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 inTreatment Between Chapter 143 Cities
and Non-143 Cities.......................................................................................................35
Appendix 4 Analysis of Variance Between Difference ofTreatment 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 8 Responses to Question 9 by city status....................................................................21
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
managementsurvey 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
Chiefmust 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 firstscore
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
respondentstrongly 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
______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
(over)

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.
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 survey!

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

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.
6. Police officers, firefighters and general employees in this city work well together when
compensation issues are being determined.
7. Police officers and firefighters in this city often try to get additional compensation at the
expense of the general employees.
8. General employees in this city often try to get additional compensation at the expense of the
police officers and firefighters.
9. There is an adversarial relationship between police officers, firefighters and general
-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 survey!

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 initial.

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
number
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
20
23
41
20
8
1
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
0 5 10 15 20
Degree of difference
#ofresponses
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
2
3
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
2
3
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
0
0
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
23
24
16
22
27
20
14
5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
0 5 10 15 20
Difference in treatment
Number
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
30
29
5
10
9
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.
21
22
33
14
8
9
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
17
15
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
24
11
28
29
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:MyDocumentsURPA Applied ResearchProject19.S0
Pearson Correlations Section (Row-WiseDeletion)
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
Ethnicity 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
CronbachsAlpha = 0.000145 Standardized CronbachsAlpha = 0.781523

ROBINSON 32
Correlation Report
Page/Date/Time 2 4/28/2003 4:52:45 PM
Treatment Antagonism Years Gender Age Ethnicity
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
Ethnicity 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

ROBINSON 33
Correlation Report
Page/Date/Time 3 4/28/2003 4:52:45 PM
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
Ethnicity 0.076910
0.318833
170.000000
Population 1.000000
0.000000
170.000000

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 DocumentsURPA Applied ResearchProject19.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 Level
(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
Antagonism

ROBINSON 35
Appendix 3
Analysis of Variance Report for Difference in Treatment Between Chapter
143 Cities and Non-143 Cities
Page/Date/Time 1 4/28/2003 5:31:09 PM
Response Treatment
A: Chapter_143 1 Yes S S+sA
S 187 No S
Note: Expected Mean Squares are for the balanced cell -frequency case.
(Alpha=0.05)
A: Chapter_143 1 1860.149 1860.149 64.80 0.000000* 1.000000
S 187 5368.422 28.70814
Total 189
Standard
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
Treatment

ROBINSON 36
Appendix 4
Analysis of Variance Between Difference of Treatment and Level of
Antagonism
Page/Date/Time 1 4/28/2003 5:38:47 PM
Response Antagonism
A: Treatment 4 Yes S S+sA
S 1552 No S
(Alpha=0.05)
A: Treatment 4 2314.747 578.6868 71.51 0.000000* 1.000000
S 1552 12558.66 8.091923
Total 1557
Standard
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
Antagonism

ROBINSON 37
Appendix 5
Analysis of Variance Between General and Public Safety Employees and
Level of Antagonism
Page/Date/Time 1 4/28/2003 5:46:16 PM
Response Antagonism
A: General 1 Yes S S+sA
S 187 No S
(Alpha=0.05)
A: General 1 1359.136 1359.136 18.93 0.000022* 0.991081
S 187 13423.16 71.78161
Total 189
Standard
All 189 -0.7407407 -0.9256301
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
Antagonism

ROBINSON 38
Appendix 6
Analysis of Variance Between Employee Type and Difference in Treatment
Page/Date/Time 1 4/28/2003 6:16:18 PM
Response Treatment
A: General 1 Yes S S+sA
S 187 No S
(Alpha=0.05)
A: General 1 486.0787 486.0787 13.48 0.000314* 0.954752
S 187 6742.493 36.05611
Total 189
Standard
All 189 9.047619 8.93705
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
Treatment

ROBINSON 39
Appendix 7
Analysis of Variance Between Males and Females and Levels of
Antagonism
Page/Date/Time 1 4/28/2003 7:35:11 PM
Response Antagonism
A: Gender 1 Yes S S+sA
S 183 No S
(Alpha=0.05)
A: Gender 1 217.3273 217.3273 2.77 0.097635 0.380807
S 183 14347.13 78.3996
Total 185
Standard
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
Antagonism

