Minnesota Women Lawyers
Gender Data Project: 2019 Follow-Up Report
by The Minnesota Women Lawyers
Equity Committee: Gender Data Project Sub-Committee
Adine Momoh and Debra Pexa
February 2019
2
Copyright © 2019 by Minnesota Women Lawyers 600 Nicollet Mall, Suite 390B, Minneapolis MN 55402
3
Table of Contents
Page
4. Introduction
6. MWL Leadership
8. Background
10. Methodology
12. Project Limitations
13. Overview of Findings & Analysis
26. Final Summary
27. Recommendations
29. Additional Resources
30. Acknowledgements
31. Appendices
4
Introduction It is a privilege to present the MWL Gender Data Project: 2019 Follow-Up Report. This report is a supplement to MWL's 2014 report, which was the first to determine the number of women in the Minnesota legal profession, conducted through a name classification analysis of the Minnesota Supreme Court’s lawyer registration data.
The MWL Gender Data Project has been a key area of focus for Minnesota Women Lawyers (MWL) for nearly a decade. In addressing gender inequities and working to address them, MWL had been discouraged by the lack of demographic data specific to the Minnesota legal profession. This obstacle first moved to the forefront in 2010 when then-MWL President Judge Elizabeth Cutter initiated the MWL Parity Taskforce to examine the current position of women lawyers in Minnesota. The Parity Taskforce quickly determined that a thorough examination of the status of Minnesota’s women lawyers could not be accomplished without comprehensive demographic data. In other words, how could we tell what needed to be done to achieve parity, if we did not know where we were now?
Through MWL efforts, the results of the 2014 Gender Data Project and this 2019 Follow-Up Report are exciting milestones in MWL’s objective to determine and clarify the status of women in Minnesota’s legal profession. MWL is also grateful to the Minnesota Supreme Court for its support of the collection and reporting of both gender and race demographic data, as part of its Annual Report of the Minnesota Judicial Branch. Collectively, these efforts continue to be important steps along the path to better understanding the make-up of the Minnesota legal community. MWL recognizes that comprehensive and long-term data collection is vital. MWL continues to advocate for additional data on practice type, employment titles or positions, employment status (full- or part-time), compensation, as well as disability and LGBTQ status. It is only through the collection of comprehensive data that we can better answer important questions related to parity within the legal profession. Why is pay equity an issue? Why are some women leaving the profession or leaving certain types of jobs in the legal profession? What additional challenges might exist for attorneys who are women of color, LGBTQ+ or persons with disabilities?
It is MWL's mission to advance the success of women attorneys and strive for a just society. To that end, we provide leadership, professional development, networking and mentoring opportunities for women attorneys at all levels. Equally important is our role in advocating for the equality of women within the profession. We are excited by these efforts to "count” the number of women in Minnesota’s legal profession and to better understand what it will take to achieve not only parity, but more importantly, equity for all women lawyers. We look forward to continuing the work to determine where change is needed and how to work to best advocate for all women in Minnesota’s legal profession.
5
Throughout this multi-year project, we have been so grateful for the dedication and efforts of so many MWL leaders and volunteers. In particular, we extend our sincere appreciation to Chief Justice Lorie Gildea, Judge Wilhelmina Wright, Margaret Corneille, Emily Eschweiler, Judge Elizabeth Cutter, Judge Kathleen Sanberg, and Kate Westad, whose leadership and support made this project possible.
For more information about the MWL Gender Data Project: 2019 Follow-Up Report or MWL's continuing efforts related to data collection, analysis and research, please contact Executive Director Debra Pexa (612/338-3205; [email protected]).
