This study examines the question of whether the extent of contracting out by U.S. federal agencies has an impact on the representation of minorities and women in those agencies. Contracting often results in reductions in force (RIF), which may occur at the lower and middle levels where there is significant representation of minorities and women. As a result, agencies that engage in higher levels of contracting may have lower levels of representation of minorities and women overall and in selected grade levels, controlling for other known determinants of minority and female representation. A panel design is employed with data on outside contracts as a proportion of each agency’s budget from 2009 to 2015. Those data are matched with a 1-year lag to data on the employment of African Americans, Hispanics, and women from 2010 to 2016. Findings indicate that contracting is associated with lower levels of African American, Hispanic, and female employment in selected grade levels.
AtkinsD. N.WilkinsV. M. (2013). Going beyond reading, writing, and arithmetic: The effects of teacher representation on teen pregnancy rates. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 23, 771-790. doi:10.1093/jopart/mut001
2.
CornwellC.KelloughJ. E. (1994). Women and minorities in federal government agencies: Examining new evidence from panel data. Public Administration Review, 54, 265-270.
3.
DolanJ. A. (2000). The senior executive service: Gender, attitudes, and representative bureaucracy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10, 513-529.
4.
DolanJ. A. (2002). Representative bureaucracy in the federal executive: Gender and spending priorities. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 12, 353-375.
5.
EwohA. I. E. (1999). An inquiry into the role of public employees and managers in privatization. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 19, 8-27.
6.
FernandezS.SmithC. R. (2006). Looking for evidence of public employee opposition to privatization: An empirical study with implications for practice. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 26, 356-381.
7.
HebdonR. (2006). Contracting public services in New York state: Labor effects. Industrial Relations, 6, 513-531.
8.
HinderaJ. J. (1993a). Representative bureaucracy: Imprimis evidence of active representation in EEOC district offices. Social Science Quarterly, 74(5), 95-108.
9.
HinderaJ. J. (1993b). Representative bureaucracy: Further evidence of active representation in EEOC district offices. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 3, 415-429.
10.
JacksonY. C. (1997). Strategies for managing tensions between public employment and private service delivery. Public Productivity & Management Review, 21, 119-136.
11.
KeiserL. R.WilkinsV. M.MeierK. J.HollandC. A. (2002). Lipstick and logarithms: Gender, institutional context, and representative bureaucracy. American Political Science Review, 96, 553-564.
12.
KelloughJ. E. (1989). Federal equal employment opportunity policy and numerical goals and timetables. New York, NY: Praeger.
13.
KelloughJ. E. (1990). Integration in the public workplace: Minority and female employment in federal agencies. Public Administration Review, 50, 557-566.
14.
KelloughJ. E. (2006). Understanding affirmative action: Politics, discrimination, and the search for justice. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
15.
KettlD. F.FeslerJ. W. (2005). The politics of the administrative process. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.
16.
KrislovS. (1967). The Negro in federal employment. Minneapolis: The University of Minnesota Press.
17.
LlorensJ. J.WengerJ. B.KelloughJ. E. (2008). Choosing public sector employment: The impact of wages on the representation of women and minorities in state bureaucracies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18, 397-413.
18.
MeierK. J. (1993a). Latinos and representative bureaucracy: Testing the Thompson and Henderson hypotheses. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 3, 393-414.
19.
MeierK. J. (1993b). Representative bureaucracy: A theoretical and empirical exposition. Research in Public Administration, 2, 1-35.
20.
Nicholson-CrottyS.GrissomJ. A.Nicholson-CrottyJ.ReddingC. (2016). Disentangling the causal mechanisms of representative bureaucracy: Evidence from assignment of students to gifted programs. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 26, 745-757.
21.
PollittC.BouckaertG. (2011). Public management reform: A comparative analysis—New public management, governance, and the neo-Weberian state. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
22.
RiccucciN. M.Van RyzinG.LiH. (2016). Representative bureaucracy and the willingness to coproduce: An experimental study. Public Administration Review, 76, 121-130.
23.
RoscignoV. J.WilsonG. (2014). Privatization and racial inequality. Contexts: Understanding People in Their Social World, 13, 72-74.
24.
RosenbloomD. H. (1977). Federal equal employment opportunity: Politics and public personnel administration. New York: Praeger.
25.
SavasE. S. (1987). Privatization: The key to better government. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House Publishers.
26.
SavasE. S. (2000). Privatization and public-private partnerships. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House Publishers.
27.
SeldenS. C. (1997a). The promise of representative bureaucracy: Diversity and responsiveness in a government agency. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
28.
SeldenS. C. (1997b). Representative bureaucracy: Examining the linkage between passive and active representation in the farmers home administration. American Review of Public Administration, 27, 22-42.
29.
SeldenS. C.BrudneyJ. L.KelloughJ. E. (1998). Bureaucracy as a representative institution: Toward a reconciliation of bureaucratic government and democratic theory. American Journal of Political Science, 42, 717-744.
30.
SteinL. (1994). Privatization, work-force cutbacks, and African American municipal employment. American Review of Public Administration, 24, 181-191.
31.
SuggsR. E. (1989). Minorities and privatization: Economic mobility at risk. Washington, DC: Joint Center for Political Studies Press.
32.
ThompsonL.EllingR. C. (2000). Mapping patterns of support for privatization in the mass public: The case of Michigan. Public Administration Review, 60, 338-348.
WilkinsV. M.KeiserL. R. (2006). Linking passive and active representation by gender: The case of child support agencies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16, 87-102.
42.
WisniewskiS. C. (1992). A framework for considering the contracting out of government services. Public Personnel Management, 21, 101-117.
