Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Abigail A. Sewell
Department of Sociology, Emory University
Abstract
Recent immigration and migration patterns have altered the ethnoracial composition of
Alameda County, California. Sociopolitical leaders have struggled to adjust to these changes.
In an effort to facilitate limited English speakers’ access to critical municipal services,
Oakland—the largest municipal in Alameda County—passed an Equal Access to Services
Ordinance on May 8, 2001, which is a groundbreaking language access legislation for the
City of Oakland’s public administration. Using data from the 2000 Census and the 2005–2011
American Community Survey, this study examines the impact of bilingual employment
policies on the ethnoracial segmentation of Alameda County workers. Logistic regression
reveals that bilingual employment policies have reorganized both targeted (i.e., public
contact) and non-targeted occupations within the local government public administration
sector. Specifically, Spanish/Chinese bilingual speakers made gains in the public administration
sector (the intended effects), while Black monolingual English speakers experienced
losses (the unintended effects). The representation of Black monolingual English speakers
in public contact jobs within the local government public administration sector declined by
as much as 18 percentage points after the implementation of the nation’s first municipal-
level bilingual employment policy. The impact of bilingual employment policies on the
East Bay’s Black/Brown relations and African American’s hold on low-skilled jobs in
service industries is examined.
INTRODUCTION
Demographic shifts in the ethnoracial profile of the East Bay have raised concerns
about uneven access to public services along the fault lines of language. On May 8, 2001,
1
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Cornell University Library, on 13 Jun 2017 at 06:39:49, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742058X16000345
Abigail A. Sewell
Alameda County. In each decade since 1950 (except for the 1960s), Oakland’s Latino
community grew between 33% and 78%. Similarly, Oakland’s Asian community grew
between 55% and 97%. Moreover, both the proportion and number of foreign-born
residents living in Oakland more than doubled in the decades following the civil rights
movement (U.S. Bureau of the Census 2014). Meanwhile, Blacks’ proportion of the
population and absolute size peaked during this period and has since witnessed modest
declines. Census data shows that in 2010, the period following the implementation of
EAO policy, 27.3% of Oakland residents were Black, 25.4% were Latino (of any race),
17.2% were Asian or Pacific Islander, and 25.9% were White (U.S. Bureau of the
Census 2014). Comparable figures for Alameda County show that 12.2% of Alameda
County residents were Black, 22.5% were Latino (of any race), 25.9% were Asian or
Pacific Islander, and 34.1% were White (U.S. Bureau of the Census 2014).
As a “Model City,” the very diversity of Oakland citizenry is considered a wel-
coming feature to potential residents and businesses of the area (City of Oakland
2010). Diversity, however, also presents a challenge to sociopolitical leaders.
As former Mayor Ronald Dellums states: “A Model City is a coherent, cohesive
city, anchored in a vibrant economy, where its citizenry is healthy, well-educated,
well-trained, well-informed and capable of effective interactions with the civic, economic,
social and cultural institutions of our community” (City of Oakland 2010, emphasis
added by author). In an evaluation of the demographic shifts that had occurred
in Oakland since the 2000 Census, the City of Oakland administration believed it
was not living up to its claims to be a Model City, as it was constantly fielding a
number of complaints concerning uneven access to public amenities by its limited
English-speaking residents.
Oakland’s Equal Access to Services Ordinance was implemented to alleviate
the challenges limited English-speaking residents reported facing when attempt-
ing to access basic municipal services, such as paying a parking ticket, phoning in an
du bois review: social science research on race 2017 3
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Cornell University Library, on 13 Jun 2017 at 06:39:49, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742058X16000345
Abigail A. Sewell
emergency, and turning on their utilities. The idea behind this policy was that having
a larger share of bilingual employees of the City of Oakland would alleviate the dis-
tress limited English-speaking residents faced as they navigated public amenities and
services. The ordinance draws upon the language of the 1973 DABSA, which urges
state and local public agencies directly involved in furnishing information or render-
ing services to a largely non-English speaking population to translate written outreach
documents into multiple languages and hire bilingual staff.1
However, Oakland’s bilingual employment policy is more specific than those
implemented in state and federal jurisdictions. To set goals for hiring and department-
specific plans of action, the language of the policy draws upon data from the 2000
Census and the city’s employment records.2 For example, Oakland’s EAO stipulates
that any language shared by more than 10,000 limited-English proficiency residents be
incorporated into the ordinance’s bilingual requirements. Additionally, the ordinance
defines the type of positions for which bilingual staff should be hired. In the origi-
nal version of Oakland’s EAO, a “public contact position” is defined as a “position,
whether clerical, service, professional, or of a sworn nature, that emphasizes greet-
ing, meeting, contact, or provision of information and/or services to the public in the
performance of the duties of that position” (Oakland City Council 2001).3 Moreover,
later revisions of the ordinance created a threshold by which to characterize a position
as “public contact.” An ad hoc committee of City Administration personnel defined
a “public contact position” as “a position who serves the public 50% or more of the
time whether in person, by phone or through correspondence” (Oakland City Council
2001). Consequently, the 50% threshold eliminated a number of classifications from
being considered, including a significant number of personnel in administrative, man-
agement and executive level positions, and staff in field inspection classifications (City
Administrator’s Office-Equal Opportunity Programs Division 2006).
Criteria to measure that the ordinance’s mandates have been sufficiently met
assert that the proportion of public contact positions employed by bilingual workers
should parallel the proportion of the city’s general population that speak a particular
language. In 2000, 11% of Oakland residents spoke Spanish and 8.5% spoke Cantonese
and/or Mandarin. Accordingly, the ordinance’s criteria suggest that 11% of public con-
tact employees should speak both Spanish and English proficiently, and 8.5% should
speak both Chinese and English proficiently. To guard against unfair firing practices,
Oakland’s bilingual employment policy, like DABSA, maintains that existing employ-
ees are not to be dismissed in order to fulfill the law’s mandates. Rather, public agen-
cies must only fill positions made vacant by retirement or normal attrition.4
indicates that AB 781, as it was originally written, died on the third reading of the State
Senate on November 30, 2010.
