final report

AN ANALYSIS OF THE DIFFERENCE IN ANTAGONISM LEVELS

BETWEEN THREE TEXAS CITIES THAT HAVE ADOPTED

CHAPTER 143 OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE AND

THREE CITIES WHICH HAVE NOT ADOPTED CHAPTER 143

By Dindy Robinson

April 29, 2003

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements................................................................................................................1

Research Problem .................................................................................................................2

Chapter 143 Background........................................................................................................2

Literature Review...................................................................................................................4

Methodology..........................................................................................................................5

Data Overview....................................................................................................................12

Conclusion .........................................................................................................................29

Appendix 1Pearson’s Correlation Coefficient Matrix ..............................................................31

Appendix 2 Analysis of Variance for Chapter 143 Cities vs. Non-Chapter 143 Cities and Level of

Antagonism ..................................................................................................................34

Appendix 3 Analysis of Variance Report for Difference in Treatment Between Chapter 143 Cities

and Non-143 Cities .......................................................................................................35

Appendix 4 Analysis of Variance Between Difference of Treatment and Level of Antagonism ..36

Appendix 5 Analysis of Variance Between General and Public Safety Employees and Level of

Antagonism ..................................................................................................................37

Appendix 6 Analysis of Variance Between Employee Type and Difference in Treatment..........38

Appendix 7 Analysis of Variance Between Males and Females and Levels of Antagonism.......39

Appendix 8 Analysis of Variance Between Males and Females and Difference of Treatment....40

Appendix 9 Analysis of Variance of Antagonism Level Among Ethnic Groups .........................41

Appendix 10 Analysis of Variance Between Ethnic Groups and Difference of Treatment..........42

Appendix 11 Cross Tabulations Between Experimental Factors .............................................43

Bibliography .......................................................................................................................59

List of Tables

Table 1 Return by City.........................................................................................................13

Table 2 Return by Ethnic Group...........................................................................................14

List of Charts

Chart 1 Return by City.........................................................................................................14

Chart 2 Return by Ethnic Group ...........................................................................................15

Chart 3 Perception of difference in treatment by city status ....................................................18

Chart 4 Responses to Question 5 by city status ....................................................................19





Chart 9 Perception of difference in treatment by employee type .............................................23

Chart 10 Reponses to Question 5 by employee type .............................................................24

Chart 11 Responses to Question 6 by employee type ...........................................................25




ROBINSON 1

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Janet Goad, Dave Foreman, Libby Lanzara, Jeanette

Blankenship, Mary Ann Fulgium, Jose Moreno, Wynona Gulley, Cam eron Gulley,

Shelly Garcia, Carol Eicher, Kathy Malone, Bonnie Hodges, Sally McCoy, Lois

Chandler and Dr. Guisette Salazar for their assistance in conducting this survey.

ROBINSON 2

Research Problem

The purpose of this study was to examine attitudes of Public Safety

employees (Police & Fire) with those of General employees in Chapter 143 cities

as compared with those attitudes in non-Chapter 143 cities in Texas in order to

test the hypothesis that the relationship between General Employees and Police

Officers and Firefighters is more adversarial in Chapter 143 cities than in non-

143 cities. The survey also analyzed other factors such as gender, tenure, and

age to see if those have an effect on the degree of antagonism between the

employee groups.

Chapter 143 Background

Chapter 143 is the section of the Local Government Code for the state of

Texas that establishes policies and procedures for a Civil Service System for

police departments or fire departments. These policies and procedures apply to

cities that have adopted the Civil Service System by a vote of the majority in a

municipal election. The purpose of the Local Code is to ―secure efficient fire and

police departments composed of capable personnel who are free from political

influence and who have permanent employment tenure as public servants.‖1 The

Local Code is a set of laws regarding salary, raises, hiring procedures, grievance

procedures; leave time and other employment issues. In the Metroplex area, the

1 ―2000 Edition of Texas Local Government Code‖, West’s Texas Statues and Codes, 224.

ROBINSON 3

following cities are governed under the provisions of Chapter 143: Carrollton,

Fort Worth, Garland, Grand Prairie, Irving, Mesquite and Plano. In addition, the

following cities have created a self-regulated commission to govern Police & Fire

practices: Arlington, Dallas and Richardson.

Chapter 143 sets rules for the selection, promotion, discipline, leave

policies and compensation for Police Officers and Firefighters. Cities may choose

to adopt Chapter 143 for the regulation of police departments, fire departments,

or both. This can create a two-tiered compensation system where the employees

who are governed under Chapter 143 receive different leave benefits or have a

different compensation system than the general employees who are not covered

under Chapter 143.

For example, in the City of Fort Worth, there are several differences in

compensation procedures between police and firefighters and other city

employees. One of the biggest differences in the way the Police and Firefighters

are compensated in Fort Worth compared to other city employees has to do with

the way raises are granted. Police and firefighters’ raises are based on tenure

while other employees’ raises are based on performance. Occasional market

adjustment raises are given to both groups.

Under Chapter 143, firefighters and police officers accumulate 15 days of

sick leave each year. The leave is rolled over each year and, upon leaving the

city, the police officer or firefighter may take up to 90 days of sick leave as a lump

sum payment. Chapter 143 also sets a minimum of 15 days of vacation leave

each year for police officers and firefighters. This leave does not roll over.

ROBINSON 4

Personnel policies involving police and firefighters are largely determined

according to the guidelines set by Chapter 143 while personnel policies involving

other city employees are determined by the City Council. This means that the two

sets of employees are governed by rules that differ, sometimes to a minor,

sometimes to a major extent. For example, in Fort Worth, general employees

receive 15 days of vacation leave each year, but only three days of sick leave.

Literature Review

While there is some information available about the history of Civil Service

in Texas, most notably The Texas Municipal Civil Service, written by R. Weldon

Cooper in 1936, there has been little or no analysis of the problems caused by

the disparity between Civil Service Employees and General Employees. In 1977,

Christine Darnell Wicker researched equal employment differences between civil

service and non-civil service systems in Dallas, but only made cursory reference

to the fact that in Civil Service systems, employment was determined by civil

service procedures or merit as opposed to selection by interview or other

standard hiring procedures.2

In 1976, Arthur Young & Company conducted a comprehensive

management survey of the Fort Worth Police Department. In this survey it was

noted that the Police Department would be better served if the Police Chief had

2 Wicker, Christine Darnell. Comparison of Differential Progress Toward Equal Employment in

Civil Service and Non-Civil Service Employment Systems: A Case Study in the City of Dallas.

(Arlington, Texas: University of Texas at Arlington, 1977.)

ROBINSON 5

more control over hiring than allowed by the strictures of Chapter 143.3 Under

Civil Service rules, police and firefighters operate under the purview of the Civil

Service Commission. The commission defines the job categories, establishes

position classifications, and creates a list of candidates from which the Police

Chief must make all appointments or promotions. Police executives have very

limited authority in the selection of employees and promotion of employees.

To date, however, there has been little or no research regarding the

problems caused in the relationships between General Employees and Civil

Service Employees by Chapter 143 rules and regulations.

Methodology

Two surveys were created, one for Police Officers and Firefighters (Public

Safety) and one for General Employees. Survey questions were designed to

ascertain the perception the individual employee has as to the difference of

treatment between the two employee groups, the level of antagonism between

the two groups, and demographic information.

Surveys were hand delivered to twenty Public Safety and twenty General

Employees within six selected cities. Three of the cities, Carrollton, Fort Worth,

and Mesquite are Chapter 143 cities; and three of the cities, Rowlett,

Weatherford and Cleburne are not. A self addressed stamped envelope was

stapled to each survey to enable employees to return the surveys anonymously

3 Arthur Young & Company. Executive Summary of a Comprehensive Management Survey for

the Fort Worth Police Department. (Fort Worth, Texas: Arthur Young & Company, 1976.)

ROBINSON 6

via first class mail. The cities did not track the surveys once they were delivered

to the employees.

Each returned survey received two different scores. The first score

was for ―Difference of Treatment‖ and was based on the answers to the first four

questions. If the respondent indicated any difference in treatment between the

two groups, no matter which group was favored by the difference, a value of 5

(five) points was given for the question. If the respondent indicated no difference

in treatment between the two groups, a value of 0 (zero) points was assigned. All

of the values for the first four questions were totaled to achieve the ―Difference of

Treatment Score.‖ (A copy of each of the surveys with the scoring method

marked in red is on the following pages.)