Sincerely,
Shannon Harmon Adine Momoh Debra Pexa 2018-2019 MWL President MWL Gender Data Project Chair MWL Executive Director
6
MWL Leadership
2018-2019 MWL Equity Committee Leadership Gender Data Project Chair: Adine Momoh, Stinson Leonard Street LLP Equity Committee Co-Chair: Teresa Lavoie, Fish & Richardson Equity Committee Co-Chair: Calandra Revering, Revering Law and Consulting
2018-2019 MWL Board of Directors President Shannon Harmon, IRS Office of the Chief Counsel President-Elect Amy Taber, Prime Therapeutics Secretary Kristin Haugen, KC Haugen Law and Rock Solid Consultants Treasurer Breia Schleuss, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP Past-President Kendra Brodin, Briggs and Morgan, P.A. Directors Ellen Ahrens, MADEL PA Kate Bruce, Optum Susan Gallagher, Gallagher Law Office Emerald Gratz, Minnesota Supreme Court Poonam Kumar, DLA Piper Calandra Revering, Revering Law and Consulting Alona Rindal, US Bank National Association Jennifer Robbins, MADEL PA Amy Schmidt, Ramsey County Attorney's Office Mary Szondy, Attorney at Law Chapter Liaisons Central Chapter: Michelle Draewell, Quinlivan & Hughes, P.A. Northeastern Chapter: Kay Biga, Spott Law Office South Central Chapter: Kylee Manthei, Southern Minnesota Regional Legal Services St. Croix Valley Chapter: Anne Brown, Sjoberg & Tebelius, P.A.
7
Law Student Liaisons Mitchell Hamline School of Law: Hannah Reichenbach University of Minnesota Law School: Taylor Gunderson University of St. Thomas School of Law: Ashley Olson MWL Staff Debra Pexa, Executive Director Hannah Zuercher, Membership and Communications Coordinator Katie Gunaratne, Program and Projects Coordinator
8
Background
The MWL Gender Data Project: 2019 Follow-Up Report is a supplement to MWL's 2014 report, which was the first to determine a baseline number of women in the Minnesota legal profession, conducted through a name classification analysis of the Minnesota Supreme Court’s lawyer registration data.
In 2010-2011, then-MWL President Elizabeth Cutter established the Parity Taskforce (Taskforce) to determine the status of women lawyers in Minnesota, the barriers to parity, the most effective methods to overcome those barriers, and the time needed to do so. In the effort to establish a baseline on the status of women lawyers in Minnesota, the Taskforce quickly learned that the number of women practicing law in Minnesota was unknown. Demographic data, including gender, was not collected for lawyers practicing in the state.
Early in its work, in an effort to better gauge the scope of attorney demographic data collection practices across the country and identify possible best practices models, the Taskforce engaged in an extensive review of such practices in all 50 states. The 50-State Report, finalized in the summer of 2012, identified a wide range of data collection practices across the country.
In spring 2011, MWL President Cutter presented remarks about the work of the Parity Taskforce at MWL’s Annual Judges’ Dinner. She highlighted the fact that no one knew how many women were practicing in Minnesota given that data was not being collected. Minnesota Supreme Court Chief Justice Lorie Gildea, who was in attendance at the Judges’ Dinner that evening, took note and took action. Within two weeks of the event, Chief Justice Gildea, with the support of other Minnesota Supreme Court members, authorized a change to the Minnesota Attorney Registration form, allowing attorneys to indicate their gender classification voluntarily, beginning in fall 2011.
As efforts continued, it became clear that the work of the Taskforce would take many years to complete. To carry on the work, the Taskforce evolved into the Parity Facilitators, and then into a permanent MWL committee in 2013, now named the MWL Equity Committee (Committee). Among other goals, the Committee works to complete the original objectives of the Taskforce.
As MWL continued to evaluate the gender data that the State began collecting in fall 2011, the Committee realized that the number of attorneys voluntarily indicating their gender classification on their registration form was far from enough to conduct a statistically significant analysis of the data. Therefore, in the spring of 2013, MWL launched its “I Want To Be Counted” campaign to encourage attorneys to complete the gender demographic question. Subsequently, MWL has continued its efforts to promote the importance for all attorneys across the legal community to complete the demographic questions on the attorney registration form.
