The State of Minority- and Women- Owned ... - Cleveland.com

Anecdotal Evidence of Disparities in the City of Cleveland’s Market Area
percentage points higher than for nonminority males, respectively; however these differences are
not statistically significant.
The exercise is repeated again in columns (5) and (6) with separate indicators for each type of
M/WBE. The results for nonminority females are nearly identical to those in columns (3) and
(4). For African American-owned firms, the differential is 40.3 percentage points in column (5),
falling to 36.5 percentage points once controls are added. Both results are highly statistically
significant. The results for other minority groups, though suggesting a greater prevalence of
disparate treatment for Hispanics, Asians, and Native Americans, are not statistically significant
due most likely to the relatively small sample sizes involved. For Hispanic-owned firms, the
differentials are 15.4 and 9.1 percentage points, respectively. For Asian-owned firms, the
differentials are 7.1 and 4.6 percentage points, respectively. For Native American-owned firms,
the differentials are 3.1 and 0.2 percentage points, respectively.
The regression models reported in Table 8.5 used as their dependent variable an indicator of
whether or not a survey respondent reported having been treated less favorably in any of the 14
different types of business dealings described in the first column of Table 8.3. 313 We re-estimated
the regression model reported in Column (2) of Table 8.5 separately using as the dependent
variable, in turn, each of the 14 types of business dealings and report those results in Table 8.6.
As Table 8.6 shows, African American-owned firms in particular experience a wide variety of
disparate treatment compared to non-M/WBEs. In 12 of the 14 categories the differences for
African American-owned firms are both large and statistically significant. For nonminority
female-owned firms, it is true in 3 of 14 cases. For M/WBEs as a group it is true in 10 of the 14
cases.
313 Our disparate treatment question also allowed respondents to indicate the quantity of disparate treatment
experienced (never, 1-5 times, 6-20 times, more than 20-times). Although not reported here, we also ran
regressions using a dependent variable measuring high frequency of disparate treatment (6 or more times) during
the prior five years. Results were more limited due to smaller sample sizes but were qualitatively similar to those
obtained in Tables 8.5 and 8.6.
NERA Economic Consulting 275