The second score was for ―Level of Antagonism‖ and was based on the

answers to the last 5 questions. If a response was judged to be positive for

antagonism, it received a positive score. For instance, Question #5 on the

―Survey for Police & Firefighters‖ states, ―The relationship between police officers

and general employees is very good.‖ If the respondent strongly disagreed with

this statement, a value of positive 5 was assigned. If the respondent slightly

disagreed, a value of positive 3 was assigned. If the respondent was neutral, a

value of 0 was assigned. If the respondent slightly agreed, this was considered to

be a negative antagonism value and a value of –3 was assigned. If the

respondent strongly agreed, a value of –5 was assigned.

For questions 5, 6 and 9 on both surveys, only a response of ―neutral‖

received a score of 0. For questions 7 and 8 on both surveys, ―strongly disagree‖

ROBINSON 7

―slightly disagree‖ and ―neutral‖ were all assigned values of 0. These two

statements claimed that one of the employee groups tries to get additional

compensation at the expense of the other employee group. A value of 0 rather

than a –3 or –5 was assigned to the expressions of disagreement to these

questions because it was felt that just because an individual disagreed with one

of these statements, it did not necessarily indicate a lack of antagonism.

The scores for questions 5 – 9 were totaled to achieve the survey’s ―Level

of Antagonism‖ score. Each individual response was also noted for analysis.

Demographic information for age, tenure, gender, ethnicity and employee

type (general or public safety) was also noted for each survey, as were the

respondent’s Chapter 143 status and the size of the respondent’s city.

Survey responses were keyed into an Excel database and transferred to

NCSS. Correlation studies including Pearson’s Correlation Coefficient, Analyses

of Variance, Regression Correlation, and Chi-Square Analyses were conducted

to determine relationships and causal factors.

(Please see the surveys with scoring marked in red on the next 4 pages.)

ROBINSON 8

Dear Employee, I am a graduate student in Public Administration at the University of Texas at Arlington. I am

working on a research project comparing the attitudes of General Employees with those of Police and Fire in different cities. You do not need to put your name on the survey. All responses will be

kept strictly confidential. I am not interested in individual responses but in the overall responses I receive from employee groups. When complete, please mail the survey in the enclosed SASE

to Dindy Robinson, 1907 Green Apple Lane, Arlington, TX 76014. Questionnaire for General Employees

Name of City

Part 1: For each question, please put an ―X‖ beside the statement with which you agree the most.

1. PAY ______General employees in this city are paid fairly compared to pay for police officers and

firefighters. (Score = 0)

______General employees in this city are paid less than police officers and firefighters. (Score = 5)

______General employees in this city are paid better than police officers and firefighters. (Score

= 5)

2. Leave Benefits ______General employees in this city have better leave benefits than police officers and


______General employees in this city have worse leave benefits than police officers and firefighters. (Score = 5)

______General employees in this city have the same leave benefits as police officers and


3. Benefits ______General employees in this city have the same benefits package as police officers and


______General employees in this city have a better benefits package than police officers and


______General employees in this city have a worse benefits package than police officers and


4. Discipline ______General employees in this city are treated the same as police officers and firefighters

when it comes to discipline. (Score = 0)

______General employees in this city are treated better than police officers and firefighters when it comes to discipline. (Score = 5)

______General employees in this city are treated worse than police officers and firefighters when

it comes to discipline. (Score = 5)

(ov er)

ROBINSON 9

Part 2: For each statement below, please circle the phrase that best indicates your feelings. If you are completing this survey electronically, please underline the phrase that best indicates your

feelings.

5. The relationship between police officers, firefighters and general employees is very good. 5 points 3 points 0 points -3 points -5 points

Strongly disagree slightly disagree neutral slightly agree strongly agree

6. Police officers, firefighters and general employees in this city work well together when

compensation issues are being determined. 5 points 3 points 0 points - 3 points -5 points


7. Police officers and firefighters in this city often try to get additional compensation at the

expense of the general employees. 0 points 0 points 0 points 3 points 5 points


8. General employees in this city often try to get additional compensation at the expense of the

police officers and firefighters. 0 points 0 points 0 points 3 points 5 points


9. There is an adversarial relationship between police officers, firefighters and general

employees in this city. -5 points -3 points 0 points 3 points 5 points


Part 3: Demographic Information. Please fill in the blanks.

10. How many years have you served with the City?

11. What is your gender?

12. How old are you?

13. What is your ethnicity?

Thank you for participating in this surv ey!

ROBINSON 10

Dear Employee, I am a graduate student in Public Administration at the University of Texas at Arlington. I am

working on a research project comparing the attitudes of General Employees with those of Police and Fire in different cities. You do not need to put your name on the survey. All responses will be

kept strictly confidential. I am not interested in individual responses but in the overall responses I receive from employee groups. When complete, please mail the survey in the enclosed SASE

to Dindy Robinson, 1907 Green Apple Lane, Arlington, TX 76014. Questionnaire for Police Officers and Firefighters

Name of City Part 1: For each question, please put an ―X‖ beside the statement with which you agree the most.

1. PAY ______Police officers and firefighters in this city are paid fairly compared to pay for general

employees. (Score = 0)

______Police officers and firefighters in this city are paid less than general employees. (Score = 5)

______Police officers and firefighters in this city are paid better than general employees. (Score = 5)

2. Leave Benefits ______Police officers and firefighters in this city have better leave benefits than general


______Police officers and firefighters in this city have worse leave benefits than general


______Police officers and firefighters in this city have the same leave benefits as general employees. (Score = 0)

3. Benefits ______Police officers and firefighters in this city have the same benefits package as general


______Police officers and firefighters in this city have a better benefits package than general


______Police officers and firefighters in this city have a worse benefits package than general employees. (Score = 5)

4. Discipline ______Police officers and firefighters in this city are treated the same as general employees

when it comes to discipline. (Score = 0)

______Police officers and firefighters in this city are treated better than general employees when it comes to discipline. (Score = 5)

______Police officers and firefighters in this city are treated worse than general employees when

it comes to discipline. (Score = 5)

(ov er)

ROBINSON 11

Part 2: For each statement below, please circle the phrase that best indicates your feelings. If you are completing this survey electronically, please underline the phrase that best indicates your

feelings.

5. The relationship between police officers, firefighters and general employees is very good. 5 points 3 points 0 points -3 points -5 points


6. Police officers, firefighters and general employees in this city work well together when

compensation issues are being determined. 5 points 3 points 0 points -3 points -5 points


7. Police officers and firefighters in this city often try to get additional compensation at the

expense of the general employees. 0 points 0 points 0 points 3 points 5 points


8. General employees in this city often try to get additional compensation at the expense of the

police officers and firefighters. 0 points 0 points 0 points 3 points 5 points


9. There is an adversarial relationship between police officers, firefighters and general

employees in this city. -5 points -3 points 0 points 3 points 5 points


Part 3: Demographic Information. Please fill in the blanks.

1. How many years have you served with the City?

2. What is your gender?

3. How old are you?

4. What is your ethnicity?

Thank you for participating in this surv ey!

ROBINSON 12

Data Overview

Thirteen cities were asked to participate in the survey. Six declined to

participate. One city responded that the general employees already felt that

public safety employees received favorable treatment and that the survey would

create more hard feelings. Another city was getting ready to start Collective

Bargaining and felt that the Police and Firefighters would see participation in the

survey as an attempt to subvert the process. One city responded that the subject

matter was too controversial. Three cities declined to participate with no

explanation. One city agreed to participate, but then after the surveys were sent

for distribution, failed to follow through with participation and failed to respond to

any follow up requests.

Six cities agreed to participate and surveys were sent to those cities. A

total number of 96 surveys were returned from Chapter 143 cities for a return

rate of 80% and 93 from non-Chapter 143 cities for a total of 77.5%. Eighty-

seven (87) surveys, or 72.5%, returned were from Police Officers and

Firefighters. One hundred two (102) were from General employees for a return

rate of 85%. Seventy-eight (78) surveys, or 41.3% were from women; 93

surveys, or 49.2%, were from men. A total of 189 surveys were returned for a

return rate of 78.8%.

