Race and ethnicity in the 2021 Wasatch front labor force: an equal employment opportunity analysis

Current data reveals 22.5% of Utahns identify as racial minorities, rising 3.1% from 2020 to 2021.1 This is a faster increase than the comparable 1.7% year-over growth rate of the total population. Racial and ethnic diversity continues to increase across the nation and in Utah.

Research Brief August 2022 Race and Ethnicity in the 2021 Wasatch Front Labor Force: An Equal Employment Opportunity Analysis Authored by: Emily Harris, Senior Demographer, Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute Overview Current data reveals 22.5% of Utahns identify as racial minorities, rising 3.1% from 2020 to 2021.1 This is a faster increase than the comparable 1.7% year-over growth rate of the total population. Racial and ethnic diversity continues to increase across the nation and in Utah. The extent of this diversity varies significantly by neighborhood, community, and county. For example, racial or ethnic minority identification in the Wasatch Front region is 1 in 4 at 25.5%, while in Salt Lake County it is 30.4%. These demographic trends also influence the composition of the regional labor market and raise interesting questions. What is the demographic composition of the Wasatch Front labor force? How are people of different races and genders distributed across occupations? How has this changed over time? This report helps answer these questions by identifying under and over-representation in eight occupational groupings by race, ethnicity and gender for the Wasatch Front region. The Wasatch Front labor force is gradually becoming more diverse as the shares of all minority groups but two (American Indian and Black or African American) are increasing. The composition of the labor force differs from the racial and gender composition of the entire Wasatch Front population: • • • • Racial minorities are most underrepresented in the Professionals and Officials & Administration categories, Whites are most underrepresented in the Service Maintenance and Skilled Craft categories, Women are especially underrepresented in the Skilled Craft and Protective Services categories, and Males are significantly underrepresented in the Paraprofessionals and Administrative Support categories. Each occupation requires a particular skill set, education, and investment of monetary and social capital. These patterns are consistent with prevailing social and cultural expectations and outcomes. Local governments, cities, counties, and businesses can use this material to inform hiring and employment practices and intitatives. Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute I Figure 1: Share of Growth by Race and Ethnicity in Utah, 2010-2020 48% White 52% Minority 51% Hispanic 4% Black or African American 1% American Indian or Alaska Native 9% Asian 5% Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 30% Some Other Race and Two or More Races Source: 2010 and 2020 Census State Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary Files, U.S. Census Bureau Race and Ethnicity Categories These particular race and ethnicity categories, defined by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in 1997, are the required standard for federal statistical agencies. The categories include White, Black or African American, American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander. Race is a self-identification determination, and people may choose more than one category. The “Two or More” White: 77.0% category includes those identifying with multiple race groups. American Indian or Alaska Native: 0.5% When discussing racial groups, this document refers to people Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander: 0.5% who identify as non-Hispanic, single-race (i.e., White, Asian, Black: 1.3% Two orHawaiian More Races:and 2.2% Pacific Islander), or Two or More Races. Native Asian: 3.0% The Hispanic category includes individuals of any race that also Hispanic: 14.9% identified as Hispanic or Latino. Additionally, this report uses the term minority to refer to those identifying as Hispanic or Latino or any race category other than non-Hispanic White. 