ROBINSON 40
Appendix 8
Analysis of Variance Between Males and Females and Difference of
Treatment
Page/Date/Time 1 4/28/2003 7:41:12 PM
Response Treatment
A: Gender 1 Yes S S+sA
S 183 No S
(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
Standard
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
Treatment

ROBINSON 41
Appendix 9
Analysis of Variance of Antagonism Level Among Ethnic Groups
Page/Date/Time 1 4/28/2003 7:47:01 PM
Response Antagonism
A: Ethnicity 4 Yes S S+sA
S 175 No S
(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
Standard
All 180 -0.6666667 -2.353933
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
Antagonism

ROBINSON 42
Appendix 10
Analysis of Variance Between Ethnic Groups and Difference of Treatment
Page/Date/Time 1 4/28/2003 7:53:29 PM
Response Treatment
A: Ethnicity 4 Yes S S+sA
S 175 No S
(Alpha=0.05)
A: Ethnicity 4 165.3801 41.34502 1.08 0.365935 0.336975
S 175 6674.064 38.13751
Total 180
Standard
All 180 9.055555 8.96323
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
Treatment

ROBINSON 43
Appendix 11
Cross Tabulations Between Experimental Factors
Cross Tabulation Report
Page/Date/Time 1 4/28/2003 5:56:19 PM
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

ROBINSON 44
Counts Section
Chapter_143
1 9 21 30
2 9 29 38
3 43 21 64
4 20 19 39
5 9 5 14
Total 90 95 185
Counts Section
Chapter_143
1 47 22 69
2 17 9 26
3 23 11 34
4 3 28 31
5 3 26 29
Total 93 96 189
Counts Section
Chapter_143
1 31 50 81
2 18 24 42
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
Chapter_143
1 38 19 57
2 14 16 30
3 26 24 50
4 14 29 43
5 0 8 8
Total 92 96 188
Counts Section
Chapter_143
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
Total 88 101 189
Counts Section
General
1 5 10 15
2 10 16 26
3 9 16 25
4 35 30 65
5 29 29 58
Total 88 101 189

ROBINSON 47
Chi-Square 4.523117
Probability Level 0.339815 Accept Ho
Counts Section
General
1 9 21 30
2 16 22 38
3 31 33 64
4 25 14 39
5 6 8 14
Total 87 98 185
Chi-Square 8.574407
Counts Section
General
1 49 20 69
2 17 9 26
3 15 19 34
4 6 25 31
5 1 28 29
Total 88 101 189
Counts Section
General
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
1 33 24 57
2 19 11 30
3 22 28 50
4 14 29 43
5 0 8 8
Total 88 100 188
Counts Section
General
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
Counts Section
Years
Treatment Up To 0 0 To 7 7 To 14 14 To 21 21 To 28 28 To 35
0 0 13 8 5 1 1
5 0 33 9 10 4 2
10 1 21 11 8 2 0
15 1 22 9 5 0 0
20 0 8 5 5 2 0
Total 2 97 42 33 9 3
Counts Section
Years
Question_5 Up To 0 0 To 5 5 To 10 10 To 15 15 To 20 20 To 25
1 1 3 4 2 4 1
2 1 11 7 3 2 1
3 0 9 8 4 2 0
4 0 32 9 11 7 1
5 0 23 14 9 8 2
Total 2 78 42 29 23 5
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
Counts Section
Years
1 0 7 7 6 4 2

ROBINSON 50
2 1 5 12 5 3 6
3 1 23 16 9 8 3
4 0 9 11 2 8 1
5 0 5 2 3 1 2
Total 2 49 48 25 24 14
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
Counts Section
Years
1 1 17 17 6 4 9
2 1 5 6 4 3 4
3 0 9 10 6 2 2
4 0 8 6 3 4 1
5 0 5 5 6 3 4
Total 2 44 44 25 16 20
Years
Question_7 16 To 19 19 To 22 22 To 25 25 To 29 29 To 32 32 To 35
1 7 4 1 1 1 0
2 0 1 1 1 0 0
3 2 2 0 0 0 1
4 4 1 0 1 1 0
5 1 3 1 1 0 0
Total 14 11 3 4 2 1
Counts Section
Years
1 1 21 16 11 8 5
2 1 3 9 7 5 2
3 0 5 15 5 3 4
4 0 2 5 2 1 0
5 0 0 2 1 0 1
Total 2 31 47 26 17 12
Years
1 5 3 5 2 2 0
2 5 2 2 1 1 2

