The decision to focus on discrimination with race as an issue--as contrasted with that involving sex, national origion, or religion--is based solely on the volume of evidence and diversity of experience in conciliation available for study among such cases. The decision in no way reflects a relative weighting of the importance of these issues. Data Sources and Methods of Analysis The purposes of the study required the preparation of a substantial volume of data needed to exhibit and analyze the use of conciliation as a tool of compliance. These data, for the most part, came from the EEOC: a sizeable body of material was chosen from conciliation case files distributed among regional and district offices of the Commission and from Annual Reports of the Commission submitted to the President and Congress. Other data were drawn from employer reports filed with the EEOC by firms subject to Title VII.5 These reports furnish annual employment for firms by sex, occupation, and ethnic origin. Still other information was gathered from congressional testimony on pending legislation related to Title VII, unpublished compliance guidelines, and from interviews with Commission personnel and respondents chosen to represent a diverse set of issues and industry sectors. These interviews, conducted in the summer of 1971, attempted to clarify, expand, correct, and update information from less direct sources: the purpose was to throw light on a complex set of forces related to changes in minority employment. They provided detailed information about the firm--its market characteristics; its relations with the minority community; its location relative to minority housing; its recruitment and selection procedures, and the skill force! requirements of its work force--and sought closer insight into the firm's reaction to conciliation and to the impact that conciliation had on minority employment. Methods of analysis range in sophistication from simple construction of tables to the use of regression and correlation analysis. Specific statistical techniques are employed where appropriate to examine forces related to explaining the outcome of conciliation and its impact on the employment of those affected by acts of discrimination. However, data and statistics are not to be regarded as ends in themselves, and there are important causal variables affecting the conciliation process which are difficult to quantify. Consequently, description and verbal analysis within a case study framework are utilized to at least as great an extent as statistical analysis. Plan of the Study Chapter 2 provides background for the study by outlining development of the administrative and legal structure surrounding the compliance process and the use of conciliation. Understanding of this structure is essential to any perception of its effect on the outcome of compliance activities. Chapter 3 establishes a general framework for analysis of causal forces responsible for success or failure of conciliation and examines forces determining the outcome of conciliation and its impact on minority employment. A case study method is used. Chapter 4 assesses statistically the impact of conciliation on minority employment in those instances in which respondents have agreed to eliminate discriminatory employment practices. Chapter 5 offers some concluding observations and policy recommendations. 1. For an introduction to the problems of discrimination and poverty, see the following representative literature: Discrimination and National Welfare, Robert M. MacIver, ed. (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1949); Eli Ginzberg, The Negro Potential (New York: Columbia University Press, 1956); Michael Harrington, The Other America (New York: Macmillan, 1962); Gunnar Myrdal, An American Dilemma, 2 vol. (New York: Harper & Row, 1962); Edgar May, The Wasted Americans (New York: Harper & Row, 1964); F. Ray Marshall, The Negro in Organized Labor (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1965); Lester C. Thurow, Poverty and Discrimination (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 1969); Herbert R. Northrup, et al., Negro Employment in Basic Industry (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1971); Sar Levitan, Garth Mangum, and Ray Marshall, Human Resources and Labor Markets (New York: Harper & Row, 1972). The 2. U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Third Annual Report (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1969), p. 6; and Fifth Annual Report (Washington, D.C.: P. 36. Government Printing Office, 1971), 4. Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 12000e-5 (1964) as amended by the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972, Public Law 92-261, 86 Stat. 103 (March 24, 1972). 5. Employer reports (form EEO-1) were collected from private firms with 100 or more employees, 50 or more employees and a government contract of $50,000 or more, and firms voluntarily subscribing to the Plans for Progress program. 6. Testimony before the Subcommittee on Labor of the Committee on Education and Labor, U.S. House of Representatives, "The Equal Employment Opportunities Enforcement Act of 1971" (H.R. 1746) (mimeographed). 7. Interview schedule OMB No. 124-571001. 5 CHAPTER 2 THE COMPLIANCE PROCESS Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended defines an unlawful employment practice in such a way as to cover a wide variety of relationships among employers, labor organizations, and employment agencies. Specifically, Title VII declares it an unlawful employment practice for employers to discriminate on the basis of race, religion, sex, or national origin with regard to any employment condition, including hiring, firing, promotion, transfer, and wage practices.1/ It also states that discrimination by employment agencies is illegal persons, Title VII is applicable to a wide group of institutions: excluding the federal government, engaged in industry affecting commerce who have 25 or more employees for each working day in 20 or more calendar weeks of the current or preceding year; all employment agencies; and generally all labor organizations which maintain or operate hiring halls or have 25 or more members.4 The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, composed of five members appointed by the President and approved by the Senate, is the agency responsible for administration of Title VII and for the compliance process associated with it.5/ The compliance process is composed of a series of actions the purpose of which is to resolve complaints of job discrimination. sequence, include: Its steps, in initiation of a discrimination charge; investigation of the charge to determine its factual basis; analysis of the facts to determine whether there is reasonable cause to believe discrimination has occurred; conciliation of those charges which reveal probable discrimination.6/ Dimensions of Compliance 1970. The number of discrimination charges filed annually with the Commission has grown steadily, increasing from 8,196 in 1966 to 20,122 in Discrimination based on race has historically accounted for 6 out of 10 charges received (see Table 2-1), and discrimination based on sex accounts for an additional 2 of every 10. origin and religion takes care of the remainder. Employers have been the Discrimination based on national respondent in about 85 percent of all charges, with unions and employment agencies following in importance. These relationships have remained fairly stable throughout the Commission's history. The South, although it represents only 30 percent of the nation's work force, accounts for one-half of all charges received by the Commission (see Table 2-2). One possible explanation for this is the number of southern states without Fair Employment Practice (FEP) laws: through December 1971, only Florida, Kentucky, and Oklahoma were included among the 36 states having passed such legislation. In states with FEP laws Title VII requires the EEOC to defer a charge to the appropriate state or local FEP commission for a period of at least 60 days (120 days for state or local agencies during their first year). A number of these charges may be |