411 East South Temple Street, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 0.60% I 801-585-5618 I gardner.utah.edu 0.54% Nativ P Amer Two o How is Utah and the Wasatch Front Population Diversifying? The State of Utah, 2010-2020 Utah was the fastest growing state in the nation from 2010 to 2020 at 18.4%, and over half of that growth (52%) occurred in minority populations.2 In 2010, 1 in 5 Utahns identified as minority, increasing to 1 in 4 Utahns in 2020. The Hispanic or Latino population, the second largest racial and ethnic group in Utah, grew by 37.6% and grew its share of the population from 13% in 2010 to 15% in 2020. The fastest growing racial and ethnic group was the Two or More Races or Some Other Race Group, growing by 152% and accounting for 15.8% of the total population growth from 2010-2020 (see Figure 1). Why do the 2020 Census numbers differ from the 2021 Census Bureau Population Estimates? The 2020 Census counts for race and ethnicity are not consistent with the most recent 2021 Census Bureau population estimates used in this report. This is due to a few reasons: 1) Until more complete Census 2020 data is released, Census Bureau population estimates “are developed from a base population that combines estimates from Vintage 2020 and 2020 Demographic Analysis with total population from the 2020 Census; no race or Hispanic origin data from the 2020 Census were used in the development of the Vintage 2021 estimates series”.7 2) Census 2020 race and ethnicity reporting includes an additional race category not used in the population estimates: Some Other Race. 3) Census Bureau population estimates use a technique called “race-bridging” which assigns those in the Some Other Race category from the decennial Census into the traditional OMB race categories. The State of Utah, 2018-2021 Growth across Utah’s minority populations was 9.4% from 2018 to 2021, more than twice the 4.5% growth rate of the White population. Since 2018, the Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islanders and Two or More Races populations grew most rapidly, with 13.8% and 14.4% growth respectively, while the Asian and American Indian populations grew least rapidly at 4.1% and 3.7% (see Table 1).3 These growth patterns should continue for several reasons: current migration trends, differing fertility rates across race and ethnicity groups, changes in how individuals racially self-identify, and varying age structure differences between races. 4, 5, 6 There are regional and community differences in these demographic characteristics and dynamics within Utah. Urban counties tend to be more diverse than rural counties, except for counties containing Native American reservations such as San Juan County. The remainder of this report will focus on the Wasatch Front region, Utah’s most populous urban area. Table 1: Total Utah Population and Cumulative Change by Race and Ethnicity, 2018-2021 Total Population The Wasatch Front, 2021 The Wasatch Front region contains three-quarters of the state population, and for this analysis includes Davis, Salt Lake, Summit, Tooele, Utah, Wasatch and Weber counties. Minority populations are 24% of the Wasatch Front region, slightly more diverse than the state. This share varies significantly among Wasatch Front counties. Salt Lake is the most diverse county in the Wasatch Front, with 30% of the population identifying as a minority, while Weber County follows closely at approximately 25%. Between 19% and 16% of Utah, Davis, Summit, Wasatch and Tooele identify in a minority population group, which is lower than the average state share. See Table 2 for the racial shares of each county in the Wasatch Front region, the region as a whole, and the state. August 2022 I gardner.utah.edu Total Population White Change from 2018 to 2021 July 1, 2018 July 1, 2021 Absolute Percent 3,161,105 3,337,975 176,870 5.6% 2,466,025 2,577,888 111,863 4.5% Minority 695,080 760,087 65,007 9.4% Hispanic 450,218 493,636 43,418 9.6% Black or African American 36,307 39,687 3,380 9.3% American Indian or Alaska Native 29,910 31,014 1,104 3.7% Asian 81,356 84,651 3,295 4.1% Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 30,824 35,066 4,242 13.8% Two or More Races 66,465 76,033 9,568 14.4% Note: Individuals claiming Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin are categorized as Hispanic and can be of any race. Non-Hispanic persons are also classified as a single race alone— White, Black or African American, American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander—or as two or more races. Source: Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute analysis of Census Bureau 2018 Vintage Estimates and 2021 Vintage Estimates 2 I N F O R M E D D E C I S I O N S TM Table 2: Race and Ethnicity Shares of Total Population, Wasatch Front Counties, Region Total, and State, 2021 White Black American Indian or Alaska Native Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander Asian Two or More Races Hispanic Minority Davis 82.3% 1.2% 0.5% 2.0% 0.8% 2.4% 10.7% 17.7% Salt Lake 69.6% 1.8% 0.7% 4.4% 1.8% 2.5% 19.3% 30.4% Summit 84.4% 0.8% 0.3% 2.0% 0.1% 1.6% 10.9% 15.6% Tooele 80.6% 0.8% 0.8% 0.7% 0.9% 2.0% 14.2% 19.4% Utah 80.9% 0.6% 0.5% 1.8% 0.9% 2.6% 12.7% 19.1% Wasatch 82.8% 0.6% 0.3% 1.1% 0.2% 1.2% 13.9% 17.2% Weber 75.4% 1.3% 0.5% 1.4% 0.3% 2.2% 18.8% 24.6% Region