9
Despite these strides forward, there was a continued lack of statistically significant data available. Therefore, in the fall of 2014, MWL launched a new initiative. With Cy Pres funding made possible by Dan Gustafson of Gustafson Gluek PLLC, MWL contracted with the University of Minnesota Office of Measurement Services (OMS) to conduct a gender classification project, utilizing census data to decide whether a name was gendered male or female to determine a baseline number of women attorneys practicing in the State of Minnesota. Subsequently in the spring of 2015, MWL was pleased to release its Gender Data Project: First Report, which provided the first ever baseline count of the number of women in the Minnesota legal profession. In summary, of the 29,091 attorneys licensed to practice in the State of Minnesota, 99.7% were classified on the basis of gender in that study. Of that 99.7%, 63% of the lawyers registered in Minnesota were male and 37% were female. Although further data points available for analysis were limited, the MWL Gender Data Report was a monumental first step in providing baseline data on the demographic make of the Minnesota legal community and further highlighted the need for, and value of, continuing data collection.
Additionally, in January 2016, the Minnesota Lawyer Registration Office began collecting race/ethnicity information in addition to gender data from attorneys during the lawyer registration process. Furthermore, a "choose not to answer" option was added to both demographic questions, and a response was mandatory. As a result, for the first time in its 2016 Annual Report of the Minnesota Judicial Branch, the Court provided a statistically significant summary of the demographic data now being collected. This report marked another important milestone in the effort to better understand the make-up of the Minnesota legal community.
Now, in an effort to establish a long-term demographic baseline and to further gauge trends within the Minnesota legal profession, MWL is pleased to release its MWL Gender Data Project: 2019 Follow-Up Report.
10
Methodology
The MWL Gender Data Project: 2019 Follow-Up Report utilized the same methodology initially established for its initial 2014-2015 research project.
In October 2014 and once again in January 2018, MWL contracted with the University of Minnesota Office of Measurement Services (OMS) to conduct a gender classification project, based on information provided by all licensed attorneys on the Minnesota Lawyer Registration form.
(Rule 7C of the Minnesota Supreme Court Rules on Lawyer Registration authorized the Minnesota Lawyer Registration Office to provide this data to MWL, as a bona fide continuing legal education provider.)
As the basis for the gender classification, OMS collected a U.S. Census database and two other publicly available databases, all of which had both first name and gender assigned to them. They then removed all duplicate listings of names and wrote a script to compare each first name in the Minnesota Lawyer Registration file and assign gender (female, male, or unknown) to each Minnesota registered attorney.
In analyzing the data provided to MWL from the Minnesota Lawyer Registration Office in January 2018, the computer program assigned a gender classification to 32,042 out of the 33,580 attorneys licensed in the State of Minnesota (95%) based on the Census name classifications.
Once a gender classification had been assigned based on a single method, no further searches occurred for that attorney. Most of the attorneys not initially assigned a gender classification using the method described above were a result of a non-gender specific or unknown first name. The following methods were subsequently utilized in an attempt to determine gender for those still unclassified.
a) An OMS staff member reviewed the list for J. David or M. Susan in the first name field, or for a middle name that was clearly male or female, and recorded gender based on those names that seemed obvious. This resulted in an additional 712 individuals being assigned a gender classification.
b) A select group of Equity Committee members reviewed the list of remaining attorney names to indicate a gender classification for any attorney who was personally known to them. If a gender classification was uncertain, nothing was recorded. This resulted in an additional 102 individuals being assigned a gender classification.
11
c) An OMS staff member with a LinkedIn account looked up each attorney whose gender was unknown and recorded a gender classification based on a picture or other information available on the account. If a gender classification was uncertain, nothing was recorded. This resulted in an additional 296 individuals being assigned a gender classification.
d) An OMS staff member with a Facebook account looked up each attorney whose gender was unknown and recorded a gender classification based on a picture or other information available on the account. If a gender classification was uncertain, nothing was recorded. This resulted in an additional 59 individuals being assigned a gender classification.
e) An OMS staff member reviewed all those that remained unassigned and recorded gender using the same criteria listed in item a (above). This resulted in an additional 63 individuals being assigned a gender classification.
In the end for its 2019 Follow-Up Report, 33,274 of the 33,580 attorneys licensed to practice in the State of Minnesota (99.1%) were classified on the basis of gender using the specified procedures. There were 306 who were unassigned on gender. This gender classification, along with the other data from the Minnesota Lawyer Registration form, was the information source for all subsequent data analysis on gender disparities.
