National Academies Press: OpenBook

Racial and Gender Diversity in State DOTs and Transit Agencies (2007)

Chapter: Chapter 2 - Research Approach

« Previous: Chapter 1 - Background
Page 7
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 - Research Approach." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2007. Racial and Gender Diversity in State DOTs and Transit Agencies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22010.
×
Page 7
Page 8
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 - Research Approach." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2007. Racial and Gender Diversity in State DOTs and Transit Agencies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22010.
×
Page 8
Page 9
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 - Research Approach." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2007. Racial and Gender Diversity in State DOTs and Transit Agencies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22010.
×
Page 9

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

7Methods to collect and analyze information for this project included • A review of the available literature, • A review of existing transportation data and datasets, • The administration and analysis of a web survey, and • An analysis of utilization and availability rates. Review of the Available Literature A literature search was conducted using traditional academic search engines. In addition, a targeted search was conducted using TRB’s Transportation Research Information Services (TRIS). A summary of the literature review is provided in Appendix B, and a list of references consulted appears in Appendix C. Review of Existing Transportation Data The research team reviewed the most recent affirmative action plans and EEO forms submitted by the 52 SDOTs (from each of the 50 states plus Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico) and the 50 largest transit agencies (which account for 80% of all transit employees). The forms, which were provided by FHWA and FTA, were reviewed for com- prehensiveness, validity, and consistency in how the agencies report their employment data. A preliminary review of SDOT data led to the conclusion that only a limited analysis could be performed because the data were available only in hard copy format and because of variances in what information was reported and how the in- formation was reported. The research team reviewed the reporting requirements for SDOTs (16) and those for transit agencies (15). The team also interviewed FHWA and FTA staff. The research team learned that there is no central location for electronically storing EEO forms submitted by SDOTs or transit agencies. Because the information is only available in hard copy, the team created a template that would allow them to readily inventory the key information included in the vari- ous reports. In addition, a database was created to track reported utilization and availability rates, as well as dispropor- tionality rates (if a disproportionality rate was not provided, the research team calculated it). Review of Available Datasets Employment data obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau’s Summary File 4 (SF-4) were used to check the validity of the availability rates reported by the agencies. Employment counts were collected for total employees, total minorities, Blacks (non-Hispanic), Hispanics or Latinos, American Indians, Asians, and Whites (non-Hispanic); the counts were further broken down by gender and by occupational group. State and county demographic information was retrieved from the Census Bureau’s website (www.quickfacts.census. gov/qfd/) to determine if any of the demographic information, such as unemployment rate, poverty rate, population, or den- sity, could explain the actual or perceived disparity in the SDOTs’ utilization and availability of women and minorities. Administration and Analysis of Web Survey The research team prepared a web survey that would be administered to all 52 SDOTs, with the goal of measuring the SDOTs’ level of confidence in the employment data they collect and submit. The web survey was based on the framework discussed in John Milam’s 1996 report, National Study of Faculty Avail- ability and Utilization, in which the author outlines several research questions that should be addressed during an avail- ability and utilization analysis (highered.org/docs/milam- facultyavailability.pdf). Although Milam’s article focuses on C H A P T E R 2 Research Approach