HYPOTHESES
This study examines the intended and unintended impacts of the nation’s first local
government bilingual employment policy. For instance, do bilingual workers targeted
by the policy increase their representation in the types of highlighted occupations
by ameliorating ethnoracial disparities in access to public services? Do such targeted
workers enjoy broader access to the public administration sector beyond the targeted
jobs? Moreover, do any specific ethnoracial groups face added challenges to public contact
position or the public administration sector in the years during bilingual employment
policy implementation?
This study seeks to satisfy two aims: 1) identify whether, and the extent to which,
bilingual employment policy yielded favorable increases in bilingual Spanish and
Chinese workers employed in “public contact occupations” within local government
public administration (intended consequence); and 2) identify whether, and the extent
to which, the bilingual employment policy yielded unfavorable decreases in workers
from any other ethnoracial group employed in these same types of jobs (unintended
consequence). At primary issue, then, is the evaluation of a labor policy that might, in its
implementation, have a push-pull effect on ethnoracial labor market segmentation,
where a loss of local government public contact occupations for a specific ethnoracial
group within the public administration sector (“targeted jobs) occurs on behalf of
Spanish and Chinese-speaking bilinguals (“targeted workers”) – that is, respective losses
and gains must co-occur. The satisfaction of these two aims comprises both sides of
a zero-sum labor market quandary presented by legal mediations of Oakland’s bilingual
employment policy as reflected by the discriminatory enforcement perspective.10
The pull effect captures the intended impact of Oakland’s bilingual employment
policy. It was anticipated that Spanish/Chinese targeted bilinguals would experience
increases within public contact positions in the public administration sector among
local government employees. However, it may be that due to heightened calls for
bilingual workers by local government employees, a larger number of bilingual work-
ers who speak a wide variety of languages other than English may have applied for
local government jobs overall. As such, more diffused effects may be found among
local government employees, among public contact positions by local government
employees, and among local government employees of the public administration
sector workers. As such, three potential hypotheses are considered:
The legal debate has focused on the push effect of the EAO on Black monolingual
English speakers, as they are the ethnoracial group in Alameda County least versed in
8 du bois review: social science research on race 2017
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Cornell University Library, on 13 Jun 2017 at 06:39:49, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742058X16000345
(Un)Intended Consequences
Spanish and Chinese. The unintended effect is that there will be a lower representation
of Black monolingual English speakers in targeted jobs—public contact positions in
the public administration sector offered by local government employees. However,
more diffused effects may also be expected if heightened calls for bilingual workers
signaled a decreased value of monolingualism among local government employees.
As such, three potential hypotheses are considered with this group in mind:
DATA
As there is no publicly available administrative data from the City of Oakland able to
address the concerns of this paper, this study extracts data about California residents
from the Integrated Public Use Microdata Series—USA (IPUMS-USA) (Ruggles
et al., 2010). The 5% Census sample and the 2005–2011 American Community
Survey are employed to examine the labor market impact of the EAO passed in
Oakland, CA on May 8, 2001. The sample focuses on working age adults from eighteen
to fifty-nine years old because workers in this age range mostly are not eligible for
retirement, which is an admissible reason for attrition inequalities according to the
EAO policy. Specifically, the analysis examines the changing ethnoracial distribu-
tions of local government employees within targeted occupations and industries
between 2000 and 2005–2011.
expected that just about two-fifths of Alameda County workers evaluated in this study
actually work for the City of Oakland.
A focus on Alameda County workers, instead of Oakland workers, is also warranted
due to sample sizes. Despite the relative size of the City of Oakland’s government,
there are less than 5,200 full-time equivalent employees working for Oakland’s city
government. Accordingly, even if Oakland workers could be identified, the Census’s
5% sample design could at best identify 270 Oakland workers. While an evaluation of
Alameda County workers reduces the likelihood of detecting effects of municipal-level
public policy, it also provides a greater likelihood of specifying effects that are unique
to race, language, and English proficiency, simultaneously.
Dependent Variable
Employment in city government comprises only 20.5% of all local government employ-
ees working in Alameda County. Other types of local government employees include
school districts (41.6%), special districts such as city housing authorities and utility dis-
tricts (19.2%), and Alameda County itself (18.6%). Employment in city government
can be approximated using IPUMS-USA data with the public administration industry
classification. Employment in targeted public contact positions can be approximated
using IPUMS-USA data with a dichotomization of the occupation classification variable
by pertinent characteristics. As such, a cross-classification of industry and occupation
classifications identifies the positions of interest in this study—public contact occupa-
tions in Alameda County public administration.
To capture the interrelationships between employment restructuring within
and outside the local public sector, this study utilizes three dependent variables:
1) working for a local government employee; 2) working in the public administra-
tion sector; and 3) working in public contact positions. The ultimate outcome of
interest—targeted, public contact positions in Alameda County city government—is
identified by successively restricting the sample of interest. The first set of analyses
focuses only on Alameda County workers. Then, the analysis focuses on local gov-
ernment workers in Alameda County. Last, the analysis focuses on local government
workers in public administration (i.e., city government).
To assess the impact of EAO policy on attrition from local government, class of
worker status is assessed for all Alameda County workers. A respondent is considered
to be working for a local government employee if either city or county employers
employ the respondent. As the Census does not distinguish between city, county, and
other types of local government employees, this variable provides the most conservative
estimate of the labor market consequences of Oakland’s EAO.
To assess the impact of EAO policy on attrition from public administration, further
classification of local government employees by the North American Industry Clas-
sification Scheme (NAICS) is made. Industry classification serves to isolate the prob-
ability of working in the municipal- and county-based public administration sector
in contrast to working in the largely non-public administration sectors of special and
school districts. In the sample of eighteen to fifty-nine year olds examined here, nearly
27% of local government employees work in public administration (NAICS codes:
92000–92999). Individuals who work for employers that provide services for the pub-
lic administration sector are not classified as working for the public administration
sector. Sixteen city agencies and departments were targeted to hire sufficient bilingual
staff and report on the progress of EAO implementation. The EAO policy specifies
the following city agency and departments: Community and Economic Development
Agency, City Administrator, City Attorney, City Clerk, City Council, Finance and
10 du bois review: social science research on race 2017
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Cornell University Library, on 13 Jun 2017 at 06:39:49, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742058X16000345
(Un)Intended Consequences
Management, Fire Department, Human Services, Library, Mayor, Museum, Parks and
Recreation, Police Department, Port of Oakland, and Public Works.