ROBINSON 13

The return rate for each city is shown in Table 1 and Chart 1.

City Chapter

143

Police/Fire % General % Total %

Carrollton Yes 5 25% 12 60% 17 42.5%

Fort Worth Yes 15 75% 33 165% 48 120%

Mesquite Yes 9 45% 22 110% 31 77.5%

Rowlett No 19 95% 15 75% 34 85%

W4 No 31 155% 13 65% 44 110%

Cleburne No 8 40% 7 35% 15 37.5%

Table 1: Return rate of surveys by city

4 One participating City asked to be identified only by its init ial.

ROBINSON 14

Surveys Returned

5

15

9

19

31

8

12

33

22

15

13

7

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Carrollton Fort Worth Mesquite Rowlett W[1] Cleburne

city

nu

mb

er

General

Police/Fire

Chart 1: Return rate of surveys by city.

The age of persons taking the survey ranged from 20 to 77. The length of

employee tenure ranged from 0 to 33 years. The ethnicity of the participants is

detailed in Table 2 and Chart 2.

Ethnicity # Respondents Percentage

Caucasian 139 73.5%

Hispanic 25 13.2%

African American 6 3.2%

Asian/Pacific Islander 6 3.2%

Native American 2 1.1%

Table 2: Ethnicity of respondents

ROBINSON 15

# Respondents

79%

14%

3%3% 1%

Caucasian

Hispanic

African American

Asian/Pacific Islander

Native American

Chart 2: Ethnicity of respondents

The main research question was whether or not the relationship between

Police Officers, Firefighters (Public Safety) and General Employees is more

adversarial in Chapter 143 cities than in non-chapter 143 cities. Data was

analyzed to determine if other factors, such as gender, ethnicity, length of tenure,

age, population of the city and type of employee had an effect on the type of

relationship.

A Pearson’s Correlation Coefficient Matrix was developed for all the

factors. The resulting matrix is shown in Appendix 1. According to the matrix,

respondents from Chapter 143 cities were more likely to indicate a difference in

the level of treatment between Public Safety Employees and General

ROBINSON 16

Employees. The correlation coefficient between Chapter 143 status and

―Difference of Treatment‖ was 0.54. Respondents from Chapter 143 cities were

also more likely to indicate that there was a difference in the leave policies for

General and Public Safety Employees, with a correlation coefficient of 0.51. In

addition, there was a correlation between the city’s Chapter 143 status and the

perception of the type of benefits received by the two employee groups. The

correlation coefficient for this relationship was 0.40.

Also according to the matrix, there is a correlation between a city’s

Chapter 143 status and the level of antagonism between the two employee

groups. The correlation coefficient between Chapter 143 status and antagonism

level was 0.42.

The level of antagonism also showed a correlation with the ―Difference in

Treatment‖ score, with a correlation coefficient of 0.45. The level of antagonism

also showed a correlation with the size of population, but no significance can be

derived since the three largest cities surveyed were all Chapter 143 cities.

Whether or not the respondent was a general employee or a public safety

employee was shown to have a correlation with the perception of difference in

level of pay. General employees were more likely to say that the two groups were

paid at different levels. The correlation coefficient for this relationship was 0.44.

Chapter 143 vs. Non-143

An Analysis of Variance was performed to test the hypothesis that the

Level of Antagonism was greater in Chapter 143 cities vs. that of non-Chapter

ROBINSON 17

143 cities. The Analysis of Variance Report is shown in Appendix 2. With an F-

ratio of 33.60, the null hypothesis, that the level of antagonism was the same in

the two types of cities, was rejected. The level of antagonism is likely to be

greater in Chapter 143 cities than in non-Chapter 143 cities.

A second Analysis of Variance was performed to test the hypothesis that

employees in Chapter 143 cities were more likely to respond that there was a

difference in the way the two employee groups are treated. This report is shown

as Appendix 3. With an F-ratio of 64.80, the null hypothesis, that there would be

no difference in responses between the two types of cities, was rejected.

Employees in Chapter 143 cities are more likely to respond that there is a

difference in the way the two employee groups are treated.

A third Analysis of Variance Report was performed to test the hypothesis

that the Level of Antagonism would increase as the Perception of Difference in

Treatment increased. The results are shown in Appendix 4. With an F-ratio of

71.51, the null hypothesis, that there is no difference in the level of antagonism

between the different in treatment Scores, was rejected. The level of antagonism

is likely to be greater among employees who perceive a difference in treatment

between the two employee groups.

A Chi-Square analysis was performed to test the relationship between

Chapter 143 status and the experimental variables. The analysis showed that

the standard deviation for level of antagonism between Chapter 143 cities and

non-143 cities was outside the value predicted by chance. The results of all the

Chi-Square Analyses are shown in Appendix 11.

ROBINSON 18

Further analysis showed that the results for perception of difference in

treatment between Public Safety and General Employees was outside the value

predicted by chance. In other words, in Chapter 143 cities, employees were more

likely to feel that Public Safety employees were treated differently than General

Employees (Chart 3).

Treatment

6

17

23

30

2023

41

20

8

1

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

0 5 10 15 20

Degree of difference

# o

f re

sp

on

se

s

Chapter 143

Non Chapter 143

Chart 3: Perception of level of difference by city status

Chi-Square analyses of the survey questions showed that in Chapter 143

cities, employees were less likely to believe that the relationship between the two

employee groups was good (Chart 4) and that the two employee groups work

well together when compensation issues are being determined (Chart 5). They

were more likely to believe that Public Safety Employees try to get additional

compensation at the expense of General Employees (Chart 6) and were more

likely to say that the relationship between the two employee groups is adversarial

(Chart 8).

ROBINSON 19

The relationship between police officers, firefighters and general employees is very good.

10

16

19

34

17

4

10

6

31

41

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

strongly disagree disagree neutral agree strongly agree

Chapter 143

Non Chapter 143

Chart 4: Responses to Question 5 by city status.

General Employees in this city often try to get additional compensation at the expense of

the police officers and firefighters.

50

24

17

23

31

18

30

9

5

0

10

20

30

40

50

60


Chapter 143

Non Chapter 143

Chart 5: Responses to Question 6 by city status

ROBINSON 20

Police Officers and Firefighters in this city often try to get additional

compensation at the expense of the general employees.

22

9

11

28

26

47

17

23

3 3

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50


Chapter 143

Non Chapter 143

Chart 6: Responses to Question 7 b y city status

General employees in this city often try to get additional compensation at the expense of the police officers and

firefighters.

50

24

17

23

31

18

30

9

5

0

10

20

30

40

50

60


Chapter 143

Non Chapter 143

Chart 7: Responses to Question 8 by city status

ROBINSON 21

There is an adversarial relationship between police officers, firefighters and general employees in

this city.

19

16

24

29

8

38

14

26

14

00

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40


Chapter 143

Non Chapter 143

Chart 8: Responses to Question 9 by city status.

ROBINSON 22

General vs. Public Safety

An Analysis of Variance was conducted to test the hypothes is that the

level of antagonism differed between General Employees and Public Safety

Employees. The results are shown in Appendix 5. With an F-ratio of 18.93, the

null hypothesis, that there is no difference in level of antagonism between the two

employee groups, is rejected. The level of antagonism is likely to be higher

among General Employees than among Public Safety Employees.

Another Analysis of Variance was conducted to test the hypothesis that

perception in the difference of treatment differs between the two employee

groups. The results are shown in Appendix 6. With an F-ratio of 13.48, the null

hypothesis, that there is no difference in the perception of difference of treatment,

between the two employee groups is rejected. General Employees are more

likely to perceive a difference in the way the two employee groups are treated

than Public Safety employees (Chart 9).

A Chi-Square analysis showed that there was no significant difference

between General Employees and Public Safety employees as to whether the two

groups had a good relationship (Chart 10). Neither was there any difference in

the way the two groups responded to the question about how well the groups

work together when determining compensation issues (Chart 11). General

employees were much more likely to say that Public Safety employees often try

to get additional compensation at the expense of the General employees (Chart

12). General employees were slightly more likely to say that the relationship

between the two groups was antagonistic (Chart 14).