12
Research Limitations
The scope of this research project was limited to an analysis of the data available to MWL as a bona fide continuing legal education provider from the Minnesota Lawyer Registration Office.
Data provided included:
First Name Last Name Address Date Admitted Current Status Represents Private Clients
Given the limits of Rule 7C of the Minnesota Supreme Court Rules on Lawyer Registration, data related to State-collected gender and race classifications was not provided to MWL.
The Minnesota Lawyer Registration Office does not collect data on attorney practice type, county, attorney title/position, part-time or full-time employment status, or attorney salary/compensation levels, nor do they collect additional demographic data beyond gender and race. Also, addresses collected as part of an attorney's registration are not designated as either work or home residence addresses.
For purposes of this report, gender classification was primarily assigned by comparing commonly held first names to the U.S. Census database and two other publicly available databases. Therefore, the study's findings and analyses are limited to these database name-assignment generalizations.
MWL recognizes that this methodology did not provide for an individual to specify his or her own gender classification, and subsequently could not take into account an individual's self-selected gender identity.
13
Overview of Findings and Analysis
The data MWL obtained from the Minnesota Attorney's Registration Office establishes the baseline for tracking the numbers of female and male lawyers admitted in Minnesota. The tables below show the overall data obtained in January 2018 and October 2014, as well as comparisons with data obtained from other sources.
As discussed in the Methodology Section of this Report, there were lawyers for whom a gender was not determined. While that number is very small (in 2014: 91 out of 29,091 lawyers or 0.3%; in 2018: 306 out of 33,580 lawyers or 0.9%), those lawyers were not included in the final data analysis and percentages reported below.
Status by Gender
Table 1 shows the total numbers of male and female lawyers admitted in Minnesota by status, as defined by the Minnesota Attorney Registration Office for purposes of the attorney registration form. These include, generally, those reporting a disability, membership in the military, residency, income below $25,000, resigned and retirement status.
Given the 2018 data, 61% (20,400) of the lawyers registered in Minnesota are male and 39% (12,874) are female. This 2018 result compares to 2014 data where 63% (18,331) of the lawyers registered in Minnesota were male and 37% (10,669) were female. Thereby, women are reported to represent a 2% increase in the Minnesota attorney population represented in this data, when comparing 2018 to 2014.
Furthermore, in comparing data from 2018 and 2014, most data points are within a few percentage points of one another. The few exceptions are instances where the number of attorneys in the category is small (typically only a few hundred attorneys). The fluctuations may also be representative of new Current Status categories that were added since the initial 2014 study.
* Note: new "Current Status" categories since 2014.
14
TABLE 1: STATUS BY GENDER: 2014 and 2018
CURRENT STATUS
2014 NUMBER
BLANK
2018
NUMBER BLANK
2014 NUMBER
MALE
2018 NUMBER
MALE 2014
% MALE
2018 % MALE
2014 NUMBER FEMALE
2018
NUMBER FEMALE
2014 %
FEMALE
2018
% FEMALE
2014 TOTAL
NUMBER
2018 TOTAL
NUMBER
Disabled 1 4 115 120 58% 56% 82 96 42% 44% 198 220
Military 2 1 125 112 76% 78% 40 32 24% 22% 167 145
Nonresident 13 43 1216 1221 59% 57% 834 919 41% 43% 2063 2183
Nonresident under $25,000 income 4 3 66 47 31% 23% 147 159 69% 77% 217 209
Resident - Not practicing in MN* N/A 13 N/A 613 N/A 49% N/A 635 N/A 51% N/A 1261
Resident - Not practicing in MN, under $25,000
income* N/A 6 N/A 62 N/A 22% N/A 217 N/A 78% N/A 285
Resident 3 years or less 3 53 1528 1403 55% 54% 1239 1198 45% 46% 2770 2654
Resident 3 years or less, under $25,000 income 1 3 84 30 49% 54% 88 26 51% 46% 173 59
Resident more than 3 years 43 120 12970 13526 64% 63% 7244 8100 36% 37% 20257 21746
Resident more than 3 years, under $25,000
income 3 3 455 358 45% 42% 565 492 55% 58% 1023 853
Resigned* N/A 12 N/A 515 N/A 62% N/A 310 N/A 38% N/A 837
Retired - fee exempt 21 45 1772 2393 80% 78% 430 690 20% 22% 2223 3128
TOTALS 91 306 18331 20400 63% 61% 10669 12874 37% 39% 29091 33580
(Refer to Appendix 1 for 2014 and 2018 data detail).