To assess the impact of EAO policy on attrition from public contact positions—the
crux of the argument between those who debate the implications of bilingual staff—the
Standard Occupation Classification system (SOC) identifies occupations considered
to include a fair amount of contact with the public. In consideration of which occupa-
tions should be classified as yielding public contact positions, the exact job title of local
government employees was examined to determine whether it fit the types of jobs
explicitly specified in EAO agenda reports. The following occupations have been clas-
sified as “public contact”: Community and Social Service; Legal, Education Training
and Library; Arts, Design, and Entertainment; Healthcare Practitioner and Technical;
Healthcare Support; Protective Service; Food Preparation and Service; Personal Care
and Service; Sales and Sales-Related Service; Office and Administration; and Trans-
portation and Material Moving. The simultaneous consideration of individuals who
are employed in the public administration sector and who are within public contact
occupations provides the central focus sample of the analysis presented herein.
Independent Variables
An indicator for respondents surveyed between 2005 and 2011 assesses the labor market
effects of EAO policy. Small sample sizes preclude assessments of the post-EAO effect
by year. Positive coefficients for this variable indicate a gain in jobs during the 2005–
2011 period. This study differentiates labor market outcomes by ethnoraciality, as indi-
cated by race and ethnicity (Black non-Latino, White non-Latino, Latino, or Asian
and Pacific Islander non-Latino) and primary language spoken in the home (English,
Spanish, Chinese (Cantonese or Mandarin), or Other Language). Respondents are
considered monolingual English speakers if they report speaking only English in the
household. Respondents are considered bilingual if they report speaking a non-English
language primarily at home and speak English very well, well, or not well.
Dummy indicators for the following mutually exclusive ethnoracial categories are
made: Black monolingual English (reference category); White monolingual English;
Latino monolingual English; Asian monolingual English; Spanish/Chinese Bilingual; and
Other Bilingual. Respondents who report speaking English not very well or not at all
are excluded from the analysis. American Indian and Alaska Natives are excluded from
the analysis due to small sample sizes. Positive coefficients for ethnoracial groups indi-
cate they are more likely to hold a specific job type than Black monolinguals.
A number of sociodemographic characteristics have been found to be linked to the likeli-
hood of working in local government, public contact positions, and public administra-
tion. To address possible confounders of the relationships of interest here, the following
attributes are accounted for: age, gender, educational status, residential mobility, geo-
graphic location, time of commute, and marital status. Age is centered at eighteen and
transformed to represent decades. All samples exclude working-age respondents who are
less than eighteen. Gender is assessed with a dummy indicator for identifying as male
(reference: female). Marital status is assessed with a dummy indicator for reporting being
married (reference: separated, widowed, divorced, or never married). Educational status
is measured using a categorical measure of educational attainment (1 = None, 2 = Grades
1–4, 3 = Grade 5–8, 4 = Grade 9, 5 = Grade 10, 6 = Grade 11, 7 = Grade 12; 8 = 1–3 years
of college, 9 = 4+ years of college). Residential factors were assessed with a measure of
residential stability (the recentness with which one occupied current residence, where
1 = always lived at this residential unit; 0 = moved to this residential unit), time of com-
mute, and Oakland residence (using PUMAs identifying the City of Oakland).
du bois review: social science research on race 2017 11
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Cornell University Library, on 13 Jun 2017 at 06:39:49, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742058X16000345
Abigail A. Sewell
Methods of Analysis
First, trends in the ethnoracial profile of Alameda County workers are evaluated.
Second, trends in the ethnoracial profile of different kinds of local government
workers in Alameda County are evaluated. Third, trends in the employment and
demographic characteristics of Alameda County workers are compared across the
six ethnoracial groups: Black monolingual English speakers, White monolingual
English speakers, Latino monolingual English speakers, Asian/Pacific Islander mono-
lingual English speakers, Spanish/Chinese bilingual speakers, and other language
bilingual Spanish/Chinese speakers.
Fourth, using weighted logistic regression, ethnoracial differences in attrition
from local government jobs are explored. Fifth, using weighted logistic regression,
a more detailed examination of attrition patterns from public contact positions for
all sectors of the local government and, specifically, for the local government public
administration sector is undertaken. Sixth, using weighted logistic regression, an exam-
ination of attrition patterns from the public administration sector for all occupations
of the local government and, specifically, for public occupations within local govern-
ment is considered. Seventh and last, using weighted multinomial logistic regression,
an examination of attrition patterns from targeted jobs to other sectors of employment
in Alameda County is considered.
The central focus of the analysis presented herein is an interaction term of
ethnoraciality with the post-EAO dummy indicator. In logistic regression models,
a negative post-EAO coefficient alongside a positive interaction term indicates
that an ethnoracial group is experiencing attrition from an occupation at a lower
rate than Black monolingual English speakers between 2000 and the 2005–2007
period. All models presented adjust for variation that may be due to the aforemen-
tioned sociodemographic factors. Probability weights to account for the nesting of
multiple persons surveyed in households and non-response patterns (PERWT) is
employed in all univariate, bivariate, and multivariate, as is standard with IPUMS-
USA data (Ruggles et al., 2010).
RESULTS
Fig. 2. Ethnoracial Distributions of Alameda County Workers Before and After the Bilingual
Employment Policy
Source: IPUMS-USA Alameda County Local Government Workers, Ages 18–59, N = 69,277
Notes: Change in period-specific distributions shown (2000 vs. 2005–2011). ACS =
American Community Survey. Estimates based off of supplemental analysis (available up
on request).
* p < 0.05 (two tailed, two-group proportion test).
Specifically, there was a 1.5 percentage point increase in the representation of Asian/
Pacific Islander monolingual English speakers, a 3.3 percentage point increase
in the representation of targeted (i.e., Spanish/Chinese) bilingual speakers, and a
2.8 percentage point increase in the representation of other bilingual speakers.
Overall, Figure 2 tells us that the ethnoracial profile of Alameda County workers
did indeed change after the introduction of the bilingual employment policy. However,
given that representational changes also occurred to ethnoracial groups not expected
to be affected by the policy (e.g., other bilinguals), it is unclear whether the bilin-
gual employment policy itself affected the ethnoracial distribution of Alameda County
workers. A closer look must be taken into the occupational structure most affected by
the bilingual employment policy.
