Laserfiche WebLink
City of South Bend Disoarity Study 2020 <br />Source: CHA calculations from Survey of Business Owners <br />Since the central issue is the possible disparate treatment of non-White and White <br />women firms, Table 5-2 re -aggregates the last four groups- White men; equally <br />non-White and White; equally women and men; and firms not classifiable- into <br />one group: not non-White/not White women.142 We then present the shares each <br />group has of the six indicators of firm utilization. These data were then used to cal- <br />culate three disparity ratios, presented in Table 5-3: <br />Ratio of sales and receipts share for all firms over the share of total number of <br />all firms. <br />• Ratio of sales and receipts share for employer firms over the share of total <br />number of employer firms. <br />Ratio of annual payroll share over the share of total number of employer <br />firms. <br />142. Again, while a cumbersome nomenclature, it is Important to remain clear that this category includes firms other than <br />those identified as owned by White men. <br />74 © 2020 Colette Holt & Associates, All Rights Reserved. <br />Total <br />& <br />Number of <br />& <br />Receipts - <br />Number of <br />Sales <br />Receipts - <br />Firms with <br />Paid <br />All Firms <br />with Paid <br />Number of <br />Paid <br />payroll"Sales <br />Annual <br />Firms <br />(All Firms) <br />All Firms <br />($1,000) <br />Employees <br />(Employer <br />Employees <br />(Employer <br />Employees <br />000 <br />Firms) <br />Firms) <br />00r <br />Native <br />0.41% <br />0.04% <br />0.22% <br />0.03% <br />0.12% <br />° <br />0.081 <br />American <br />Asian <br />2.52% <br />0.88% <br />3.66% <br />0.83% <br />1.40% <br />0.98% <br />Panel B: Distribution <br />of All Firms <br />Non -White <br />12.79% <br />1.78% <br />6.84% <br />1.61% <br />3.08% <br />2.07°% <br />White Women <br />27.01% <br />3.77% <br />15.70% <br />3.49% <br />6.60% <br />4.98% <br />White Men <br />47.43% <br />26.01% <br />55.58% <br />25.31% <br />33.30% <br />30.55% <br />Equally Non- <br />0.42% <br />0.13% <br />D.59% <br />0.11/° o <br />.341 <br />0.34% <br />° <br />0.241 <br />White & White <br />Equally <br />10.12% <br />3.06% <br />13.10% <br />2.84% <br />5.23% <br />3.44% <br />Women & Men <br />Firms Not <br />2.18% <br />65.25% <br />8.16% <br />66.64% <br />51.44% <br />58.71% <br />Classifiable <br />All Firms <br />100.00% <br />100.00% <br />100.00%100.00% <br />100.00% <br />100.00% <br />Source: CHA calculations from Survey of Business Owners <br />Since the central issue is the possible disparate treatment of non-White and White <br />women firms, Table 5-2 re -aggregates the last four groups- White men; equally <br />non-White and White; equally women and men; and firms not classifiable- into <br />one group: not non-White/not White women.142 We then present the shares each <br />group has of the six indicators of firm utilization. These data were then used to cal- <br />culate three disparity ratios, presented in Table 5-3: <br />Ratio of sales and receipts share for all firms over the share of total number of <br />all firms. <br />• Ratio of sales and receipts share for employer firms over the share of total <br />number of employer firms. <br />Ratio of annual payroll share over the share of total number of employer <br />firms. <br />142. Again, while a cumbersome nomenclature, it is Important to remain clear that this category includes firms other than <br />those identified as owned by White men. <br />74 © 2020 Colette Holt & Associates, All Rights Reserved. <br />