ROBINSON 51
3 8 2 3 0 0 0
4 0 0 0 1 0 0
5 2 1 1 0 0 0
Total 20 8 11 4 3 2
Years
1 1 0 80
2 0 0 40
3 1 1 47
4 0 0 11
5 0 0 8
Total 2 1 186
Counts Section
Years
1 1 12 10 8 3 3
2 0 2 8 5 3 0
3 0 8 12 12 4 4
4 1 5 8 6 3 5
5 0 1 0 0 2 0
Total 2 28 38 31 15 12
Years
1 3 8 4 4 1 0
2 0 3 2 2 2 1
3 2 3 0 2 0 0
4 9 0 0 2 0 0
5 0 0 2 1 1 0
Total 14 14 8 11 4 1
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
Counts Section
Years
Antagonism Up To 0 0 To 2 2 To 4 4 To 6 6 To 8 8 To 10
-15 0 2 1 1 0 1
-13 0 2 1 1 1 0
-11 0 0 1 0 1 0
-10 1 5 1 2 2 1

ROBINSON 52
-9 0 0 3 0 0 0
-8 0 1 3 0 2 1
-7 0 1 2 0 0 0
-6 0 2 1 0 2 0
-5 0 2 2 2 0 0
-4 0 0 0 1 0 0
-3 0 2 4 3 1 1
-2 0 0 2 1 0 0
-1 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 2 4 3 2 3
2 0 1 0 0 0 0
3 0 2 0 1 1 0
4 0 0 2 0 0 0
5 0 1 1 2 0 0
6 0 1 3 3 0 0
7 0 0 1 1 0 0
8 0 0 0 0 0 1
9 1 1 2 1 1 1
10 0 1 0 0 1 2
11 0 0 1 0 0 0
12 0 0 0 1 1 1
13 0 0 0 0 0 2
14 0 1 1 0 1 1
16 0 0 0 1 0 0
18 0 0 0 0 0 1
20 0 1 0 0 0 0
Total 2 28 36 24 16 16
Counts Section
Years
Antagonism 10 To 12 12 To 14 14 To 16 16 To 19 19 To 21 21 To 23
-15 0 0 1 0 0 1
-13 0 1 2 0 1 0
-11 0 0 1 0 0 1
-10 2 0 1 2 2 0
-9 0 0 0 0 0 0
-8 0 2 2 0 0 0
-7 0 0 0 0 1 0
-6 0 0 1 0 1 0
-5 0 0 1 1 1 0
-4 0 0 0 0 0 0
-3 1 1 1 2 1 0
-2 0 0 0 0 0 0
-1 0 0 1 0 1 0
0 1 1 0 0 0 0
2 0 1 0 0 0 0
3 1 1 0 0 0 0
4 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 1 0 0 1 0 0
6 0 0 2 0 0 0
7 0 0 0 0 0 0
8 0 0 0 0 0 0
9 0 2 0 0 0 0
10 0 1 1 0 0 0
11 0 0 0 0 1 0
12 1 0 0 0 0 0
13 1 1 0 0 0 0
14 0 0 0 1 0 0
16 0 0 0 0 0 0
18 0 0 0 0 1 0
20 0 0 0 1 1 0
Total 8 11 14 8 11 2

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
Counts Section
Age
Treatment Up To 20 20 To 32 32 To 44 44 To 56 56 To 68 68 To 80
0 0 8 11 8 1 0
5 1 9 23 18 5 0
10 0 12 17 12 0 1
15 0 10 15 8 4 0
20 0 2 7 10 0 0
Total 1 41 73 56 10 1