How has the ethnoracial profile of Alameda County workers in local government
changed across time? Figure 3 breaks down unadjusted trends in the ethnoracial profile
of Alameda County workers (Figure 2) by four job types that capture the intersection
of industry sector and occupation type among local government workers, including
those workers in targeted jobs. The length of the bars indicate the magnitude of dif-
ferences in an ethnoracial group’s proportions before and after EAO, where positive
values indicate growing density of an ethnoracial group after EAO and negative values
indicate declining density of an ethnoracial group after EAO. This bivariate analysis
indicates that Black monolingual English speakers experienced declines in all job types
within local government.
However, Figure 3 shows that absolute declines in the representation of Black
monolingual English workers were largest for targeted jobs. In 2000, they represented
25% of the labor force in targeted jobs; yet, between 2005–2011, they represented
less than 16% of the labor force in targeted jobs. There was a 9.3 percentage point
decline in the representation of Black monolinguals after the implementation of
the bilingual employment policy. No other ethnoracial group experienced declines
of such a large magnitude.
du bois review: social science research on race 2017 13
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Cornell University Library, on 13 Jun 2017 at 06:39:49, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742058X16000345
Abigail A. Sewell
Fig. 3. Change in Ehnoracial Group Distribution by Local Government Job Type
Source: IPUMS-USA Alameda County Local Government Workers, N = 5,694
Notes: Change in period-specific distributions shown (2000 vs. 2005–2007). PAS = Public
Administration Sector; PCO = PCO = Public Contact Organizations; Targeted Jobs are
In PAS/In PCO. API = Asian/Pacific Islander; Estimates based off of descriptive statistics
from Table 1.
* p < 0.05 (two tailed, two-group proportion test).
16
Abigail A. Sewell
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics by Ethnoracial Group by 2000 Census and 2005–2011 ACS Respondents Who Work in Alameda County, N = 69,277
Monolingual Bilingual
du bois review: social science research on race 2017
Spanish/Chinese
Black White Latino API (Targeted) Other Language
2000 2005–11 2000 2005–11 2000 2005–11 2000 2005–11 2000 2005–11 2000 2005–11
Census ACS Census ACS Census ACS Census ACS Census ACS Census ACS
Local Government Employee 0.141 0.144 0.083a,b 0.092a,b 0.076a,b 0.102a,b 0.073a,b 0.094a,b 0.051a 0.057a 0.051a 0.052a
Public Administration Sector 0.082 0.074 0.043a,b 0.050a,b 0.043a,b 0.057a,b 0.048a,b 0.052a,b 0.026a 0.027a 0.025a 0.03a
Public Contact Occupations 0.683 0.691 0.55a,b 0.548a,b 0.593a,b 0.619a,b 0.541a,b 0.571a,b 0.501a 0.506a 0.518a 0.545a,b
Age 38.714 40.749 40.432a,b 42.246a,b 35.365a,b 37.614a,b 37.076a,b 38.157a 36.018a 38.332a 37.989a,b 40.713b
Male 0.451 0.449 0.552a,b 0.551a,b 0.567a 0.530a,b 0.546a,b 0.518a,b 0.589a 0.573a 0.549a,b 0.525a,b
Married 0.386 0.339 0.548 a,b 0.569 a,b 0.480a,b 0.476a,b 0.518a,b 0.535a,b 0.594a 0.610a 0.637a,b 0.693a,b
Born 1940–1949 0.166 0.034 0.210 a,b 0.042 a,b 0.106a 0.011 a,b 0.131a 0.023 a 0.113a 0.019a 0.143a,b 0.027b
Born 1950–1959 0.292 0.267 0.309b 0.317a,b 0.220a 0.203a 0.258a,b 0.209a 0.229a 0.194a 0.270a,b 0.252b
Born 1960–1969 0.278 0.293 0.272 b 0.289 b 0.301 0.270 0.293 0.241 a,b 0.307a 0.275 0.313a 0.301
Born 1970–1979 0.216 0.218 0.175 a,b 0.199 a,b 0.291 a 0.238 b 0.256 a,b 0.277 a 0.294a 0.290a 0.228b 0.259a,b
Born 1980–1993 0.048 0.188 0.034 a,b 0.153 a,b 0.082 a,b 0.279 a,b 0.062 0.249 0.057 0.223a 0.046b 0.161a,b
Less than High School 0.006 0.006 0.004b 0.003a,b 0.037a,b 0.016a,b 0.016a,b 0.008b 0.142a 0.121a 0.028a,b 0.025a,b
High School Incomplete 0.088 0.038 0.043 a,b 0.021 a,b 0.104 b 0.058 a,b 0.030 a,b 0.018 a,b 0.158a 0.108a 0.072a,b 0.041b
High School Degree 0.332 0.304 0.247 a 0.204 a,b 0.394 a,b 0.346 a,b 0.176 a,b 0.151 a,b 0.256a 0.280a 0.205a,b 0.183a,b
Some College 0.363 0.377 0.268a,b 0.248a,b 0.291a,b 0.314a,b 0.272a,b 0.238a,b 0.197a 0.186a 0.237a,b 0.231a,b
College Degree 0.140 0.176 0.267a,b 0.312a,b 0.121b 0.193 0.327a,b 0.374a,b 0.148 0.177 0.291a,b 0.320a,b
Graduate Degree 0.071 0.098 0.172 a,b 0.212 a,b 0.052 a,b 0.073 a,b 0.179a,b 0.212a,b 0.100a 0.127a 0.167a,b 0.200a,b
Continued
available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742058X16000345
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Cornell University Library, on 13 Jun 2017 at 06:39:49, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
Table 1. continued
Monolingual Bilingual
Spanish/Chinese
du bois review: social science research on race 2017
2000 2005–11 2000 2005–11 2000 2005–11 2000 2005–11 2000 2005–11 2000 2005–11
Census ACS Census ACS Census ACS Census ACS Census ACS Census ACS
In School 0.150 0.130 0.107a,b 0.099a,b 0.153 0.138b 0.188a,b 0.148b 0.148 0.108a 0.158 0.120
Oakland Resident 0.459 0.408 0.112a,b 0.137a,b 0.108a,b 0.110a,b 0.115a,b 0.120a,b 0.220a 0.207a 0.125a,b 0.098a,b
Always Lived in Residence 0.435 0.407 0.427b 0.439a,b 0.552a 0.528a 0.532a 0.518a 0.546a 0.528a 0.542a 0.526a
In Current Residence 0.122 0.169 0.115 0.129a 0.101a 0.142a 0.101a 0.139a 0.111 0.126a 0.132b 0.134a,b
Less than 2 Years
In Current Residence 0.442 0.424 0.458b 0.431b 0.347a 0.329 0.368a 0.343a 0.343a 0.346a 0.326a 0.340a
More than 2 Years
Observations 3,169 3,157 14,170 16,636 1,507 2,037 1,273 2,303 5,342 8,373 4,399 6,911
(Un)Intended Consequences
Notes: Means and proportions presented. ACS = American Community Survey. Bolded text indicates that means/proportions in ACS 2005–2011 are significantly different than
those for corresponding respondent in 2000 Census (p < 0.05; two-tailed test).