ROBINSON 23

Perception of Difference in Treatment by General and Police/Fire Employees

7

31

2324

16

22

27

20

14

5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0 5 10 15 20

Difference in treatment

Nu

mb

er

General

Police/Fire

Chart 9: Perception of Difference in Treatment by employee type

ROBINSON 24

The relationship between police officers, firefighters and general employees is very good.

10

16 16

3029

5

109

35

29

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40


General

Police/Fire

Chart 10: Responses to Question 5 by employee type

ROBINSON 25

Police officers, firefighters and general employees in this city work well together when compensation

issues are being determined.

2122

33

14

89

16

31

25

6

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35


General

Police/Fire


Police officers and firefighters in this city often try to get additional compensation at the expense of the general

employees.

20

9

19

25

28

49

1715

6

0

10

20

30

40

50

60


General

Police/Fire


ROBINSON 26

General employees in this city often try to get additional compensation at the expense of the police

officers and firefighters.

52

25

17

5

2

29

17

30

6 6

0

10

20

30

40

50

60


General

Police/Fire


There is an adversarial relationship between police officers, firefighters and general

employees in this city.

24

11

2829

8

33

19

22

14

0

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35


General

Police/Fire


Gender

An Analysis of Variance showed no significant correlation between gender

and the level of antagonism perceived between the two groups. See Appendix 7

ROBINSON 27

for this report. With an F-ratio of 2.77, there is a failure to reject the null

hypothesis that the level of antagonism is the same for males and females.

An Analysis of Variance, Appendix 8, showed no significant correlation

between gender and the difference in treatment. With an F-ratio of 3.63, there is

a failure to reject the null hypothesis that the perception in difference of treatment

is the same for males and females.

A Chi-Square analysis showed no significant difference between males

and females as to whether they thought Public Safety employees received

different treatment from General Employees. There was also no significant

difference, according to the Chi-Square analysis, between males and females as

to how they viewed the relationship between Public Safety and General

employees. Nor was there any difference in the way the two groups responded to

the question about how well the groups work together when determining

compensation issues. Females were slightly more likely than males to say that

Public Safety Employees try to get additional compensation at the expense of the

General Employees—although that could be accounted for by the fact that only

11% of the Public Safety employees who responded were female. Males and

females were equally likely to say that the relationship between the two groups is

antagonistic.

Ethnicity

Seventy-eight percent of the respondents were Caucasian, which means it

is difficult to draw any firm conclusions about the effect of ethnicity on the survey

ROBINSON 28

results. However, an Analysis of Variance, Appendix 9, showed no significant

correlation between ethnicity and the level of antagonism perceived between

Public Safety and General Employees. With an F-ratio of 0.47, there is a failure

to reject the null hypothesis that the level of antagonism is the same among the

different ethnic groups.

An Analysis of Variance, Appendix 10, on the perception of difference in

treatment among the ethnic groups also showed no significant correlation

between ethnicity and the difference of treatment. With an F-ratio of 1.08, there is

a failure to reject the null hypothesis that different ethnic groups are likely to have

the same perception of treatment levels.

Likewise, a Chi-Square analysis showed no difference among ethnic

groups in the perception of treatment of the two employee groups. There was no

significant difference among ethnic groups as to how they viewed the relationship

between Public Safety and General employees. Nor was there any difference in

the way the different ethnic groups responded to the question about how well the

groups work together when determining compensation issues. Respondents of

all ethnic groups were equally likely to say that Public Safety employees try to get

additional compensation at the expense of General Employees and vice versa,

and they were equally likely to say that the relationship between the two groups

is antagonistic.

ROBINSON 29

Tenure

The Pearson’s Correlation Matrix showed no significant correlation

between length of tenure and degree of antagonism between the two employee

groups.

Age

The Pearson’s Correlation Matrix showed no significant correlation

between employee age and degree of antagonism between the two employee

groups. The Chi-Square analysis showed no relationship between age and any

of the survey responses.

Conclusion

A city’s 143 status has a direct correlation to an adversarial relationship

between police officers and firefighters and general employees. Indications are

that one reason for this antagonism is the perceived disparity of treatment

between the two groups. There is a slight correlation between the type of

employee and the level of antagonism: General Employees are slightly more

likely than Public Safety Employees to report antagonism between the two

groups. Survey results showed that gender, age, tenure and ethnicity had no

significant relationship to the level of antagonism between the two groups.

As public administrators are making decisions affecting general

employees and public safety employees, they need to keep in mind that a

difference in treatment between the two groups can lead to a higher degree of

ROBINSON 30

antagonism, which can affect working relationships. However, an adversarial

relationship between the two groups can be advantageous for public

administrators when making compensation decisions. If the general employees in

Texas are also brought into the Civil Service system, as they are in other states,

it could facilitate a more cooperative relationship between the two groups and

result in them joining together against management when compensation issues

are being made.

ROBINSON 31

Appendix 1

Pearson’s Correlation Coefficient Matrix

Correlation Report Page/Date/Time 1 4/28/2003 4:52:45 PM Database C:\My Documents\URPA Applied Research\Projec t19.S0 Pearson Correlations Section (Row-Wise Deletion) Chapter_143 General Pay Leave Benefits Discipline Chapter_143 1.000000 0.320572 0.175955 0.517099 0.403508 0.302936 0.000000 0.000020 0.021723 0.000000 0.000000 0.000059 170.000000 170.000000 170.000000 170.000000 170.000000 170.000000 General 0.320572 1.000000 0.442580 0.126471 0.187619 -0.066050 0.000020 0.000000 0.000000 0.100297 0.014286 0.392129 170.000000 170.000000 170.000000 170.000000 170.000000 170.000000 Pay_Score 0.175955 0.442580 1.000000 0.049722 0.180667 0.059064 0.021723 0.000000 0.000000 0.519632 0.018391 0.444220 170.000000 170.000000 170.000000 170.000000 170.000000 170.000000 Leave_Score 0.517099 0.126471 0.049722 1.000000 0.581914 0.258878 0.000000 0.100297 0.519632 0.000000 0.000000 0.000653 170.000000 170.000000 170.000000 170.000000 170.000000 170.000000 Benefits_Score 0.403508 0.187619 0.180667 0.581914 1.000000 0.160071 0.000000 0.014286 0.018391 0.000000 0.000000 0.037057 170.000000 170.000000 170.000000 170.000000 170.000000 170.000000 Discipline_Score 0.302936 -0.066050 0.059064 0.258878 0.160071 1.000000 0.000059 0.392129 0.444220 0.000653 0.037057 0.000000 170.000000 170.000000 170.000000 170.000000 170.000000 170.000000 Treatment 0.547008 0.264518 0.496721 0.740237 0.738790 0.588982 0.000000 0.000491 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 170.000000 170.000000 170.000000 170.000000 170.000000 170.000000 Antagonism 0.421800 0.295616 0.233349 0.306388 0.394392 0.217314 0.000000 0.000091 0.002195 0.000048 0.000000 0.004419 170.000000 170.000000 170.000000 170.000000 170.000000 170.000000 Years 0.229412 -0.184327 -0.023416 -0.067538 -0.028634 0.092537 0.002618 0.016117 0.761816 0.381521 0.710890 0.230058 170.000000 170.000000 170.000000 170.000000 170.000000 170.000000 Gender 0.147942 0.613461 0.258010 0.050081 0.106323 -0.015185 0.054192 0.000000 0.000681 0.516615 0.167596 0.844192 170.000000 170.000000 170.000000 170.000000 170.000000 170.000000 Age 0.222696 0.238947 0.194109 -0.075945 0.043768 0.038566 0.003512 0.001701 0.011201 0.324959 0.570903 0.617557 170.000000 170.000000 170.000000 170.000000 170.000000 170.000000 Ethnicit y 0.124980 0.291037 0.215488 0.038870 -0.064773 -0.086917 0.104399 0.000118 0.004771 0.614785 0.401366 0.259727 170.000000 170.000000 170.000000 170.000000 170.000000 170.000000 Population 0.747168 0.241273 0.105877 0.425089 0.497119 0.261282 0.000000 0.001527 0.169396 0.000000 0.000000 0.000578 170.000000 170.000000 170.000000 170.000000 170.000000 170.000000 Cronbachs Alpha = 0.000145 Standardized Cronbachs Alpha = 0.781523