faculty hiring, the research questions are equally applicable to this project. Milam poses the following research questions: • What is the status of affirmative action plans for faculty hiring? • Are there principles and rules to guide affirmative action/ EEO officers in preparing these plans? • Are consistent, reliable data available for measuring how well institutions are doing in attracting a diverse faculty? • How are these data collected, analyzed, disseminated, and used internally? Milam also lists some specific questions that should be answered in an availability and utilization report: • Do institutions complete an affirmative action plan with availability data? • How often are these plans produced? • Are availability and utilization analyses reported? • What sources are used for gathering faculty availability data? • Who calculates the availability data? • How are the data calculated? • How are availability and utilization data broken out? • Are numerical goals and/or availability data shared with search committees? • Are the provost and/or academic deans involved in de- termining availability data? Those questions, modified for SDOT purposes, were used to develop the web survey. The survey instrument was divided into three main categories: EEO reporting, availability and utiliza- tion information, and information about the respondent. Five SDOTs were selected to pretest the survey (five of the nine Census regions were randomly selected, and then one state was randomly selected in each of those five regions). This allowed the research team to obtain suggestions and comments from people who work directly in human resource departments in SDOTs, who deal with racial and gender diversity issues, and who work in different regions of the country. This last characteristic was fundamental to the study because different regions may have different cultural approaches to these issues. Four of the five SDOTs asked to participate in the pretest completed the survey. After the team reviewed the results of the pretest, the survey was modified and then administered to the remain- ing 47 SDOTs. E-mails were sent to the SDOT civil rights directors, asking them for help in gaining insight into the availability and utilization of women and minorities in their agencies. This e-mail included a cover letter with a link to the website containing the survey, as well as a consent statement. A reminder email was sent to the directors one week later. Twenty-nine SDOTs responded to the survey. The main findings from the survey are summarized in Appendix D. Conceptual Framework After reviewing and analyzing the EEO files from the SDOTs and transit agencies, several issues emerged related to compliance, consistency, comprehensiveness, and confidence (the four Cs). First, some agencies did not submit the proper EEO docu- mentation. Second, agencies do not report their EEO information in a consistent manner. Third, the level of comprehensiveness of the reports differ, with significant variations in content and thoroughness. Fourth, some agencies expressed a lack of confidence in their data, unsure whether the data were valid and reliable. To determine if the SDOT and transit agency data that it was reviewing were valid and reliable, the research team developed a conceptual framework for evaluation, based on the key issues and concerns that emerged while reviewing the data (see Table 1). If an agency is compliant in its reporting of data, if an agency’s data are consistent with that reported by other agen- cies, if an agency’s data are comprehensive in content and thoroughness, and if the agency is confident of the quality of the data, then the data are likely to be valid and reliable. To help determine how well an agency’s data fares under this four-pronged framework, the research team created a template for storing the information provided in SDOT and transit agency reports. The template was based on the follow- ing questions: • Was an EEO-4 form submitted? • What was the date of the EEO-4 form? • If no EEO-4 form was submitted, were the EEO-4 numbers provided in the text of the report? • Was an FHWA-1392 (Federal Aid Highway Construction: Summary of Employment Data) form submitted? • What was the date of the Form 1392? • Was an overall utilization rate provided? • Was a utilization rate provided for each race/ethnic group? • Were utilization rates provided by gender? • Were utilization rates cross-referenced for race and gender? • Was an overall availability rate provided? • Was an availability rate provided by race/ethnic group? • Was an availability rate provided by gender? • Was availability cross-referenced for race and gender? • What was the date of the availability data? • Did the agency report a disparity ratio or underutilization? • What minority/ethnic categories were used? 8

Information gleaned from the web survey and data col- lected from the Census Bureau were used to run numerous statistical tests designed to answer the following questions: • What factors might explain an agency’s failure to comply with the regulations regarding EEO reporting? • What are some of the characteristics of compliant and noncompliant agencies? • Why did some agencies report their incumbency/ utilization data in a different way? • Why did some agencies submit information on availabil- ity, while others did not? • Are the agencies confident in the data they submit- ted? Should the agencies be confident in the data they submitted? • Was there a difference between the availability reported for an agency and the availability rate calculated using the Census data? • Did the agencies compare their utilization and availability rates? • Did the agencies find any underrepresentation or dis- proportionality? • Did the research team find any underrepresentation or dis- proportionality using independent calculations? • What occupations and racial/gender groups account for the most disproportionality? The research team conducted a series of regression analyses to better understand the factors that explain compliance. De- mographic factors seemingly had little, if any, effect on which SDOTs or transit agencies fully complied with requirements for filing EEO-4 forms; noncompliance appears to be almost randomly distributed among the SDOTs and transit agencies. An analysis of fiscal, political, and institutional factors—such as budget size, terms of appointments of agency heads, and agency structure—might yield other results. 9 Compliance Consistency Comprehensiveness Certainty Agency submits an affirmative action plan. Agency submits an EEO-4 form. Agency provides employment counts for women and minorities. Agency provides disaggregated employment counts for women and minorities. Agencies provide employment counts based on the same Census data. Agencies’ employment counts use the same racial/ethnic classifications. Agencies’ employment counts are broken down by EEO-4 classifications. Agency provides both utilization and availability counts. Agency develops targeted goals for women and minorities. Agency is certain of the accuracy of the EEO information provided. Table 1. Conceptual Framework for Evaluating if Data Are Valid and Reliable.

Next: Chapter 3 - Findings and Applications »
Racial and Gender Diversity in State DOTs and Transit Agencies Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) and National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) have jointly produced and published Racial and Gender Diversity in State DOTs and Transit Agencies. The product, which can be referred to as TCRP Report 120 or NCHRP Report 585, examines racial and gender diversity in state departments of transportation (DOTs) and transit agencies for purposes of establishing a baseline that reflects the current status of racial and gender diversity in state DOTs and transit agencies based on existing data.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!