Total 75.6% 1.3% 0.6% 2.9% 1.2% 2.4% 16.0% 24.4% State Total 77.2% 1.2% 0.9% 2.5% 1.1% 2.3% 14.8% 22.8% Note: Individuals claiming Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin are categorized as Hispanic and can be of any race. Non-Hispanic persons are also classified as a single race alone—White, Black or African American, American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander—or as two or more races. Source: Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute analysis of Census Bureau 2021 Vintage Estimates ethnicity population estimates with the American Community Survey 2014-2018 Equal Employment Opportunity Tabulation occupational data. Salt Lake County is the economic powerhouse of the state, containing almost half of Utah’s jobs.8 It also has Utah’s flagship university, state capital, headquarters to a global religion, and a wealth of cultural and commercial assets. Utah County is much less diverse despite having two major universities and rapidly growing employment around the Silicon Slopes tech corridor. The projected growth in Utah County over the next 50 years has the potential to add not only more people, but also more diversity to the area. Weber County has similar, yet smaller in scale, employment opportunities, public infrastructure, and Weber State University, that promotes and supports diverse communities. Davis, Summit, Wasatch and Tooele counties, while providing local employment, are commuter counties with strong employment ties to Salt Lake, Utah, and Weber counties. Salt Lake has a higher share of Asian residents (4.4%) compared to other Wasatch Front counties (and 61% of the state’s Asian population). Salt Lake and Weber counties have the highest proportion of Hispanic or Latino residents in the Wasatch Front region (19%). Salt Lake also has the highest concentration of Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander residents in the state (59% of this population live in Salt Lake County). The Study Area This analysis defines the Wasatch Front region as the labor force region for Salt Lake County employers. The Salt Lake City workforce is composed of 67% Salt Lake County residents, and 33% from outside the county, including the following six surrounding counties: Davis, Summit, Tooele, Utah, Wasatch and Weber.9 This aggregation of geographies makes this analysis useful for any employer within the Wasatch Front, not just Salt Lake City. Occupational Classifications Occupations are defined by the EEO-4 survey job classification list, used at the state and local government levels.10 These include: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Paraprofessionals Administrative Support Skilled Craft Service Maintenance The methodology section at the end of the report provides additional information about these data and methods. What Do These Trends Mean for the Wasatch Front Labor Force and Occupations? An increasingly diverse population results in an increasingly diverse workforce. However, the different age structures, particularly younger racial and ethnic minorities and older white populations,translate into a slightly less diverse workforce compared to the total population. Eventually, the younger minority population will age and be eligible to join the labor force. This report updates current racial and ethnic and gendered distributions across occupational categories. This analysis combines the current Census Bureau age, sex, and race and I N F O R M E D D E C I S I O N S TM Officials and Administrators Professionals Technicians Protective Services Current Patterns Figure 2 displays the 2021 racial and ethnic proportions of the combined counties’ labor force. The Wasatch Front labor force is slightly less diverse than the total population, with 77% identifying as White compared to 76% of the total Wasatch Front population. This pattern makes demographic sense because most minority populations are younger than their white counterparts. 3 gardner.utah.edu I August 2022 30% Some Other Race and 4% Black or African American Two or More Races 1% American Indian or Figure 2: Total Wasatch Front Civilian Alaska LaborNative Force by Race and Ethnicity, 2021 9% Asian Hispanic 3 Black 3 5 4 1 Figure 3: Count and Percent of Racial and Ethnic Over, Asian 4 4 Under, and Equal Representation in Occupations, 2021 Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander White American Indian or AlaskaHispanic Native 5% Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 30% Some Other Race and Two or More Races 2 3 Two or More Races Black 0% Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander American Indian or Alaska Native White: 77.0% American Indian or Alaska Native: 0.5% Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander: 0.5% Black: 1.3% Two