ROBINSON 32

Correlation Report Page/Date/Time 2 4/28/2003 4:52:45 PM Database C:\My Documents\URPA Applied Research\Project19.S0 Pearson Correlations Section (Row-Wise Deletion) Treatment Antagonism Years Gender Age Ethnicit y Chapter_143 0.547008 0.421800 0.229412 0.147942 0.222696 0.124980 0.000000 0.000000 0.002618 0.054192 0.003512 0.104399 170.000000 170.000000 170.000000 170.000000 170.000000 170.000000 General 0.264518 0.295616 -0.184327 0.613461 0.238947 0.291037 0.000491 0.000091 0.016117 0.000000 0.001701 0.000118 170.000000 170.000000 170.000000 170.000000 170.000000 170.000000 Pay_Score 0.496721 0.233349 -0.023416 0.258010 0.194109 0.215488 0.000000 0.002195 0.761816 0.000681 0.011201 0.004771 170.000000 170.000000 170.000000 170.000000 170.000000 170.000000 Leave_Score 0.740237 0.306388 -0.067538 0.050081 -0.075945 0.038870 0.000000 0.000048 0.381521 0.516615 0.324959 0.614785 170.000000 170.000000 170.000000 170.000000 170.000000 170.000000 Benefits_Score 0.738790 0.394392 -0.028634 0.106323 0.043768 -0.064773 0.000000 0.000000 0.710890 0.167596 0.570903 0.401366 170.000000 170.000000 170.000000 170.000000 170.000000 170.000000 Discipline_Score 0.588982 0.217314 0.092537 -0.015185 0.038566 -0.086917 0.000000 0.004419 0.230058 0.844192 0.617557 0.259727 170.000000 170.000000 170.000000 170.000000 170.000000 170.000000 Treatment 1.000000 0.446861 -0.009429 0.152999 0.076287 0.039631 0.000000 0.000000 0.902868 0.046383 0.322779 0.607873 170.000000 170.000000 170.000000 170.000000 170.000000 170.000000 Antagonism 0.446861 1.000000 0.112416 0.118593 0.149010 -0.047226 0.000000 0.000000 0.144417 0.123488 0.052458 0.540836 170.000000 170.000000 170.000000 170.000000 170.000000 170.000000 Years -0.009429 0.112416 1.000000 -0.145087 0.486554 -0.128953 0.902868 0.144417 0.000000 0.059060 0.000000 0.093751 170.000000 170.000000 170.000000 170.000000 170.000000 170.000000 Gender 0.152999 0.118593 -0.145087 1.000000 0.157206 0.213408 0.046383 0.123488 0.059060 0.000000 0.040624 0.005202 170.000000 170.000000 170.000000 170.000000 170.000000 170.000000 Age 0.076287 0.149010 0.486554 0.157206 1.000000 0.051940 0.322779 0.052458 0.000000 0.040624 0.000000 0.501160 170.000000 170.000000 170.000000 170.000000 170.000000 170.000000 Ethnicit y 0.039631 -0.047226 -0.128953 0.213408 0.051940 1.000000 0.607873 0.540836 0.093751 0.005202 0.501160 0.000000 170.000000 170.000000 170.000000 170.000000 170.000000 170.000000 Population 0.501097 0.408576 0.247232 0.120785 0.219212 0.076910 0.000000 0.000000 0.001153 0.116653 0.004078 0.318833 170.000000 170.000000 170.000000 170.000000 170.000000 170.000000 Cronbachs Alpha = 0.000145 Standardized Cronbachs Alpha = 0.781523

ROBINSON 33

Correlation Report Page/Date/Time 3 4/28/2003 4:52:45 PM Database C:\My Documents\URPA Applied Research\Project19.S0 Pearson Correlations Section (Row-Wise Deletion) Population Chapter_143 0.747168 0.000000 170.000000 General 0.241273 0.001527 170.000000 Pay_Score 0.105877 0.169396 170.000000 Leave_Score 0.425089 0.000000 170.000000 Benefits_Score 0.497119 0.000000 170.000000 Discipline_Score 0.261282 0.000578 170.000000 Treatment 0.501097 0.000000 170.000000 Antagonism 0.408576 0.000000 170.000000 Years 0.247232 0.001153 170.000000 Gender 0.120785 0.116653 170.000000 Age 0.219212 0.004078 170.000000 Ethnicit y 0.076910 0.318833 170.000000 Population 1.000000 0.000000 170.000000 Cronbachs Alpha = 0.000145 Standardized Cronbachs Alpha = 0.781523

ROBINSON 34

Appendix 2

Analysis of Variance for Chapter 143 Cities vs. Non-Chapter 143 Cities and

Level of Antagonism

Analysis of Variance Report Page/Date/Time 1 4/28/2003 5:23:48 PM

Database C:\My Documents\URPA Applied Research\Project19.S0 Response Antagonism

Expected Mean Squares Section

Source Term Denominator Expected Term DF Fixed? Term Mean Square A: Chapter_143 1 Yes S S+sA S 187 No S

Note: Expected Mean Squares are for the balanced cell -frequency case.

Analysis of Variance Table Source Sum of Mean Prob Power

Term DF Squares Square F-Ratio Lev el (Alpha=0.05) A: Chapter_143 1 2251.328 2251.328 33.60 0.000000* 0.999929 S 187 12530.97 67.01052

Total (Adjusted) 188 14782.3 Total 189

* Term significant at alpha = 0.05

Means and Effects Section Standard

Term Count Mean Error Effect All 189 -0.7407407 -0.7955309

A: Chapter_143 0 93 -4.247312 0.8488482 -3.451781

1 96 2.65625 0.8354797 3.451781

Plots Section

-15.00

-6.25

2.50

11.25

20.00

0 1

Means of Antagonism

Chapter_143

An

tag

on

ism

ROBINSON 35

Appendix 3

Analysis of Variance Report for Difference in Treatment Between Chapter

143 Cities and Non-143 Cities


Database C:\My Documents\URPA Applied Research\Project19.S0 Response Treatment


Source Term Denominator Expected Term DF Fixed? Term Mean Square A: Chapter_143 1 Yes S S+sA S 187 No S



Term DF Squares Square F-Ratio Lev el (Alpha=0.05) A: Chapter_143 1 1860.149 1860.149 64.80 0.000000* 1.000000 S 187 5368.422 28.70814




Term Count Mean Error Effect All 189 9.047619 8.997816

A: Chapter_143 0 93 5.860215 0.5555985 -3.137601

1 96 12.13542 0.5468484 3.137601

Plots Section

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

0 1

Means of Treatment

Chapter_143

Tre

atm

en

t

ROBINSON 36

Appendix 4

Analysis of Variance Between Difference of Treatment and Level of

Antagonism




Source Term Denominator Expected Term DF Fixed? Term Mean Square A: Treatment 4 Yes S S+sA S 1552 No S



Term DF Squares Square F-Ratio Lev el (Alpha=0.05) A: Treatment 4 2314.747 578.6868 71.51 0.000000* 1.000000 S 1552 12558.66 8.091923




Term Count Mean Error Effect All 1557 -0.0899165 1.019333

A: Treatment 0 1397 -0.1009306 7.610754E-02 -1.120263

5 58 -3.827586 0.3735183 -4.846919 10 43 -1.162791 0.4338021 -2.182123

15 38 3.473684 0.46146 2.454352 20 21 6.714286 0.6207493 5.694953

Plots Section

-15.00

-6.25

2.50

11.25

20.00

0 5 10 15 20

Means of Antagonism

Treatment

An

tag

on

ism

ROBINSON 37

Appendix 5

Analysis of Variance Between General and Public Safety Employees and

Level of Antagonism




Source Term Denominator Expected Term DF Fixed? Term Mean Square A: General 1 Yes S S+sA S 187 No S



Term DF Squares Square F-Ratio Lev el (Alpha=0.05) A: General 1 1359.136 1359.136 18.93 0.000022* 0.991081 S 187 13423.16 71.78161





A: General 0 88 -3.613636 0.9031612 -2.688006

1 101 1.762376 0.8430356 2.688006

Plots Section

-15.00

-6.25

2.50

11.25

20.00

0 1

Means of Antagonism

General

An

tag

on

ism

ROBINSON 38

Appendix 6 Analysis of Variance Between Employee Type and Difference in Treatment




Source Term Denominator Expected Term DF Fixed? Term Mean Square A: General 1 Yes S S+sA S 187 No S



Term DF Squares Square F-Ratio Lev el (Alpha=0.05) A: General 1 486.0787 486.0787 13.48 0.000314* 0.954752 S 187 6742.493 36.05611





A: General 0 88 7.329545 0.6401004 -1.607504

1 101 10.54455 0.5974874 1.607504

Plots Section

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

0 1

Means of Treatment

General

Tre

atm

en

t

ROBINSON 39

Appendix 7 Analysis of Variance Between Males and Females and Levels of

Antagonism Analysis of Variance Report Page/Date/Time 1 4/28/2003 7:35:11 PM Database C:\My Documents\URPA Applied Research\Project28.S0

Response Antagonism

Expected Mean Squares Section Source Term Denominator Expected

Term DF Fixed? Term Mean Square A: Gender 1 Yes S S+sA

S 183 No S Note: Expected Mean Squares are for the balanced cell -frequency case.