ap < 0.05 (two-tailed test; significantly different from Black monolingual English speakers in corresponding period).
bp < 0.05 (two-tailed test; significantly different from Spanish/Chinese bilingual [targeted] speakers in corresponding period).
17
Abigail A. Sewell
Multivariate Analysis
Local Government Employees
Table 2 presents results to assess Hypotheses 1 and 4: that movement in and out of the
local government sector across the study period occurred differentially by ethnoracial-
ity. Model 1 demonstrates the ethnoracial profile of local government workers aver-
aged over the two time periods, while Model 2 demonstrates whether the ethnoracial
profile of local government workers changes after the implementation of the bilin-
gual employment policy. Estimates for both models include controls for demographic
factors discussed previously (available upon request). Holding demographic factors
constant, Model 1 estimates the ethnoracial profile of local government with dummy
indicators; the reference category is Black monolingual English speaker. The negative
Table 2. Weighted Logistic Coefficients for the Regression of Local Government Employment
on Time, Ethnoraciality, and the Differential Effect of Ethnoraciality across Time, Holding
Constant Sociodemographic Attributes, 2000 Census and 2005–2011 ACS Respondents Who
Work in Alameda County, Ages 18–59, N = 69,277
Model 1 Model 2
Notes: ACS = American Community Survey; Raw coefficients shown. Standard errors in parentheses.
Reference category for ethnoraciality is Black monolingual English speakers. All models also control
for age, male gender, marital status, birth year cohort, educational attainment, in school status, Oakland
residency, and residential stability.
*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001 (two-tailed test).
direction of the five dummy indicators for ethnoraciality indicates that Black mono-
lingual English speakers comprise a larger share of local government employees than
their demographically similar counterparts of other ethnoracial groups. In 2000, Black
monolingual English workers were more likely to work for local government employ-
ers than for other types of employers in Alameda County.
The period term for both Models 1 and 2 is non-significant, which indicates that the
proportion of local government employees among Alameda County workers remains
consistent between 2000 and 2005–2011. The interaction terms between ethnoracial
group membership and period of study added in Model 2 of Table 2 estimate whether
there is a temporal shift in the probability of local government employment by eth-
noracial group after the implementation of the EAO policy. None of these interaction
terms yields significant effects. As such, Black monolingual English workers were no
more likely than targeted bilinguals, or any other ethnoracial group, to leave (or come to)
local government jobs after the implementation of EAO policy. As such, Hypotheses
1 and 4 are not supported. After the bilingual employment policy, the representation
of Black monolingual English speakers in local government jobs did not decrease nor
did the representation of targeted bilingual speakers increase.
Table 3. Weighted Logistic Coefficients for the Regression of Public Contact Position
Employment on Time, Ethnoraciality, and the Differential Effect of Ethnoraciality across
Time, Holding Constant Sociodemographic Attributes, 2000 Census and 2005–2011 ACS
Respondents Who Work in Alameda County, Ages 18–59
Local Government
Local Government Workers in the Public
Workers Administration Sector
Notes: ACS = American Community Survey; Raw coefficients shown. Standard errors in parentheses.
Reference category for ethnoraciality is Black monolingual English speakers. All models also control
for age, male gender, marital status, birth year cohort, educational attainment, in school status, Oakland
residency, and residential stability.
*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001 (two-tailed test).
workers? Table 4 presents the results of analysis to assess Hypotheses 3 and 6, respec-
tively: that targeted bilingual local government employees have lower attrition rates
from the public administration sector after the implementation of EAO policy, while
Table 4. Weighted Logistic Coefficients for the Regression of Public Administration Sector
Employment on Time, Ethnoraciality, and the Differential Effect of Ethnoraciality across
Time, Holding Constant Sociodemographic Attributes, 2000 Census and 2005–2011 ACS
Respondents Who Work in Alameda County, Ages 18–59
Local Government
Local Government Workers in Public
Workers Contact Positions
Notes: ACS = American Community Survey; Raw coefficients shown. Standard errors in parentheses.
Reference category for ethnoraciality is Black monolingual English speakers. All models also control
for age, male gender, marital status, birth year cohort, educational attainment, in school status, Oakland
residency, and residential stability.
*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001 (two-tailed test).
Black monolingual English local government employees have higher attrition rates from
the public administration sector. Two sets of analyses are presented in Table 4: the first,
shown in the Models 1 and 2, focuses on all local government workers; and the second,
shown in Models 3 and 4, focuses only on local government workers in the public con-
tact occupations as dictated by SOC. Models 1 and 3 show the ethnoracial profile of
employees in the public administration sector averaged over the two periods of study,
while Models 2 and 4 demonstrate whether the ethnoracial profile of employees in the
public administration sector varies significantly across time.
The non-significant period indicator in Model 1 indicates that there are no temporal
changes in the proportion of local government employees in the public administration
sector (Table 4). In 2000, few ethnoracial differences existed in the likelihood of work-
ing in the public administration sector within local government. Targeted bilinguals are
34% ([1 – exp(-0.418)]x100%) less likely than Black monolingual English speakers to
work in the public administration sector within local government (Model 1, Table 4).