or More Races: 2.2% Asian: 3.0% Hispanic: 14.9% Two or More Races 0% Overrepresented 3 5 3 3 20% Asian Overrepresented 5 5 5 40% 4 4 60% 4 Underrepresented 2 2 1 80% 1 5 20% 2 4 40% Underrepresented 1 1 100% 4 Equally Represented 5 3 1 60% 1 1 80% 100% Equally Represented Note: Individuals claiming Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin are categorized as Hispanic White: 77.0% and can be of any race. Non-Hispanic persons are also classified as a single race alone— American Indian American, or AlaskaAmerican Native: 0.5% White, Black or African Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian orHawaiian Pacific Islander—or two orIslander: more races. Native or OtherasPacific 0.5% Source: Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute analysis of Census Bureau 2021 Vintage Estimates Black: 1.3% and ACS EEO Tabulation (2014-2018) Note: Individuals claiming Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin are categorized as Hispanic and can be of any race. Non-Hispanic persons are also classified as a single race alone—White, Black or African American, American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander—or as two or more races. Source: Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute analysis of Census Bureau 2021 Vintage Estimates and ACS EEO Tabulation (2014-2018) 0.54% occupational supply distributions for the combined Wasatch Front region counties by race, 0.20% 0.04% whether ethnicity, and sex. The red and green highlights indicate each race or gender is underrepresented or overrepresented in -0.20% each occupation compared to the overall labor force make-up. For example, the White population is over-represented in the -0.60% Officials (85.1%) compared to 0.54% 0.60% and Administrators occupation the Total Civilian Labor Force (77.0%), so the White category is -1.00% -1.03% highlighted green, while the other races in the same row are 0.20% 0.04% highlighted red. -1.40% Hispanic Black White -0.20% Figure 3 summarizes the number and percentage of over, under, and equal representation of each race across the eight -0.60% different occupation types. The White population is overrepresented in all occupations except for Technicians, Skilled -1.00% Craft, and Service Maintenance. The American Indian or Alaska -1.03% Native population has the least amount of underrepresentation -1.40% of minorities across while the Hispanic White occupations, Hispanic Black or Latino and Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander populations tie for the most underrepresented (across five different occupations). How does 2021 compare to 2018? Table 4 compares the 2018 analysis and this year’s analysis 0.19% 0.09% 0.07% with the benchmarked 2021 data. 0.02% The red and green highlights indicate whether a race or sex increased or decreased its share of that occupation since 2018. The Hispanic or Latino population continues to slowly increase their share of the total workforce by 0.5 percentage points, while the White population has decreased their share of the workforce 0.19% by about 1 percentage 0.09% point since 2018. The most substantial 0.07% 0.02% increases for the Hispanic or Latino population were in the Service Two or More American Indian Asian Native Hawaiian Maintenanceorand Skilled Craft or occupational The Two Races Alaska Native categories. Pacific Islander or More Races population not only increased as a share of the total workforce, but also increased as a share in all professions. The Black or African American and American Indian or Alaska Native populations did not change their share of the workforce since 2018, but the Asians and Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander populations experienced bothIndian increases and decreases Asian Native Hawaiian American Two or More Races Pacific Islanderoccupations. or Alaska Native in their shareorof different Percentage changes tell a story of both increases and decreases for different racial and ethnic categories as a share of the labor force. The Wasatch Front’s labor force is growing in total and across all racial and ethnic groups. Two or More Races: 2.2% Asian: 3.0% Hispanic: 14.9% 0.60% Table 3 shows the current August 2022 I gardner.utah.edu 4 I N F O R M E D D E C I S I O N S TM Table 3: Occupational Distributions - By Sex, Race, and Ethnicity ACS 2014-2018 EEO Data Rebenched to Census Vintage 2021 Sex Total White Hispanic Black Asian NHPI AIAN Two or More Races Total Civilian Labor Force Total 100.0% 77.0% 14.9% 1.3% 3.0% 1.1% 0.5% 2.2% Male 55.8% 42.9% 8.5% 0.8% 1.5% 0.6% 0.3% 1.2% Female 44.2% 34.0% 6.4% 0.5% 1.5% 0.5% 0.2% 1.0% Officials and Administrators Total 100.0% 85.1% 7.7% 1.0% 1.9% 0.9% 0.4% 2.0% Male 64.1% 55.6% 4.3% 0.6% 1.5% 0.5% 0.2% 1.2% Female 35.9% 29.6% 3.