Analysis of Variance Table

Source Sum of Mean Prob Power Term DF Squares Square F-Ratio Lev el

(Alpha=0.05) A: Gender 1 217.3273 217.3273 2.77 0.097635 0.380807

S 183 14347.13 78.3996 Total (Adjusted) 184 14564.45

Total 185 * Term significant at alpha = 0.05

Means and Effects Section

Standard Term Count Mean Error Effect All 185 -0.8432432 -0.7432225 A: Gender

0 101 -1.831683 0.8810412 -1.088461 1 84 0.3452381 0.9660893 1.088461

Plots Section

-15.00

-6.25

2.50

11.25

20.00

0 1

Means of Antagonism

Gender

An

tag

on

ism

ROBINSON 40

Appendix 8

Analysis of Variance Between Males and Females and Difference of Treatment

Analysis of Variance Report Page/Date/Time 1 4/28/2003 7:41:12 PM Database C:\My Documents\URPA Applied Research\Project28.S0

Response Treatment

Expected Mean Squares Section Source Term Denominator Expected

Term DF Fixed? Term Mean Square A: Gender 1 Yes S S+sA

S 183 No S Note: Expected Mean Squares are for the balanced cell -frequency case.

Analysis of Variance Table

Source Sum of Mean Prob Power Term DF Squares Square F-Ratio Lev el

(Alpha=0.05) A: Gender 1 136.0897 136.0897 3.63 0.058191 0.474635

S 183 6853.91 37.45306 Total (Adjusted) 184 6990

Total 185 * Term significant at alpha = 0.05

Means and Effects Section

Standard Term Count Mean Error Effect All 185 9 9.079149 A: Gender

0 101 8.217822 0.6089519 -0.8613272 1 84 9.940476 0.6677348 0.8613272

Plots Section

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

0 1

Means of Treatment

Gender

Tre

atm

en

t

ROBINSON 41

Appendix 9 Analysis of Variance of Antagonism Level Among Ethnic Groups




Source Term Denominator Expected Term DF Fixed? Term Mean Square A: Ethnicity 4 Yes S S+sA S 175 No S



Term DF Squares Square F-Ratio Lev el (Alpha=0.05) A: Ethnicity 4 153.5158 38.37894 0.47 0.757907 0.159605 S 175 14298.48 81.70563

Total (Adjusted) 179 14452 Total 180




A: Ethnicity Caucasian (0) 141 -0.6312057 0.7612309 1.722728

Hispanic (1) 26 -3.846154E-02 1.772717 2.315472 African American (2) 5 -0.6 4.042416 1.753933

Asian (3) 6 -1.5 3.690204 0.8539335 Native American (4) 2 -9 6.391621 -6.646067

Plots Section

-15.00

-6.25

2.50

11.25

20.00

0 1 2 3 4

Means of Antagonism

Ethnicity

An

tag

on

ism

ROBINSON 42

Appendix 10 Analysis of Variance Between Ethnic Groups and Difference of Treatment




Source Term Denominator Expected Term DF Fixed? Term Mean Square A: Ethnicity 4 Yes S S+sA S 175 No S



Term DF Squares Square F-Ratio Lev el (Alpha=0.05) A: Ethnicity 4 165.3801 41.34502 1.08 0.365935 0.336975 S 175 6674.064 38.13751





A: Ethnicity 0 141 8.687943 0.5200757 -0.2752864

1 26 10.96154 1.211126 1.998309 2 5 11 2.761793 2.03677

3 6 9.166667 2.521161 0.203437 4 2 5 4.366778 -3.96323

Plots Section

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

0 1 2 3 4

Means of Treatment

Ethnicity

Tre

atm

en

t

ROBINSON 43

Appendix 11 Cross Tabulations Between Experimental Factors

Cross Tabulation Report Page/Date/Time 1 4/28/2003 5:56:19 PM Database C:\My Documents\URPA Applied Research\Project19.S0

Counts Section

Chapter_143 Treatment 0 1 Total 0 23 6 29 5 41 17 58

10 20 23 43 15 8 30 38

20 1 20 21 Total 93 96 189

The number of rows with at least one missing value is 3645

Chi-Square Statistics Section Chi-Square 49.998150

Degrees of Freedom 4 Probability Level 0.000000 Reject Ho

WARNING: At least one cell had a value less than 5.

Counts Section Chapter_143

Question_5 0 1 Total 1 5 10 15

2 10 16 26 3 6 19 25

4 31 34 65 5 41 17 58

Total 93 96 189 The number of rows with at least one missing value is 3645

Chi-Square Statistics Section Chi-Square 19.838157 Degrees of Freedom 4

Probability Level 0.000538 Reject Ho

ROBINSON 44



2 9 29 38 3 43 21 64

4 20 19 39 5 9 5 14




Counts Section

Chapter_143 Question_7 0 1 Total 1 47 22 69 2 17 9 26

3 23 11 34 4 3 28 31

5 3 26 29 Total 93 96 189




WARNING: At least one cell had a value less than 5.

Counts Section


3 30 17 47 4 9 2 11

5 5 3 8 Total 93 96 189


ROBINSON 45



WARNING: At least one cell had an expected value less than 5.

Counts Section


3 26 24 50 4 14 29 43

5 0 8 8 Total 92 96 188






Antagonism 0 1 Total -15 6 1 7

-13 6 3 9 -11 3 1 4

-10 12 7 19 -9 2 2 4

-8 10 2 12 -7 3 1 4

-6 3 5 8 -5 5 4 9

-4 0 1 1 -3 11 8 19

-2 3 1 4 -1 1 1 2

0 12 4 16 2 1 1 2

3 1 7 8 4 1 1 2

5 3 4 7 6 2 9 11

7 1 1 2 8 0 1 1

9 2 7 9 10 0 6 6

11 1 1 2 12 0 4 4

ROBINSON 46

13 2 2 4 14 1 4 5

16 1 0 1 18 0 4 4

20 0 3 3 Total 93 96 189





Counts Section General

Treatment 0 1 Total 0 22 7 29

5 27 31 58 10 20 23 43

15 14 24 38 20 5 16 21






2 10 16 26 3 9 16 25

4 35 30 65 5 29 29 58


ROBINSON 47


Degrees of Freedom 4 Probability Level 0.339815 Accept Ho



2 16 22 38 3 31 33 64

4 25 14 39 5 6 8 14



Probability Level 0.072664 Accept Ho



2 17 9 26 3 15 19 34

4 6 25 31 5 1 28 29



Probability Level 0.000000 Reject Ho WARNING: At least one cell had a value less than 5.