Model 2 of Table 4, however, indicates that there are statistically significant tem-
poral changes to the ethnoracial profile of the public administration sector. First, once
temporal variation in the ethnoracial profile of public administration workers are con-
sidered, the period term is negative and significant. A negative period terms suggests
that the representation of Black monolingual English workers (the reference group)
declined after the implementation of the bilingual employment policy.
Second, there are negative and significant main effect terms for White monolin-
gual English speakers, targeted bilingual speakers, and other bilingual speakers coupled
with positive and significant interaction terms for these groups. The negative and sig-
nificant main effect terms suggest that White monolingual English speakers, targeted
bilingual speakers, and other bilingual speakers were less represented in public admin-
istration in 2000 than Black monolingual English speakers. The interaction terms for
White monolingual English, targeted bilingual, and other bilingual speakers, though
positive and significant, are smaller in absolute value than the main effects terms for
these groups. Together, the interaction and main effects terms suggest a significant
degree of equalization in the likelihood of public administration sector employment
across ethnoracial group. However, since the absolute value of the interaction term is
smaller than the absolute value of the main effects terms, there does not appear to be
any increases in the representation of White monolingual English speakers, targeted
bilinguals, or other bilinguals.
Similar patterns are found when restricting the sample to local government workers
in public contact positions (Models 3 and 4 of Table 4). However, the interaction terms
for targeted bilinguals and other bilinguals are larger in absolute value than the main
effects terms for these ethnoracial groups (Model 4, Table 4). The interaction terms for
these two groups are also larger than the period effect term. As such, it appears that there
was an increase in the proportion of targeted bilinguals and other bilinguals in public
administration sector after the implementation of the bilingual employment policy.
To graphically illustrate the findings from Model 4 of Table 4, predicted prob-
abilities of public administration sector employment among the sample of local
government workers in public contact occupations are simulated across ethnora-
cial groups with covariates set at sample means. Figure 4 provides a graphical depic-
tion of the predicted probabilities of ethnoracial group representation before and
after EAO policy. Thus, Figure 4 illustrates adjusted depictions of the trend patterns
shown in the darkest bar of Figure 3.
Holding all else constant, the results indicate an 18 percentage point decline in the
representation of Black monolingual English speakers in the public administration sector
among local government workers in public contact occupations after the introduction
22 du bois review: social science research on race 2017
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Cornell University Library, on 13 Jun 2017 at 06:39:49, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742058X16000345
(Un)Intended Consequences
of EAO policy. The change that Black monolingual English speakers experience is
statistically distinct from negative changes that White and Latino monolinguals
experience and from positive changes that Asian/Pacific Islander monolinguals,
targeted bilinguals, and other bilinguals experience. This change is also substantially
greater than the 9.3 percentage point decline in the representation of Black mono-
lingual English speakers in the public administration sector among local government
workers in public contact positions shown in Figure 3. These patterns suggest that
demographic mechanisms do not account for ethnoracial trends in labor market seg-
mentation, rather ethnoracial differences are more pronounced among demographically
comparable workers.
In sum, strong support is found for Hypothesis 6: Black monolingual English
local government employees are less likely to occupy jobs within the public admin-
istration sector after the implementation of EAO policy than before implementation.
Meanwhile, limited support is found for Hypothesis 3: targeted bilingual workers
experience homeostasis in their public administration sector representation within
the local government, and small gains in access to the public administration sector
within local government public contact occupations. Overall, Black’s stronghold
in public administration appears to be weakening over time.
CONCLUSION
Fig. 4. Likelihood of Public Administration Sector Employment Before and After EAO Poicy
by Ethnoracial Group
Source: IPUMS-USA Alameda County Local Government Workers in Public Contact Occupations,
N = 4,210.
Notes: Predicted percents shown based on weighted logistic coefficients from Model 4 Table 5.
All other covariates set to sample means. API = Asian/Pacific Islanders; ACS = American Com-
munity Survey.
* p < 0.05 (two tailed test; statistically significant period effect).
a p < 0.05 (two tailed test; significantly different from period effect for Black monolingual
and English proficiency. The results indicate that targeted bilingual speakers—those
who spoke Spanish/Chinese as well as English well or very well—did experience
increases in their representation within the public administration sector of the local
government, especially among public contact positions within the local government.
The increase in targeted bilingual speakers from 2000 to 2005–2011 made up for their
lack of representation in 2000. There were no comparable increases in targeted bilin-
gual speakers in other sectors of the economy. The results also indicate that language-
based policies reduced the representation of Black monolingual English speakers in
the public administration sector after the implementation of bilingual employment
policy. Specifically, such workers are less likely to be represented in public contact
occupations within the local government’s public administration sector after the EAO
policy than before the EAO policy.
This paper provides an empirical example of the labor market dynamics associated
with Black-Brown political tension in contemporary multiracial urban areas (Bobo and
Hutchings, 1996; Kaufmann 2007). These results are important to consider as they
highlight evidence by which Blacks could perceive immigrants as a political and eco-
nomic threat (McClain et al., 2007). In an area where access to public administration
is constricted and perceived as a zero-sum process, coalitions organized around bilin-
gual employment policies fell along ethnoracial lines—English-only speaking Blacks
versus Latinos and Asians. Moreover, the material and symbolic incentives to public
administrative access in this case are ethnoracially group-specific for both sides of the
political struggle, not merely individual. The Black/Brown political divide finds some
support in evidence on employment outcomes after the bilingual policy implementation.
However, the results also suggest that other groups—especially, Asian monolinguals
and other bilinguals—may have witnessed some diffused benefits from the policy to an
extent as well. These non-targeted ethnoracial groups experienced trends similar
to that of targeted bilinguals; yet, their representations in public contact employment
within public administration only increased marginally.
There are several limitations to this study. First, the study uses primary language spo-
ken in the home as a measure of bilingualism. However, respondents may be fluent in a
non-English language but not speak that language primarily at home. This imprecision
in identifying bilinguals in the census and census-related data should weaken the effect of
bilingualism as it is currently measured. It is expected that there would be a larger number
of persons identified as bilingual Spanish, Chinese, or other language speakers were bilin-
gualism able to be measured more broadly. It is likely that using primary language spoken
in the household resulted in conservative estimates of targeted language speakers, as
there would be less differences between targeted language speakers and non-targeted lan-
guage speakers if bilingual speakers who do not speak targeted languages in the homes are
included among non-targeted language speakers. It is also likely that the gains in targeted
positions experienced by non-Black monolinguals reflect the imprecision of the bilingual
measure—namely, some monolinguals are versed in Spanish or Chinese but do not speak
these languages at home. Thereby, they are able to meet the bilingual language require-
ment of targeted positions but are classified in the study as monolinguals.