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.2% 0.8% Professional Total 100.0% 86.1% 5.7% 0.7% 1.2% 1.5% 0.2% 2.1% Male 52.7% 45.5% 2.8% 0.4% 0.7% 0.9% 0.1% 1.1% Female 47.2% 40.6% 3.0% 0.3% 0.5% 0.6% 0.1% 1.0% 100.0% 68.0% 21.6% 1.3% 5.0% 1.8% 0.7% 2.2% Technicians Total Male 57.2% 39.1% 12.5% 0.7% 2.2% 0.9% 0.5% 1.1% Female 42.8% 28.8% 9.1% 0.5% 2.8% 0.9% 0.2% 1.1% Protective Services Total 100.0% 85.0% 8.2% 1.1% 2.2% 0.3% 0.9% 2.3% Male 76.6% 65.5% 6.4% 0.8% 1.1% 0.2% 0.7% 1.5% Female 23.5% 19.5% 1.8% 0.3% 1.1% 0.1% 0.2% 0.8% Paraprofessionals Total 100.0% 77.1% 13.4% 1.7% 4.3% 0.9% 0.9% 2.9% Male 27.1% 21.1% 2.8% 0.8% 1.0% 0.3% 0.3% 0.8% Female 72.9% 56.0% 10.6% 1.0% 3.3% 0.5% 0.6% 2.1% 100.0% 79.8% 12.9% 1.4% 2.7% 0.8% 0.5% 2.1% Administrative Support Total Male 42.2% 34.1% 5.0% 0.7% 0.9% 0.3% 0.2% 1.0% Female 57.8% 45.7% 7.8% 0.6% 1.8% 0.5% 0.3% 1.2% Skilled Craft Total 100.0% 68.8% 25.5% 1.0% 3.5% 0.5% 0.7% 1.6% Male 92.2% 64.2% 23.2% 0.9% 2.7% 0.4% 0.6% 1.4% 7.8% 4.6% 2.3% 0.1% 0.8% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 100.0% 64.8% 26.2% 1.8% 3.9% 1.1% 0.7% 2.3% Female Service Maintenance Total Male 63.6% 41.6% 16.4% 1.3% 2.1% 0.6% 0.5% 1.5% Female 36.4% 23.2% 9.9% 0.5% 1.8% 0.5% 0.2% 0.8% Source: Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute Analysis of U.S. Census Bureau Data (ACS 2014-2018 EEO Tabulation and 2021 Vintage Population Estimates) n Denotes under-representation compared to Total Civilian Labor Force distribution n Denotes over-representation compared to Total Civilian Labor Force distribution I N F O R M E D D E C I S I O N S TM 5 gardner.utah.edu I August 2022 Table 4: Occupational Distributions - By Sex, Race, and Ethnicity Census Vintage 2021 Rebenched Results minus ACS 2014-2018 EEO Data Sex Total White Hispanic Black Asian NHPI AIAN Two or More Races Total Civilian Labor Force Total 0.0% -1.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.2% Male 0.0% -0.6% 0.3% 0.0% -0.0% -0.0% 0.1% 0.1% Female 0.0% -0.5% 0.2% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% -0.0% 0.1% Total 0.0% -1.1% 0.3% 0.0% -0.6% 0.2% 0.1% 0.2% Male 0.0% -0.7% 0.2% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% -0.0% 0.1% Female 0.0% -0.4% 0.1% 0.0% -0.8% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% Total 0.0% -1.2% 0.2% 0.0% -2.9% 1.1% -0.0% 0.2% Male 0.0% -0.6% 0.1% 0.0% -1.7% 0.7% -0.0% 0.1% Female 0.0% -0.5% 0.1% 0.0% -1.2% 0.4% 0.0% 0.1% 0.2% Officials and Administrators Professional Technicians Total 0.0% -0.9% 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.6% -0.2% Male 0.0% -0.5% 0.5% 0.0% -0.2% -0.0% 0.1% 0.1% Female 0.0% -0.4% 0.3% 0.0% 0.3% 0.6% -0.3% 0.1% Protective Services Total 0.0% -1.1% 0.3% 0.0% 1.4% -1.3% 0.5% 0.2% Male 0.0% -0.9% 0.2% 0.0% 0.6% -1.1% 0.5% 0.1% Female 0.0% -0.3% 0.1% 0.0% 0.7% -0.2% 0.0% 0.1% Paraprofessionals Total 0.0% -1.0% 0.5% 0.1% 2.0% -0.8% 0.1% 0.2% Male 0.0% -0.3% 0.1% 0.0% 0.2% -0.2% 0.1% 0.1% Female 0.0% -0.8% 0.4% 0.0% 1.8% -0.6% 0.0% 0.2% Administrative Support Total 0.0% -1.1% 0.5% 0.0% 0.5% -0.1% 0.0% 0.2% Male 0.0% -0.5% 0.2% 0.0% 0.2% -0.0% 0.0% 0.1% Female 0.0% -0.6% 0.3% 0.0% 0.3% -0.1% 0.0% 0.1% Skilled Craft Total 0.0% -0.9% 0.9% 0.0% 2.0% -0.8% 0.1% 0.1% Male 0.0% -0.9% 0.8% 0.0% 1.6% -0.8% 0.2% 0.1% Female 0.0% -0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.4% -0.0% -0.1% 0.0% Service Maintenance Total 0.0% -0.9% 1.0% 0.1% 0.8% -0.3% 0.1% 0.2% Male 0.0% -0.6% 0.6% 0.0% 0.4% -0.4% 0.2% 0.1% Female 0.0% -0.3% 0.4% 0.0% 0.4% 0.1% -0.1% 0.1% Source: Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute Analysis of U.S. Census Bureau Data n Denotes decrease in share n Denotes increase in share August 2022 I gardner.utah.edu 6 I N F O R M E D D E C I S I O N S TM Figure 4: Percentage Point Change in Wasatch Front Racial and Ethnic Workforce Composition, 2018-2021 0.54% 0.60% 0.20% 0.04% 0.07% 0.09% Black Asian Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 0.19% 0.02% -0.20% -0.60% -1.00% -1.03% -1.40% White Hispanic American Indian or Alaska Native Two or More Races Note: Individuals claiming Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin are categorized as Hispanic and can be of any race. Non-Hispanic persons can be classified as a single race alone—White, Black or African American, American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander—or as two or more races. Source: Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute analysis of Census Bureau 2021 Vintage Estimates and ACS EEO Tabulation (2014-2018) Conclusion The Hispanic or Latino and Two or More Races populations are the most rapidly growing race and ethnicity groups in the Wasatch Front labor force. There is slight growth in the Asian and Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander population categories that, while growing much slower, are becoming a larger share of the Wasatch Front labor force and labor market area. Utah and the Wasatch Front’s increasing diversity translates to an increasingly diverse labor force. Regional employers benefit by understanding these changing demographics and developing practices that support and provide opportunities for the changing local population. I N F O R M E D D E C I S I O N S TM 7 gardner.utah.edu I August 2022 Methodology Definition of Terms Study Area This study focuses on the civilian workforce that work (but not necessarily live) in Salt Lake County. The Salt Lake County civilian workforce is 67% Salt Lake County residents, and 33% from outside the county, including the following six surrounding counties: Davis, Summit, Tooele, Utah, Wasatch, and Weber. 11 This percentage is down from 70% Salt Lake County residents in 2010. We included the following occupations in the measurement of Paraprofessional: • Life, physical, and social science technicians (2018 SOC Code 19-4000) • Counselors, social workers, and other community and social service specialists (2018 SOC Code 21-10XX) • Teaching assistants (2018 SOC Code 25-9040) • Nursing, psychiatric, and home health aides (2018 SOC Code 31-1100) • Occupational therapy and physical therapist assistants and aides (2018 SOC Code 31-2000) • Childcare workers (2018 SOC Code 39-9011) • Other personal care and service workers (2018 SOC Code 39-YYYY) • Information and record clerks, except customer service representatives (2018 SOC Code 43-4XXX) • Other motor vehicle operators (2018 SOC Code 53-30XX) Race and Ethnicity Grouping In this study, we estimate the labor force for males, females, and total population for the following mutually exclusive and exhaustive racial and ethnic groups provided by the most recent data:12 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. White (alone, not Hispanic) Hispanic or Latino Black or African American (alone, not Hispanic) Asian (alone, not Hispanic) Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander (alone, not Hispanic) American Indian or Alaska Native (alone, not Hispanic) Two or More Races, (not Hispanic) Procedure Data The updated Availability Analysis utilizes two main data sources: the ACS EEO Tabulation (2014-2018) and the U.S. Census Bureau Population Estimates, Vintage 2021. Occupational Classification We utilize the EEO-4 Survey job classification list typically used at the state and local government level.13 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. ACS EEO Tabulation (2014-2018)15 The American Community Survey (2014-2018) is based on a sample interviewed from January 1, 2014 through December 31, 2018.16 The ACS is a national sample of roughly 15 million housing units over five years (producing an estimate that describes a 5-year period). It replaced the 2000 Census long-form data which sampled roughly 1-in-6 housing units and was a point estimate. Due to the target sampling rate of Utah (2.8%), all ACS estimates include a margin of error and confidence interval to interpret these data. However, the ACS is the only provider of EEO tabulations and thus used in the analysis. We do not include confidence intervals in this report. The “2014-2018 State and Local Government Job Groups by Sex, and Race/Ethnicity for Residence Geography, Total Population” provided the occupational distributions by sex and race/ethnicity for each job classification except for Paraprofessionals. To obtain the specific occupations within the Paraprofessionals category, we used the “Detailed Census Occupation” data which allows one to search by occupation. Officials and Administrators Professionals Technicians Protective Services Paraprofessionals Administrative Support Skilled Craft Service Maintenance All but one of the EEO-4 job classifications are explicitly measured in the available data. The data do not categorize any occupations as Paraprofessionals, which creates some ambiguity on how to classify this job category. The EEO-4 Form 164, used as a submission guide for state and local governments, provides descriptions and examples of each occupational classification.14 Using the Paraprofessionals descriptions and examples, we searched the ACS 20142018 EEO Tabulation for all job category examples under Paraprofessionals and used the occupational categories available. In the future, it would be helpful to understand how Salt Lake City determines their Paraprofessional categories. We could then align our definitions and occupations consistently with Salt Lake City. August 2022 I gardner.utah.edu 8 I N F O R M E D D E C I S I O N S TM Updated EEO Procedure This study uses the July 1, 2021 Census Bureau vintage population estimates for the aggregated