 4.5 303
Operatives 28.7 4.0 11.9 1.4 8.4 211
Transportation
equipment
operatives 4.0 4.4 0.3 0.7 5.4 272
Laborers 7.7 30.1 1.0 3.5 10.8 206
Service 7.9 25.9 19.6 22.1 7.3 164
Total or average 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 5.8 244
N 375,246 1,189,725 332,945 872,307
a These are the 1-digit census occupational categories. They exclude three categories that do not occur in the
CETA occupational structure: Farmers and Farm Managers, Farm Laborers and Supervisors, and Private House-
hold Workers.
b From Table A-23, Department of Labor (1980), p. 257.
c From Table 704, Bureau of the Census (1980), p. 424.
market as a whole have high unemployment
rates, they should have less chance of cap-
italizing on their CETA occupational expe-
rience. If the labor market counterparts of
their CETA occupations have low wages and
CETA clients obtain a post-CETA job in the
same occupation as their CETA occupation,
their wages will be low.
Table 16-11 shows how CETA males and
females distributed across the 1-digit census
occupational codes by CETA service (train-
ing and jobs). It also shows the 1979 un-
employment rates and median weekly earn-
ings for these occupations in the labor market
as a whole. The occupations with the highest
1979 unemployment rates were the opera-
tive, laborer, and service occupations; those
with the lowest median weekly wage rates
were the clerical, operative, laborer, and
service occupations.
Females in CETA job training had about
the same occupational distribution as that of
females in CETA jobs. About 75 percent of
the women in each of these activities fell
into two occupations: clerical and service,
both with low wages rates in the labor mar-
ket as a whole. The service occupation also
had relatively higher unemployment rates.
Males in CETA job training had different
occupational distributions than those of males
in CETA jobs. Of those in CETA jobs, more
than 50 percent fell into two occupations:
laborer and service, both with low wage rates
and relatively high unemployment rates. For
males in CETA job training, almost two-
thircls fell into two (different occupations: crafts
and operatives. The former hall a moderate
unemployment rate and relatively high wage
rate; the latter, a relatively high unemploy-
ment rate and low wage rate.
OCR for page 306
306
LINDA I. WAITE AND SUE E. BERRYMAN
Thus, from FY 1976 to FY 1979 CETA
employed most women in occupations with
low wages in the labor market as a whole.
CETA did not use training to alter the pro-
portion of women in occupations offering
relatively little economic security. CETA
employed most men in two of the least eco-
nomically secure occupations with relatively
low median wages and high annual employ-
ment rates. However, CETA used training
to reduce the percentage of men in the four
low-wage occupations from two-thirds to one-
half.
Conclusion
Training or working in male-dominated or
mixed occupations gave women higher CETA
wages than those from training or working
in female-dominated occupations. How-
ever, CETA wages were consistently lower
for women than for men in the same census
occupation, in the same CETA service, or
in the same sex-composition category.
Of those in CETA jobs, CETA employed
80 percent of the women and 67 percent of
the men in the four occupations whose un-
subsidized counterparts had the lowest wages
and/or high unemployment rates. For those
in CETA training, CETA did not alter the
percentage of women in lower wage occu-
pations, but reduced the percentage of men
in these occupations from 67 to 50 percent.
However we judge CETA's occupational
desegregation record, the bottom line of that
record for women- their CETA wages ant]
post-CETA economic prospects is not
. .
Impressive.
SUMMARY AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The analyses reported in this paper are
useful as baseline information about women
ant! CETA for the three years prior to
CETA's 1978 reauthorization. We found that,
relative to their eligibility for CETA, women
were underrepresented in CETA's Titles I,
II, ant! VI for all three fiscal years except in
Title I for FY 1978. When we controlled on
variables that should affect title and activity
assignments, we found women overrepre-
sented in training activities, especially in
classroom training relative to OIT, and in
income-transfer jobs relative to jobs de-
signed to lead to permanent, unsubsidized
employment.
For all three years, female CETA partic-
ipants were concentrated in female-domi-
natec! occupations, although the concentra-
tion was less among CETA job trainees than
among CETA jobholders. CETA placed only
about 40 percent of the women whose last
pre-CETA occupation had been male-dom-
inated or who had expressed a preference
at CETA entry for a male-dominated oc-
cupation. In both cases, for those not placed
in a male-dominated occupation, about two-
thirds were placed in sex-typical occupa-
tions.
However we categorized the CETA oc-
cupation, within each category women's
wages were about 90 percent of men's wages.