Second, this study would benefit from disentangling race and ethnicity further.
Small samples sizes, for instance, precluded a detailed assessment of Black bilinguals.
Moreover, supplementary analysis (available upon request) suggested that Spanish and
Chinese bilinguals could be grouped together to evaluate the effect of the bilingual
employment policy on targeted groups, as a whole. Nonetheless, there may be ethnora-
cial variance in the effects of demographic mechanisms on employment characteristics
that are distinct by race, language, and English proficiency categories, which may be
contributing to the overall patterns uncovered.
24 du bois review: social science research on race 2017
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Cornell University Library, on 13 Jun 2017 at 06:39:49, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742058X16000345
(Un)Intended Consequences
In the twenty-first century, the economy has largely settled into a service economy,
and the Black middle class (for the most part) has left Oakland in their migration back to
the southern United States and to outlying Bay Area neighborhoods. This study suggests
that Black workers’ stronghold in service-centered jobs in the Bay Area has weakened.
Moreover, this study suggests that language-based policies may have racialized effects
on the employability of ethnoracial groups marginalized by monolingualism. For instance,
this study clearly shows that Asian monolinguals benefitted from multicultural policies
focused on language, while Black monolinguals did not. Future research should assess the
impact of language-based policies on the earning potential of targeted and non-targeted
workers. Future research should also replicate this study for the municipalities that have
implemented similar language-based policies since Oakland. This will provide a clearer
picture as to whether the findings illustrated in this study are generalizable to other locales.
Corresponding author: Dr. Abigail A. Sewell, Emory University, Department of Sociology, 204 Tarbutton
Hall, 1555 Dickey Drive, Atlanta, GA 30322. Email: abigail.a.sewell@emory.edu
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The author thanks Quincy Thomas Stewart, Rashawn Ray, Fabio Rojas, Aarti Kohli, and Steven
Pitts for helpful comments. The author was supported by a Vice Provost’s Postdoctoral Fellowship
in the Population Studies Center at the University of Pennsylvania during the writing of this paper.
The author was supported by a Social Science Internship at the Chief Justice Earl Warren Institute
for Race, Ethnicity, and Diversity at the University of California, Berkeley Boalt School of Law
during the collection of data for this paper.
NOTES
1. Government Code 7290 et sq, 7292, 7293, and 7296.4
2. Oakland Ordinance #12324
3. Oakland Ordinance #12324 C.M.S. Section 2.30.020–g
4. Government Code 7294 and Oakland Ordinance #12324
5. Specifically, these equal opportunity provisions were conjectured to be: Executive Order
11246, Title VI and VII, the Civil Rights Act of 1991, the Uniform Guidelines for Employee
Selection Procedures, the U.S Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s Equal
Opportunity and Affirmative Action Guidelines, state and federal Equal Pay Act(s), Article
I of the California Constitution (Proposition 209), the California Fair Employment and
Housing Act, the Dymally-Altorre Bilingual Services Act, the Oakland City Charter, Article
IX, Personnel Administration (Sections 900(a) and (b)), and the hiring and promotion provi-
sions of the City’s bargaining agreements (City Administrator’s Office-Equal Opportunity
Programs Division 2007).
6. Edgerly’s actual lawsuit, however, claimed wrongful termination on the basis of gender
discrimination by then-Mayor Ronald Dellums, a Black man. Her testimonies indicate that
she also refused to go along with requests Dellums made of her to violate the city charter,
which guaranteed non-discrimination based off race and ethnicity. Two Alameda County
juries dismissed these claims (Lee 2011; Parks 2011). A majority of the City Council, however,
did pay Thompson, Edgerly’s assistant, $500,000 to dismiss her wrongful termination suit
(Matier and Ross, 2011).
7. Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (1971); Albermale v. Moody, 422 U.S. 405 (1975).
8. San Francisco Ordinance No 126–01; Philadelphia Executive Order 04–01 and 09–08;
Minneapolis Resolution 2003–R547; Monterey Park Administrative Policy 10–35; New York
Local Law 73 and Executive Order 120; Washington DC Language Access Act of 2004;
Seattle Executive Order-01–07.
9. AB 781, Bill Analysis (Assembly Committee on Judiciary 2009).
10. See Kaufmann 2007 for broader discussion of zero-sum processes.
REFERENCES
Assembly Committee on Judiciary (2009). State and Local Government: Bilingual Services and
Employment. Bill Analysis, AB 781. 15pp.
Baker, Colin (2011). Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. Clevedon, UK:
Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Bailey, Chauncey (2005). Westward Ho. The Crisis, May/June: 33–37.
Benson, Carolyn J. (2002) Real and Potential Benefits of Bilingual Programmes in Developing
Countries. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 5(6): 303–317.
Bobo, Lawrence D., and Vincent L. Hutchings (1996). Perceptions of Racial Group Com-
petition: Extending Blumer’s Theory of Group Position to a Multiracial Social Context.
American Sociological Review, 61(6): 951–972.
Buitrago, Luz, and Michelle N. Rodriguez (2008). Equal Access Advocates Sue City of Oakland
for Failing Non-English Speaking Residents. http://ocaeastbay.blogspot.com/2008/09/four-
groups-sue-city-of-oakland-over.html> (accessed June 16, 2012).
California State Conference of the NAACP (2009). California NAACP Decries Bilingual Mandates
That May Foster Employment Discrimination Against Qualified Job Seekers. Press Release May 9.
<http://www.ca-naacp.org/BACKUP-STATIC/downloads/news-media-2009/pr-20090512-
RLS-AB-781-On-Bilingual-Discrimination.pdf> (accessed June 16, 2012).
Census of Government Employment (2007). 2007 Local Government. <https://www.census.
gov/govs/cog/historical_data_2007.html> (accessed November 17, 2016).