study area to benchmark the 2014-2018 Occupational Supply Distributions. Updated racial and ethnic counts by county and labor force eligibles were multiplied and then additionally multiplied by the 2018 labor force participation rate (derived from the EEO tabulation) to supply an updated 2021 labor force count. Next, the 2021 labor force by race and ethnicity was multiplied by the 2018 occupational participation rate to give a benchmarked 2021 occupational supply distribution for the aggregated study area. The equations are below to illustrate the steps: A limitation of this dataset is that some counties have a small number of employees in specific occupations. The ACS combines these into “County-sets” that result in more meaningful estimates. Summit County falls into this category. Summit is included in the Summit-Wasatch county-set, and thus Wasatch County is also included in this availability analysis. U.S. Census Bureau Population Estimates, Vintage 2021 The postcensal estimates produced by the Census Bureau are annual estimates of populations at the national, state, and county levels for each year following the decennial enumeration. Each year, the Census Bureau releases a new vintage which produces updated estimates from July 1, 2020 to the current year.17 The July 1, 2021 estimates from the 2021 vintage were used to benchmark the 2014-2018 EEO estimates to the current racial and ethnic makeup of the different occupations. The 2021 analysis holds the 2014-2018 ACS EEO Tabulation occupational distribution by sex constant within any race or ethnic group.18 Step 1: ( Labor Force Eligiblesr,e Occupationss,r,e Labor Forces,r,e = = X Labor Force Eligiblesr,e ) X 2018 Labor Force Participation Rater,e = 2021 Labor Forcer,e Step 2: 2021 Labor Forcer,e Basic Algorithm The 2014-2018 occupational supply distributions for the study area by sex, race, and ethnicity are based on the following equations: Labor Forcer,e 2021 Total Population Sharer,e X 2018 Occupational Participation Rates,r,e = 2021 Occupationss,r,e Labor Force Participation Rater,e Occupational Participation Rates,r,e In these equations, s is sex, r is race, and e is ethnicity. We only include the civilian (non-military) labor force. All of the underlying distributions necessary for these computations are available in the ACS 2014-2018 EEO tabulation data and the U.S. Census Bureau Population Estimates, Vintage 2021. I N F O R M E D D E C I S I O N S TM 9 gardner.utah.edu I August 2022 Endnotes 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15 16. 17. 18. Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute. 2022. U.S. Census Bureau Estimates for Race and Hispanic Origin, 2021 Fact Sheet. https://gardner.utah.edu/wp-content/uploads/CensusEst-Race-FS-Jul2022.pdf?x71849 Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute. 2021. First Insights – 2020 Census Race and Hispanic or Latino Origin in Utah Fact Sheet. https://gardner.utah.edu/wp-content/uploads/C2020-RceEth-FS-Aug2021.pdf?x71849 Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute. 2022. U.S. Census Bureau Estimates for Race and Hispanic Origin, 2021 Fact Sheet. https://gardner.utah.edu/wp-content/uploads/CensusEst-Race-FS-Jul2022.pdf?x71849 Hollingshaus, M., Harris, E., and Perlich, P. 2019. Utah’s Increasing Diversity: Population Projections by Race/Ethnicity. https://gardner.utah.edu/wp-content/ uploads/Utah-Projections-Race-Ethnicity-2019.pdf Perlich, P.S. 2008. Utah’s Demographic Transformation: A View into the Future. Utah Economic and Business Review, 68(3). Perlich, P.S. 2004. Immigrants Transform Utah: Entering a New Era of Diversity. Utah Economic and Business Review, 64(5/6). U.S. Census Bureau. 2022. Methodology for the United States Population Estimate: Vintage 2021, Nation, States, Counties, and Puerto Rico, April 1, 2020 to July 1, 2021. Population Estimates Methodology Statement. Department of Workforce Services. https://jobs.utah.gov/wi/data/library/employment/countyemployment.html U.S. Census Bureau. (2019). On the Map Inflow/Outflow Job Count Analysis. Retrieved from http://onthemap.ces.census.gov/ Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2021). EEOC Form 164, State and Local Government Information (EEO-4) Instruction Booklet. Retrieved from https://eeocdata.org/pdfs/EEO-4%20Instruction%20Booklet.pdf U.S. Census Bureau. (2019). On the Map Inflow/Outflow Job Count Analysis. Retrieved from http://onthemap.ces.census.gov/ Humes, K.R., N.A. Jones, R.R. Ramirez. (2011). Overview of Race and Hispanic Origin: 2010. Report Number: C2010BR-02. Retrieved from http://www.census. gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2011/dec/c2010br-02.pdf Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2021). EEOC Form 164, State and Local Government Information (EEO-4) Instruction Booklet. https://eeocdata. org/pdfs/EEO-4%20Instruction%20Booklet.pdf Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2021). EEOC Form 164, State and Local Government Information (EEO-4) Instruction Booklet. https://eeocdata. org/pdfs/EEO-4%20Instruction%20Booklet.pdf American Community Survey Office. (2021). EEO 2018 FTP Site Technical Documentation. Retrieved from: https://www2.census.gov/EEO_2014_2018/EEO_ FTP_Site_Documentation/ACS2014_2018_EEO_FTP_TECHDOC_Version2.pdf U.S. Census Bureau. (2019). Using the American Community Survey Summary File: What Data Users Should Know. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/ content/dam/Census/library/publications/2019/acs/acs_summary-file_handbook_2019.pdf U.S. Census Bureau. (2022). Annual Estimates of the Resident Population by Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin for the United States, States, and Counties: April 1, 2020 to July 1, 2021 Population Estimates. Perlich, P.S. (2007). Salt Lake County Government Availability Analysis Update. Bureau of Economic and Business Research. University of Utah. August 2022 I gardner.utah.edu 10 I N F O R M E D D E C I S I O N S TM Partners in the Community The following individuals and entities help support the research mission of the Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute. Legacy Partners The Gardner Company Intermountain Healthcare Clark and Christine Ivory Foundation KSL and Deseret News Larry H. & Gail Miller Family Foundation Mountain America Credit Union Salt Lake City Corporation Salt Lake County University of Utah Health Utah Governor’s Office of Economic Opportunity WCF Insurance Zions Bank Executive Partners Mark and Karen Bouchard The Boyer Company Clyde Companies Salt Lake Chamber Sustaining Partners Dominion Energy Staker Parson Materials and Construction Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute Advisory Board Conveners Michael O. Leavitt Mitt Romney Board Scott Anderson, Co-Chair Gail Miller, Co-Chair Doug Anderson Deborah Bayle Cynthia A. Berg Roger Boyer Wilford Clyde Sophia M. DiCaro Cameron Diehl Lisa Eccles Spencer P. Eccles Christian Gardner Kem C. Gardner Kimberly Gardner Natalie Gochnour Brandy Grace Rachel Hayes Clark Ivory Mike S. Leavitt Derek Miller Ann Millner Ex Officio (invited) Governor Spencer Cox Speaker Brad Wilson Senate President Stuart Adams Representative Brian King Senator Karen Mayne Mayor Jenny Wilson Mayor Erin Mendenhall Sterling Nielsen Jason Perry Ray Pickup Gary B. Porter Taylor Randall Jill Remington Love Brad Rencher Josh Romney Charles W. Sorenson James Lee Sorenson Vicki Varela Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute Staff and Advisors Leadership Team Natalie Gochnour, Associate Dean and Director Jennifer Robinson, Associate Director Mallory Bateman, Director of Demographic Research Phil Dean, Chief Economist and Public Finance Senior Research Fellow Shelley Kruger, Accounting and Finance Manager Colleen Larson, Administrative Manager Dianne Meppen, Director of Survey Research Nicholas Thiriot, Communications Director James A. Wood, Ivory-Boyer Senior Fellow Staff Eric Albers, Research Associate Max Becker, Research Associate Samantha Ball, Senior Research Associate Andrea Thomas Brandley, Research Associate Kara Ann Byrne, Senior Research Associate Mike Christensen, Scholar-in-Residence Nate Christensen, Research Associate Dejan Eskic, Senior Research Fellow Enas Farag, Research Assistant Emily Harris, Senior Demographer Michael T. Hogue, Senior Research Statistician Mike Hollingshaus, Senior Demographer Thomas Holst, Senior Energy Analyst Jennifer Leaver, Senior Tourism Analyst Nate Lloyd, Deputy Director of Economics and Public Policy Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute I Levi Pace, Senior Research Economist Natalie Roney, Economist Shannon Simonsen, Research Coordinator Paul Springer, Senior Graphic Designer Laura Summers, Senior Health Care Analyst Faculty Advisors Matt Burbank, College of Social and Behavioral Science Elena Patel, David Eccles School of Business Nathan Seegert, David Eccles School of Business Senior Advisors Jonathan Ball, Office of the Legislative Fiscal Analyst Silvia Castro, Suazo Business Center Gary Cornia, Marriott School of Business Wes Curtis, Community-at-Large Theresa Foxley, EDCUtah Dan Griffiths, Tanner LLC Emma Houston, University of Utah Beth Jarosz, Population Reference Bureau Darin Mellott, CBRE Pamela S. Perlich, University of Utah Chris Redgrave, Community-at-Large Wesley Smith, Western Governors University Juliette Tennert, Utah System of Higher Education 411 East South Temple Street, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 I 801-585-5618 I gardner.utah.edu (DE) RaceEthnicityLaborForce Aug2022