Counts Section

General Question_8 0 1 Total 1 29 52 81 2 17 25 42

3 30 17 47 4 6 5 11

5 6 2 8 Total 88 101 189


ROBINSON 48




Counts Section

General Question_9 0 1 Total 1 33 24 57 2 19 11 30

3 22 28 50 4 14 29 43

5 0 8 8 Total 88 100 188






Antagonism 0 1 Total -15 4 3 7

-13 6 3 9 -11 4 0 4

-10 7 12 19 -9 4 0 4

-8 10 2 12 -7 3 1 4

-6 4 4 8 -5 4 5 9

-4 0 1 1 -3 12 7 19

-2 1 3 4 -1 1 1 2

0 6 10 16 2 1 1 2

3 4 4 8 4 0 2 2

5 5 2 7 6 2 9 11

7 1 1 2 8 0 1 1

9 4 5 9 10 0 6 6

11 2 0 2 12 1 3 4

13 2 2 4 14 0 5 5

ROBINSON 49

16 0 1 1 18 0 4 4

20 0 3 3 Total 88 101 189



Probability Level 0.006323 Reject Ho WARNING: At least one cell had an expected value less than 5. Counts Section Years

Treatment Up To 0 0 To 7 7 To 14 14 To 21 21 To 28 28 To 35 Total 0 0 13 8 5 1 1 28 5 0 33 9 10 4 2 58 10 1 21 11 8 2 0 43 15 1 22 9 5 0 0 37

20 0 8 5 5 2 0 20 Total 2 97 42 33 9 3 186 The number of rows with at leas t one missing value is 3648

Chi-Square Statistics Section Chi-Square 14.116346 Degrees of Freedom 20 Probability Level 0.824548 Accept Ho

WARNING: At least one cell had an expected value less than 5. Counts Section Years

Question_5 Up To 0 0 To 5 5 To 10 10 To 15 15 To 20 20 To 25 Total 1 1 3 4 2 4 1 15 2 1 11 7 3 2 1 26 3 0 9 8 4 2 0 24 4 0 32 9 11 7 1 64

5 0 23 14 9 8 2 57 Total 2 78 42 29 23 5 186 The number of rows with at leas t one missing value is 3648 Years

Question_5 25 To 30 30 To 35 Total 1 0 0 15 2 1 0 26 3 1 0 24 4 2 2 64

5 0 1 57 Total 4 3 186 The number of rows with at leas t one missing value is 3648


WARNING: At least one cell had an expected value less than 5. Counts Section Years

Question_6 Up To 0 0 To 4 4 To 8 8 To 12 12 To 16 16 To 19 Total 1 0 7 7 6 4 2 30

ROBINSON 50

2 1 5 12 5 3 6 36 3 1 23 16 9 8 3 64 4 0 9 11 2 8 1 38

5 0 5 2 3 1 2 14 Total 2 49 48 25 24 14 182 The number of rows with at leas t one missing value is 3652 Years

Question_6 19 To 23 23 To 27 27 To 31 31 To 35 Total 1 2 2 0 0 30 2 2 2 0 0 36 3 3 0 1 0 64 4 4 1 1 1 38

5 1 0 0 0 14 Total 12 5 2 1 182 The number of rows with at leas t one missing value is 3652


WARNING: At least one cell had an expected value less than 5. Counts Section Years Question_7 Up To 0 0 To 3 3 To 6 6 To 10 10 To 13 13 To 16 Total

1 1 17 17 6 4 9 68 2 1 5 6 4 3 4 26 3 0 9 10 6 2 2 34 4 0 8 6 3 4 1 29 5 0 5 5 6 3 4 29

Total 2 44 44 25 16 20 186 The number of rows with at leas t one missing value is 3648 Years Question_7 16 To 19 19 To 22 22 To 25 25 To 29 29 To 32 32 To 35 Total

1 7 4 1 1 1 0 68 2 0 1 1 1 0 0 26 3 2 2 0 0 0 1 34 4 4 1 0 1 1 0 29 5 1 3 1 1 0 0 29

Total 14 11 3 4 2 1 186 The number of rows with at leas t one missing value is 3648

Chi-Square Statistics Section Chi-Square 31.130928 Degrees of Freedom 44 Probability Level 0.928041 Accept Ho WARNING: At least one cell had an expected value less than 5.

Counts Section Years Question_8 Up To 0 0 To 3 3 To 5 5 To 8 8 To 11 11 To 13 Total

1 1 21 16 11 8 5 80 2 1 3 9 7 5 2 40 3 0 5 15 5 3 4 47 4 0 2 5 2 1 0 11 5 0 0 2 1 0 1 8

Total 2 31 47 26 17 12 186 The number of rows with at leas t one missing value is 3648 Years Question_8 13 To 16 16 To 19 19 To 22 22 To 24 24 To 27 27 To 30 Total

1 5 3 5 2 2 0 80 2 5 2 2 1 1 2 40

ROBINSON 51

3 8 2 3 0 0 0 47 4 0 0 0 1 0 0 11 5 2 1 1 0 0 0 8

Total 20 8 11 4 3 2 186 The number of rows with at leas t one missing value is 3648 Years Question_8 30 To 32 32 To 35 Total

1 1 0 80 2 0 0 40 3 1 1 47 4 0 0 11 5 0 0 8

Total 2 1 186 The number of rows with at leas t one missing value is 3648

Chi-Square Statistics Section Chi-Square 44.003094 Degrees of Freedom 52 Probability Level 0.776998 Accept Ho WARNING: At least one cell had an expected value less than 5.

Counts Section Years Question_9 Up To 0 0 To 2 2 To 5 5 To 7 7 To 9 9 To 12 Total 1 1 12 10 8 3 3 57

2 0 2 8 5 3 0 29 3 0 8 12 12 4 4 49 4 1 5 8 6 3 5 42 5 0 1 0 0 2 0 8 Total 2 28 38 31 15 12 185

The number of rows with at leas t one missing value is 3649 Years Question_9 12 To 14 14 To 16 16 To 19 19 To 21 21 To 23 23 To 26 Total 1 3 8 4 4 1 0 57

2 0 3 2 2 2 1 29 3 2 3 0 2 0 0 49 4 9 0 0 2 0 0 42 5 0 0 2 1 1 0 8 Total 14 14 8 11 4 1 185

The number of rows with at leas t one missing value is 3649 Years Question_9 26 To 28 30 To 33 33 To 35 Total 1 0 0 0 57

2 0 1 0 29 3 1 0 1 49 4 2 1 0 42 5 1 0 0 8 Total 4 2 1 185

The number of rows with at leas t one missing value is 3649 Chi-Square Statistics Section

Chi-Square 83.607146 Degrees of Freedom 56 Probability Level 0.009820 Reject Ho WARNING: At least one cell had an expected value less than 5.

Counts Section Years Antagonism Up To 0 0 To 2 2 To 4 4 To 6 6 To 8 8 To 10 Total -15 0 2 1 1 0 1 7 -13 0 2 1 1 1 0 9

-11 0 0 1 0 1 0 4 -10 1 5 1 2 2 1 19

ROBINSON 52

-9 0 0 3 0 0 0 4 -8 0 1 3 0 2 1 12 -7 0 1 2 0 0 0 4

-6 0 2 1 0 2 0 8 -5 0 2 2 2 0 0 9 -4 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 -3 0 2 4 3 1 1 18 -2 0 0 2 1 0 0 3

-1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 4 3 2 3 16 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 3 0 2 0 1 1 0 8 4 0 0 2 0 0 0 2

5 0 1 1 2 0 0 7 6 0 1 3 3 0 0 10 7 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 8 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 9 1 1 2 1 1 1 9

10 0 1 0 0 1 2 6 11 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 12 0 0 0 1 1 1 4 13 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 14 0 1 1 0 1 1 5

16 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 18 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 20 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 Total 2 28 36 24 16 16 186 The number of rows with at leas t one missing value is 3648

Counts Section Years Antagonism 10 To 12 12 To 14 14 To 16 16 To 19 19 To 21 21 To 23 Total

-15 0 0 1 0 0 1 7 -13 0 1 2 0 1 0 9 -11 0 0 1 0 0 1 4 -10 2 0 1 2 2 0 19 -9 0 0 0 0 0 0 4

-8 0 2 2 0 0 0 12 -7 0 0 0 0 1 0 4 -6 0 0 1 0 1 0 8 -5 0 0 1 1 1 0 9 -4 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

-3 1 1 1 2 1 0 18 -2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 -1 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 16 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 2

3 1 1 0 0 0 0 8 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 5 1 0 0 1 0 0 7 6 0 0 2 0 0 0 10 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

8 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 0 2 0 0 0 0 9 10 0 1 1 0 0 0 6 11 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 12 1 0 0 0 0 0 4

13 1 1 0 0 0 0 4 14 0 0 0 1 0 0 5 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 18 0 0 0 0 1 0 4 20 0 0 0 1 1 0 3