City Administrator’s Office-Equal Opportunity Programs Division (2006). Follow-up Report
on the Status of the Implementation of the Equal Access Ordinance and Recommendations
for Improving Language Access to City Services for Oakland’s Diverse Populations. Agenda
Report, July 11.
City Administrator’s Office-Equal Opportunity Programs Division (2007). Action on a Follow-Up
Report on the Status of the Implementation of the Equal Access Ordinance and Recommenda-
tions for Improving Language Access to City of Oakland Services. Agenda Report, June 12.
City of Oakland (2010). 2009 State of the City Report. February 22. Report released by
the Office of the Mayor. <http://www2.oaklandnet.com/oakca1/groups/mayor/documents/
pressrelease/dowd006203.pdf.> (accessed November 17, 2016).
City of Oakland (2011). City Council Action EAO Settlement. Verdict Letter, Feb 15.
Cummins, Jim. (2000). Language, Power, and Pedagogy: Bilingual Children in the Crossfire.
Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Elinson, Zusha (2010). As Mayor, Brown Remade Oakland’s Downtown and Himself. The New
York Times, September 3, A17A.
Farley, Reynolds, Walter R. Allen, and the National Committee for Research on the
Census (1987). The Color Line and the Quality of Life in America. New York: Russell Sage
Foundation.
Grodsky, Eric, and Devah Pager (2001). The Structure of Disadvantage: Individual and
Occupational Determinants of the Black-White Wage Gap. American Sociological Review,
66(4): 542–567.
Joseph, Penelope (2006). The Black Power Movement: Rethinking the Civil Rights-Black Power Era.
New York: Routledge.
Katz, Michael B., Mark J. Stern, and Jamie J. Fader (2005). The New African American Inequality.
Journal of American History, 92(1): 75–108.
Katz, Michael B., and Mark J. Stern (2008). Beyond Discrimination: Understanding African American
Inequality in the Twentieth-First Century. Departmental Papers, School of Social Policy and Practice.
January 1. <http://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1135&context=spp_papers>
(accessed November 17, 2016).
Kaufmann, Karen M. (2007). Immigration and the Future of Black Power in U.S. Cities. Du Bois
Review: Social Science and Research on Race, 4(1): 79–96.
Kuruvila, Matthai (2011). Oakland settle suits over failure to translate. San Francisco Chronicle
February 18, C-1.
Lee, Henry K. (2011). Deborah Edgerly Loses Lawsuit against Oakland. San Francisco Chronicle,
October 25. <http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Deborah-Edgerly-loses-lawsuit-against-
Oakland-2326001.php> (accessed November 21, 2016).
Lotchin, Roger W. (2003). The Bad City in the Good War: San Francisco, Los Angeles, Oakland, and
San Diego. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Matier, Phillip, and Andrew Ross (2011). Cost of Firing 2 Oakland Workers Near $1 Million.
Free Republic, Sept 26. <http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2783900/posts> (accessed
June 14, 2012).
McClain, Paula D., Monique L. Lyle, Niambi M. Carter, Victoria M. DeFrancesco Soto,
Gerald F. Lackey, Kendra Davenport Cotton, Shayla C. Nunnally, Thomas J. Scotto,
Jeffrey D. Grynaviski, and J. Alan Kendrick (2007). Black Americans and Latino Immigrants
in a Southern City: Friendly Neighbors or Economic Competitors? Du Bois Review: Social
Science and Research on Race, 4(1): 97–117.
Oakland City Council (2001). Equal Access to Services Ordinance. Ordinance No. 12324.
Parks, Richard. Former City Administrator Loses Gender Discrimination Case Against Ron
Dellums. The Bay Citizen. October 24. <https://www.baycitizen.org/news/law/former-city-
administrator-loses-gender/> (accessed November 17, 2016).
Public Advocates (2011). Oakland Settlement Gives Non-English Speakers Access to Government
Services. Press Release of Public Advocates, February 16. <http://www.publicadvocates.org/
press-releases/oakland-settlement-gives-non-english-speakers-access-to-government-services>
(accessed March 17, 2012).
Rayburn, Kelly (2009). Criticism Grows in Dellums’ Second Year. Oakland Tribune, January 3.
NewsBank Database. <http://www.eastbaytimes.com/2009/01/03/criticism-grows-in-dellums-
second-year/> (accessed November 17, 2016).
Ruggles, Steven, J. Trent Alexander, Katie Genadek, Ronald Goeken, Matthew B. Schroeder,
and Matthew Sobek. (2010). Integrated Public Use Microdata Series: Version 5.0 [Machine-
readable database]. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota.
Russo, John A. (2007). Legal Opinion on Oakland’s Equal Access Services Ordinance. City of
Oakland City Attorney’s Office, June 13.
Shohamy, Elana (2012). Language Policy: Hidden Agendas and New Approaches. New York: Routledge.
Singer, Audrey (2007). The Rise of New Immigrant Gateways. The Brookings Institute.
<http://www.brookings.edu/∼/media/research/files/reports/2004/2/demographics%20
singer/20040301_gateways.pdf> (accessed February 11, 2014).
Spencer, Robyn (2005). Inside the Panther Revolution: The Freedom Movement and the Black
Panther Party in Oakland, California. In Komozi Woodard and Jeanne Theoharis (Eds.),
Groundwork: The Local Black Freedom Movement in America, pp. 300–318. New York: New York
University Press.
State of California (2010). Monthly Labor Force Data for Cities and Census Designated Places
(CDP), November 2010—Preliminary. Employment Development Department, Labor
Market Information Division, September 8. <http://www.calmis.ca.gov/file/lfmonth/allsubs.xls>
(accessed January 14, 2011).
Temple, James (2009). Economy Casts Shadow on Oakland 10k Plan’s 10th. The San Francisco
Chronicle, July 12. <http://www.sfgate.com/realestate/article/Economy-casts-shadow-on-
Oakland-10K-plan-s-10th-3225820.php> (accessed July 28, 2009).
U.S. Bureau of the Census (2014). 1940–2010 Census. <http://www.bayareacensus.ca.gov/cities/
Oakland.htm>, <http://www.bayareacensus.ca.gov/counties/AlamedaCounty.htm> (accessed
May 30, 2014).