Although the wage difference between men
and women was not large, it was consistent,
and for reasons discussed earlier in this pa-
per, the smallness of the difference may be
less impressive than it appears. In terms of
their post-CETA prospects, about three-
fourths of the women in CETA jobs and in
CETA job training were employed or trained
in occupations that paid low wages in the
general labor market: service and clerical
occupations.
The policy implications of these data are
not clear for three major reasons:
1. In connection with CETA's reauthor-
ization, CETA prime sponsors were di-
rected to reduce occupational sex segre-
gation in CETA. Our analyses provide abase-
line for assessing CETA's response to that
directive but not its current occupational
status.
2. One of the reasons for desegregating
CETA occupations was to improve women's
post-CETA wages. At this juncture we lack
OCR for page 307
OCCUPATIONAL DESEGREGATION IN CETA PROGRAMS _ .
307
analyses that show that being trained or em-
ployed in male-dominated CETA occupa-
tions positively affects women's post-CETA
economic outcomes. If the effects are neg-
ative for reasons substantially beyond the
control of CETA, trade-offs between these
two policy objectives reduced occupa-
tional sex segregation and economic self-suf-
ficiency—have to be made.
3. The male-clominated occupations for
which most female CETA participants will
be eligible are blue-collar occupations.
Structural changes in the American econ-
omy- and the occupational consequences
of these changes imply that we need to
re-examine what occupations sex-typical
or atypical—best equip CETA participants
for economic self-sufficiency.
The avowed purpose of job programs, in-
cluding CETA, is to improve the prospects
of those who lack the skills to obtain ac-
ceptable employment on their own. This
means getting people jobs at decent wages.
Moving women into jobs currently filled
predominately by men is desirable to the
extent that it serves this purpose. But a
number of factors may decrease the utility
of occupational desegregation as a means to
the ends espoused by job programs. First,
most women eligible to participate in job
programs could enter white-colIar occupa-
tions only through stereotypicaDy female jobs
such as clerical work. The male-dominated
jobs potentially available to them tend to be
blue collar, primarily service, operative and,
perhaps, crafts jobs. Many of these occu-
pations show high rates of unemployment
currently, and women seeking to enter them
would face competition from large numbers
of men. Second, the structural changes now
taking place in the economy make unskilled
and semiskilled blue-collar jobs especially
susceptible to technical obsolescence. Third,
little empirical evidence exists on the suc-
cess of occupational integration as a mech-
anism for improving the employment pros-
pects of women. For these reasons, we argue
that job programs for women should care-
fi~ly assess their goals and the ways in which
the sex composition of the occupation affects
the chances of achieving those goals.
REFERENCES
Barrett, Nancy S.
1979 "Women in the Job Market: Occupations,
Earnings, and Career Opportunities." P. 39 in
Ralph E. Smith, ea., The Subtle Revolution.
Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute Press.
Berryman, Sue E., and Linda J. Waite
1982 Hispanics and CETA: Issues of Access, Dis-
tribution, and Equity. Unpublished working
paper, Rand Corporation, Santa Monica, Calif.
Berryman, Sue E., Winston K. Chow, and Robert M.
Bell
1981 CETA: Is It Equitable for Women? N-1683-
NCEP. Santa Monica, Calif.: Rand Corpora-
tion.
Bureau of the Census
1980 Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1980
(101st ea.) Washington, D.C.: U.S. Govern-
ment Printing Office.
1981 Current Population Reports, Series P-20, No.
363. Population Profile of the United States,
1980. Washington, D.C.: U. S. Department of
Commerce. Available from the U.S. Super-
intendent of Documents, U.S. Government
Printing Office.
Chiswick, Barry, J. Fackler, June O'Neill, and Solomon
Polacheck
1974 "The Effect of Occupation on Race and Sex
Differences in Hourly Earnings." Pp. 219-228
in Proceedings of the American Statistical As-
sociation. Washington, D.C.: American Sta-
tistical Association.
Department of Labor
1980 Employment and Training Report of the Pres-
ident. Washington, D.C.
Mirengoff, William, and Lester Rindler
1978 CETA: Manpower Programs Under Local
Control. Washington, D.C.: National Acad-
emy of Sciences.
Sawhill, Isabel V.
1973 "The Economics of Discrimination Against
Women: Some New Findings."Journal of Hu-
man Resources 8: 383-396.
"Discrimination and Poverty Among Women
Who Head Families." Pp. 201-211 in Martha
Blaxall and Barbara Reagan, eds., Women and
the Workplace. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Wolf, Wendy C., and Rachel Rosenfeld
1978 "Sex Structure of Occupations and Job Mobil-
ity." Social Forces 563:823-844.
1976
Representative terms from entire chapter:
work experience