ROBINSON 54
Counts Section
Age
1 0 1 3 5 5 1
2 0 2 11 5 7 0
3 0 0 7 7 5 2
4 1 9 19 15 15 4
5 0 5 16 18 11 5
Total 1 17 56 50 43 12
Age
1 0 0 15
2 0 1 26
3 1 0 22
4 0 0 63
5 1 0 56
Total 2 1 182
Counts Section
Age
1 0 0 5 9 4 6
2 0 2 6 12 6 6
3 1 6 16 15 7 11
4 0 1 6 8 12 6
5 0 0 0 5 5 3
Total 1 9 33 49 34 32
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

ROBINSON 55
Counts Section
Age
1 0 4 12 11 16 13
2 1 0 5 5 4 5
3 0 3 3 5 8 4
4 0 0 3 5 6 4
5 0 0 1 3 3 7
Total 1 7 24 29 37 33
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
Counts Section
Age
1 0 0 8 10 16 14
2 0 0 4 4 7 5
3 1 2 3 7 10 6
4 0 0 4 1 2 1
5 0 1 0 0 1 3
Total 1 3 19 22 36 29
Age
1 10 13 3 2 2 1
2 6 9 3 2 0 0
3 5 5 2 4 0 0
4 0 1 2 0 0 0
5 0 2 0 0 0 0
Total 21 30 10 8 2 1

ROBINSON 56
Counts Section
Age
1 0 0 4 8 6 12
2 0 0 1 3 0 6
3 1 2 8 6 8 5
4 0 1 1 7 5 10
5 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 1 3 14 24 19 33
Age
1 8 6 7 3 1 1
2 5 5 4 3 2 0
3 5 4 5 1 2 0
4 3 5 5 1 2 1
5 0 4 1 1 1 0
Total 21 24 22 9 8 2
Age
Question_9 76 To 80 Total
1 0 56
2 0 29
3 0 47
4 1 42
5 0 7
Total 1 181
Counts Section
Age
Antagonism Up To 20 20 To 24 24 To 27 27 To 31 31 To 34 34 To 38
-15 0 0 0 0 0 1
-13 0 0 1 1 0 3
-11 0 0 0 0 0 0
-10 0 0 0 2 3 1
-9 0 0 1 2 0 0
-8 0 0 0 2 2 2
-7 0 0 1 0 0 1
-6 0 0 0 0 1 0
-5 0 1 1 2 2 0
-4 0 0 0 0 0 0
-3 1 0 3 1 0 3
-2 0 0 1 0 2 0
-1 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 3 3 2
2 0 0 0 0 1 0
3 0 0 0 2 1 1
4 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 0 0 1 0 0 1
6 0 0 0 3 1 0
7 0 0 0 1 0 1
8 0 0 0 0 0 0
9 0 0 1 0 0 3

ROBINSON 57
10 0 0 0 0 0 1
11 0 1 0 0 0 0
12 0 0 0 0 1 1
13 0 0 0 0 1 1
14 0 0 0 0 1 1
16 0 0 0 0 0 0
18 0 0 0 0 0 0
20 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 1 2 10 19 19 23
Counts Section
Age
Antagonism 38 To 41 41 To 45 45 To 48 48 To 52 52 To 55 55 To 59
-15 1 1 2 0 2 0
-13 1 0 2 1 0 0
-11 1 2 0 0 0 1
-10 4 2 1 2 2 0
-9 0 0 0 0 1 0
-8 1 1 1 0 0 1
-7 0 1 0 0 1 0
-6 0 1 3 2 1 0
-5 0 2 0 0 0 1
-4 0 0 1 0 0 0
-3 2 3 3 1 1 0
-2 0 0 0 0 0 0
-1 0 1 0 1 0 0
0 2 1 1 1 1 0
2 1 0 0 0 0 0
3 1 1 1 0 0 0
4 1 0 0 0 0 0
5 3 0 1 1 0 0
6 0 0 0 4 1 0
7 0 0 0 0 0 0
8 1 0 0 0 0 0
9 2 1 0 1 0 0
10 1 0 1 3 0 0
11 0 0 1 0 0 0
12 1 0 1 0 0 0
13 0 0 0 0 0 1
14 1 0 0 0 1 0
16 0 0 1 0 0 0
18 0 0 1 1 1 0
20 0 0 3 0 0 0
Total 24 17 24 18 12 4
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

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

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (8)

Similar to Final report

Similar to Final report (20)

Final report