I am in need for M8A1 portofoio to be adjusted (The paper is on Diversity in the workplace) with the corrections that are mentioned in the prvious attachments. (M2A1, M4A1, M6A1). Also I need for M8A1

Running head: EQUITY 1

A Reflection of Society: Employment Statistics and Social Equity

MPA625 - M4A1

A Reflection of Society: Employment Statistics and Social Equity

The United States of America promises equal opportunity to all its citizens. If the nation does enact equity for its population, then it follows that the employment statistics of the government should follow the ethnic demographics of the general population. In small sample sizes, it is possible that deviations from the demographics of the general population would be possible in employment statistics; however, given the large population of people who work for the government, it is likely that an alignment of employee ethnic characteristics would match that of the general population . Yet equity in the United States is not something that is static in nature. In fact, over the course of the half of a century following key legislation designed to ensure equity (Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub.L. 88–352, 78 Stat. 241) and the Equal Pay Act of 1963 (Pub. L. No. 88-38, 77 Stat. 56), America has strived to move from a nation in which discrimination was a part of the fabric of America into a nation that treats all citizens equitably. In order to determine America’s ability to meet its self-imposed mandate, it is necessary to evaluate longitudinal data sets to discover the progress or the lack of progress made by the nation in ensuring equity for its citizens. Using the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) Employment by Gender and Race/National Origin data set from 2006-2017 will validate or invalidate the premise that the United States Government is meeting its mandate in ensuring equity through its employment practices.

The Data

Although the data from the Employment by Gender and Race/National Origin data set and the data from the Census of 2000 and 2010 can provide comparative analysis, several distinctions must be made. The first distinction is that of time. The Census is administered every decade, and thus the comparative data for this set differs from the employment set. The Census will only indicate two years: 2000 and 2010, while the employment set will indicate yearly changes from 2006 to 2017. Each data set can be used to determine changes over a decade, but it is possible that there are differences in these sets that complicate comparative evaluation. Additionally, while gender characteristics are consistent, racial characteristics differ between the two data sets. The employment data set considers six races (Black, Hispanic/Latino, Asian/Pacific Islander, American Indian/Alaskan Native, More than one race, and White/non-Hispanic; however, the Census considers a broader array of races (18). For purposes of comparison, the data from the Census will be generalized in this analysis to follow the data categories in the employment data set. Although it is possible that differences will not be captured in the comparative analysis, this simplification will make it possible to analyze tendencies that could be further researched with greater precision.

Figure 1: Comparison of Census (2000) and Employment (2006) Percentages.

Figure 2: Comparison of Census (2010) and Employment (2016) Percentages.

Measures of Central Tendency

The mode of the quantity of groups employed does not provide significant information for comparative analysis. Instead, the median does, as does the mean as previously indicated in Figures 1 and 2. More cogently, median and mean differences add considerable insight into the yearly employment figures. For example, White employment deviated from the median very seldom over the decade of the data set, despite the fact that the census indicated a diminished population of White people in the nation (75% to 72%). The difference between the median and the mean was slight, indicating a strong consistency in the employment of White people in the United States (Median 1,337,389; Mean 1,338,316). In contrast, Latino/ Hispanic populations demonstrated considerable differences in central tendencies (167,505 median; 163,012 mean). These differences indicate ranges that are inconsistent, and this is largely due to the increase in the employment of Latino people in the United States Government in 2016 compared to 2010.

Where are the central tendencies calculated? The above charts show how specific races have been employed or unemployed over time, not the required descriptive statistics.

Analysis

The data shows that the United States Government is making a concerted effort to improve the equity in employment of minority populations at the expense of the White population. This would be confirmed by a direct read of the data, but external variables may indicate that this finding may not be entirely supported. The comparative use of data in support of the hypothesis suggests that all populations of ethnic groups pursue jobs with the government with the same frequency. This may not be valid. For example, it is possible that a higher population of White people do not seek civil service positions in comparison to other groups because of the diminished compensation offered for these positions.

Figure 3: What are the variables shown on the Y Axis here?

Importantly, longitudinal trends demonstrate that Native American populations are decreasing, although the employment stays steady. This could be the result of reporting by ethnicity, which employees and their employers could be altering to meet national mandates for governmental employment. This represents a threat to the data that could negate the validity of the hypothesis. The indication is a slightly negative skew (Figure 3).

Conclusion

Interestingly, the efforts of the United States government to provide equity in employment may have gone too far, if those who seek jobs with the government are evenly distributed by ethnic groups. The interesting conclusion to draw is that it would appear that the nation has made a concerted effort to hire minority groups . Future study that examines who applies to jobs would provide greater insight that would make conclusions more valid.

References

Do not list references you haven’t cited. Do not cite references you have not listed.

United States Census. (2010). Demographic population.

Professor Notes:

This is a good start Marcus. However, as presented, your hypothesis is unclear. There are no Central Tendencies calculated and presented in APA formatted chart. You have not identified independent and dependent variables and therefore, you cannot identify a potential statistical analysis. Finally, I am unsure what variables are shown on your scatterplot.

I think what you want to evaluate is whether the federal employee population represents the actual population by demographic. There is no statistical analysis needed to determine this. You would only need to identify the percentage of ready to work individuals in each demographic and location by the total number of each of those demographics in each location. I can assure you, this will be a simple and easy analysis – I’ve done it countless times in my current position.

What would require a statistical analysis would be whether there is a correlation between the ready to work population by demographic and the rates of employment in the public sector. For example, is federal sector employment related to race? Please think about the assignment in terms of identifying a relationship between variables, not counting the existence or lack thereof, of a certain demographic employed in the public sector. Please review the assignment guidelines, and perhaps the sample paper provided, and let me know if you have any questions. ~Prof. Goliday