Sex-based occupational segregation in U.S. state bureaucracies, 1987-97.(Statistical Data Included)

Introduction

The literature on the distribution of women and men in public-sector jobs and the integration of women into government managerial ranks is replete with evidence that women often face glass walls, especially in certain types of agencies (Lewis and Emmert 1986; Pfeifer and Davis-Blake 1987; Kellough 1989, 1990; Guy and Duerst-Lahti 1992; Bullard and Wright 1993; Cornwell and Kellough 1994; Guy 1994; Lewis and Nice 1994; Naif 1994; Newman 1994; Riccucci and Saidel 1997). The glass wall metaphor refers to occupational segregation attributed to barriers that restrict women's access to certain types of jobs (or agencies) or to factors that concentrate women within certain types of jobs (or agencies). Glass walls are likely to persist when (1) the agency and its clientele do not engage in efforts to remove impediments to change; and/or (2) skills necessary to perform jobs in a given agency are not highly valued outside the agency.

Large-scale studies of sex-based occupational segregation have been conducted on U.S. federal government (Rosenbloom 1977; Lewis and Emmert 1986; Kellough 1989, 1990) and municipal government workforces (Miller, Kerr, and Reid 1999), but the lack of access to comparative public employment data on states has resulted in a dearth of generalizable empirical studies on employment in state-level bureaucracies. Numerous studies employ summary data from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's (EEOC) Job Patterns for Minorities and Women In State and Local Government (Cayer and Sigelman 1980; Moore and Mazey 1986; Sigelman and Dometrius 1986; Lewis and Nice 1994; Dometrius and Sigelman 1997). (1) Many other studies are based on samples drawn from one state or just a few states (Bayes 1989; Rehfuss 1986; Hale, Kelly, and Burgess 1989; Kelly et al. 1991; Duerst-Lahti and Johnson 1992; Guy 1992; Newman 1994). The data employed by Bullard and Wright (1993) and Riccucci and Saidel (1997) are limited to agency heads from across the 50 states and gubernatorial appointees from nearly all 50 states, respectively. Previous research on the distribution of state jobs provides some useful conceptual and analytic frameworks, but findings from these studies provide little basis for generalizing about the employment patterns of career administrative and professional personnel.

In this article, we examine the distribution of women and men in state-level administrative and professional positions by agency type and over time in each of the 50 states to determine whether agency missions are associated with the extent and nature of glass walls. We are interested in the following questions: (1) what is the distribution of female and male administrators and professionals in various functional areas in state governments (police, corrections, natural resources/parks, highways, public welfare, etc.); and (2) is the underrepresentation and/or overrepresentation of female or male administrators and professionals in various functional areas related to the agency missions in those functional areas?

These questions are important for several reasons. Greater access to quality jobs, including public-sector managerial positions, promotes the economic, social, and political progress of women, and it may result in longterm benefits through altered socialization processes (Kanter 1977; MacManus 1981; Tolleson-Rinehart 1991; Guy and Duerst-Lahti 1992). Greater representation for women among managerial personnel is also likely to result in changes in management styles and leadership processes, perhaps making them more innovative and democratic (Tolleson-Rinehart 1991; Duerst-Lahti and Johnson 1992; Stivers 1993). The increased presence of women is also likely to have a distinctive impact on policy outputs (Mezey 1978; Stewart 1980; Stanwick and Kleeman 1983; Welch 1985; Gelb and Palley 1996; Carroll, Dodson, and Mandel 1991; Dodson and Carroll 1991; Tolleson-Rinehart 1991; Thomas 1994; but see Donahue 1997; Ford and Dolan 1999).

The focus on women in state bureaucracies is important because state governments function as distinct entities with their own constitutions, laws, and independently raised revenues (Kelly et al. 1991). Osborne (1988) and Van Horn (1989) argue that state governments have become more responsive, innovative, and effective; however, these efforts are by no means distributed uniformly across all states (Brudney, Hebert, and Wright 1999). Nonetheless, over the last three decades there has been a marked increase in state agency activism (Wright, Yoo, and Cohen 1991; Bullard and Wright 1993). Bullard and Wright (1993) argue that administrative activism in the states converged with women's activism to create expanded opportunities for women at the state level, often in the form of newly created agencies and programs. They also argue that, all else being equal, new agencies and programs are less likely than existing agencies and programs to be subject to constraints invidious to women (Bullard and Wright 1993). Such expanded opportunities provide reason to think that, in general, employment patterns should indicate evidence of growth in women's share of managerial positions in state government.

Theory and Hypotheses