ROBINSON 53

Counts Section Years

Antagonism 23 To 25 25 To 27 27 To 29 31 To 33 33 To 35 Total -15 0 0 0 0 0 7 -13 0 0 0 0 0 9 -11 0 0 0 0 0 4 -10 0 0 0 0 0 19

-9 0 0 0 1 0 4 -8 0 0 0 0 1 12 -7 0 0 0 0 0 4 -6 1 0 0 0 0 8 -5 0 0 0 0 0 9

-4 0 0 0 0 0 1 -3 0 1 0 0 0 18 -2 0 0 0 0 0 3 -1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 16

2 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 0 1 0 1 0 8 4 0 0 0 0 0 2 5 0 0 1 0 0 7 6 0 0 1 0 0 10

7 0 0 0 0 0 2 8 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 0 0 0 0 0 9 10 0 0 0 0 0 6 11 0 0 0 0 0 2

12 0 0 0 0 0 4 13 0 0 0 0 0 4 14 0 0 0 0 0 5 16 0 0 0 0 0 1 18 1 1 0 0 0 4

20 0 0 0 0 0 3 Total 2 3 2 2 1 186 The number of rows with at leas t one missing value is 3648


WARNING: At least one cell had an expected value less than 5. Counts Section Age Treatment Up To 20 20 To 32 32 To 44 44 To 56 56 To 68 68 To 80 Total

0 0 8 11 8 1 0 28 5 1 9 23 18 5 0 56 10 0 12 17 12 0 1 42 15 0 10 15 8 4 0 37 20 0 2 7 10 0 0 19


ROBINSON 54


Probability Level 0.450426 Accept Ho WARNING: At least one cell had an expected value less than 5. Counts Section Age


5 0 5 16 18 11 5 56 Total 1 17 56 50 43 12 182 The number of rows with at leas t one missing value is 3652 Age

Question_5 63 To 71 71 To 80 Total 1 0 0 15 2 0 1 26 3 1 0 22 4 0 0 63

5 1 0 56 Total 2 1 182 The number of rows with at leas t one missing value is 3652


WARNING: At least one cell had an expected value less than 5. Counts Section Age



Question_6 53 To 60 60 To 67 73 To 80 Total 1 4 1 1 30 2 4 0 0 36 3 5 1 0 62 4 3 0 0 36

5 1 0 0 14 Total 17 2 1 178 The number of rows with at leas t one missing value is 3656

ROBINSON 55


Probability Level 0.569591 Accept Ho WARNING: At least one cell had an expected value less than 5. Counts Section

Age Question_7 Up To 20 20 To 25 25 To 31 31 To 36 36 To 42 42 To 47 Total 1 0 4 12 11 16 13 67 2 1 0 5 5 4 5 26 3 0 3 3 5 8 4 32

4 0 0 3 5 6 4 29 5 0 0 1 3 3 7 28 Total 1 7 24 29 37 33 182 The number of rows with at leas t one missing value is 3652

Age Question_7 47 To 53 53 To 58 58 To 64 64 To 69 75 To 80 Total 1 7 3 0 1 0 67 2 4 2 0 0 0 26 3 5 2 2 0 0 32

4 6 2 2 0 1 29 5 8 3 2 1 0 28 Total 30 12 6 2 1 182 The number of rows with at leas t one missing value is 3652





Question_8 43 To 48 48 To 52 52 To 57 57 To 62 62 To 66 75 To 80 Total 1 10 13 3 2 2 1 79 2 6 9 3 2 0 0 40 3 5 5 2 4 0 0 45 4 0 1 2 0 0 0 11

5 0 2 0 0 0 0 7 Total 21 30 10 8 2 1 182 The number of rows with at leas t one missing value is 3652

ROBINSON 56





Question_9 40 To 44 44 To 48 48 To 52 52 To 56 56 To 60 64 To 68 Total 1 8 6 7 3 1 1 56 2 5 5 4 3 2 0 29 3 5 4 5 1 2 0 47 4 3 5 5 1 2 1 42


Question_9 76 To 80 Total 1 0 56 2 0 29 3 0 47 4 1 42

5 0 7 Total 1 181 The number of rows with at leas t one missing value is 3653


WARNING: At least one cell had an expected value less than 5. Counts Section Age Antagonism Up To 20 20 To 24 24 To 27 27 To 31 31 To 34 34 To 38 Total

-15 0 0 0 0 0 1 7 -13 0 0 1 1 0 3 9 -11 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 -10 0 0 0 2 3 1 19 -9 0 0 1 2 0 0 4

-8 0 0 0 2 2 2 11 -7 0 0 1 0 0 1 4 -6 0 0 0 0 1 0 8 -5 0 1 1 2 2 0 9 -4 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

-3 1 0 3 1 0 3 18 -2 0 0 1 0 2 0 3 -1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 3 3 2 14 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 2

3 0 0 0 2 1 1 8 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 5 0 0 1 0 0 1 7 6 0 0 0 3 1 0 10 7 0 0 0 1 0 1 2

8 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 0 0 1 0 0 3 8

ROBINSON 57

10 0 0 0 0 0 1 6 11 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 12 0 0 0 0 1 1 4

13 0 0 0 0 1 1 4 14 0 0 0 0 1 1 5 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 3

Total 1 2 10 19 19 23 182 The number of rows with at leas t one missing value is 3652 Counts Section

Age Antagonism 38 To 41 41 To 45 45 To 48 48 To 52 52 To 55 55 To 59 Total -15 1 1 2 0 2 0 7 -13 1 0 2 1 0 0 9 -11 1 2 0 0 0 1 4

-10 4 2 1 2 2 0 19 -9 0 0 0 0 1 0 4 -8 1 1 1 0 0 1 11 -7 0 1 0 0 1 0 4 -6 0 1 3 2 1 0 8

-5 0 2 0 0 0 1 9 -4 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 -3 2 3 3 1 1 0 18 -2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 -1 0 1 0 1 0 0 2

0 2 1 1 1 1 0 14 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 1 1 1 0 0 0 8 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 5 3 0 1 1 0 0 7

6 0 0 0 4 1 0 10 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 2 1 0 1 0 0 8 10 1 0 1 3 0 0 6

11 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 12 1 0 1 0 0 0 4 13 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 14 1 0 0 0 1 0 5 16 0 0 1 0 0 0 1

18 0 0 1 1 1 0 4 20 0 0 3 0 0 0 3 Total 24 17 24 18 12 4 182 The number of rows with at leas t one missing value is 3652

Counts Section Age Antagonism 59 To 62 62 To 66 76 To 80 Total -15 0 0 0 7 -13 0 0 0 9

-11 0 0 0 4 -10 1 1 0 19 -9 0 0 0 4 -8 1 0 0 11 -7 0 0 0 4

-6 0 0 0 8 -5 0 0 0 9 -4 0 0 0 1 -3 0 0 0 18 -2 0 0 0 3

-1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 14 2 0 0 0 2 3 1 0 0 8 4 1 0 0 2

5 0 0 0 7

ROBINSON 58

6 1 0 0 10 7 0 0 0 2

8 0 0 0 1 9 0 0 0 8

10 0 0 0 6 11 0 0 0 2

12 0 0 0 4 13 0 1 0 4

14 0 0 1 5 16 0 0 0 1

18 1 0 0 4 20 0 0 0 3

Total 6 2 1 182 The number of rows with at least one missing value is 3652


Probability Level 0.291272 Accept Ho WARNING: At least one cell had an expected value less than 5.

ROBINSON 59

BIBLIOGRAPHY

―2000 Edition of Texas Local Government Code‖, West’s Texas Statues and Codes, 224.

Arthur Young & Company. Executive Summary of a Comprehensive

Management Survey for the Fort Worth Police Department. (Fort Worth, Texas: Arthur Young & Company, 1976.)

Cooper, Robert Weldon. The Texas Municipal Civil Service. (Austin, Texas: The

University of Texas, 1936.) Wicker, Christine Darnell. Comparison of Differential Progress Toward Equal

Employment in Civil Service and Non-Civil Service Employment Systems: A Case Study in the City of Dallas. (Arlington, Texas: University of Texas at Arlington, 1977.)

final report

Documents

analysis of variance

level of antagonism

difference of treatment

antagonism levels

levels of antagonism

difference intreatment

difference oftreatment

texas cities