15
2018 Current Status Summary: Female Lawyers
In the Current Status categories, female lawyers were represented in disproportionately higher numbers than male lawyers in three of four categories making less than $25,000 in income (Resident - Not Practicing in MN - 78%; More than 3 Years - 58%; and Nonresident Under $25,000 Income - 77%). Female lawyers were reported slightly higher in the Resident 3 Years or Less, Under $25,000 income category (46%).
Female lawyers were reported as being slightly lower compared to male lawyers, in the following categories: Disabled (44%), Nonresident (43%), and Resident 3 Years or Less (46%). Furthermore, the number of female lawyers was disproportionately lower in the Military (22%) and the Retired- Fee Exempt category (22%).
2018 Current Status Summary: Male Lawyers
In the Current Status categories, male lawyers were reported in disproportionately higher numbers in the Military (78%), Retired - Fee Exempt (78%), and Resigned* (62%) categories. Male lawyers were slightly higher in the Resident More than 3 Years category (63%) comparatively.
Male lawyers were reported in disproportionately lower numbers compared to female attorneys in three of four categories of lawyers registered as making less than $25,000 in income (Resident - Not Practicing in MN - 22%; More than 3 Years - 42%; and Nonresident Under $25,000 Income - 23%). Male lawyers were reported slightly higher in the Resident 3 Years or Less, Under $25,000 income category (54%). Male lawyers were reported in slightly higher numbers in the following categories: Disabled (56%), Nonresident (57%), and Resident 3 Years or Less (54%). Male and female lawyers in the Resident More than 3 Years category were reported in the same general numbers as in the overall population of lawyers in Minnesota (Male: 63% / 61%; Female: 37% / 39%).
16
Metro Area vs. Greater Minnesota by Gender- General1
Table 2 shows that overall, male and female lawyers are located in the Minneapolis St. Paul Metropolitan area and in a different state in approximately the same proportion as in the population of lawyers as a whole: 60% male/40% female and 61% male/39% female, respectively. There was a higher proportion of male lawyers in Greater Minnesota (66%) as compared to female lawyers (34%). However, that higher proportion also signifies a 2% increase of female attorneys in Greater Minnesota, compared to 2014 data.
TABLE 2: METRO VS GREATER MN BY GENDER: 2014 and 2018
CURRENT STATUS
2014 NUMBER
BLANK
2018
NUMBER BLANK
2014 NUMBER
MALE
2018
NUMBER MALE
2014 % MALE
2018
% MALE 2014
NUMBER FEMALE
2018
NUMBER FEMALE
2014 %
FEMALE
2018
% FEMALE
2014 TOTAL
NUMBER
2018
TOTAL NUMBER
Metro City Name 49 141 11859 12834 62% 60% 7251 8453 38% 40% 19159 21428
Greater MN City Name 13 39 2796 3026 68% 66% 1306 1584 32% 34% 4115 4649
Some Other State 22 100 3604 4455 64% 61% 2067 2792 36% 39% 5693 7347
Foreign Address = Yes 7 26 72 85 62% 65% 45 45 38% 35% 124 156
TOTALS 91 306 18331 20400 63% 61% 10669 8453 37% 39% 29091 33580
(Refer to Appendix 2 for 2014 and 2018 data detail).
Metro Area vs Greater Minnesota by Gender for Resident Attorneys Practicing More than Three Years Under $25,000 Income.
Table 3 shows that the numbers of female lawyers with income of less than $25,000 is nearly the same in the Metropolitan area as reported in the overall population (41% male/59% female and 42% male/58% female, respectively). There are fewer female lawyers
1 For purposes of this study, the Minneapolis St. Paul Metropolitan area is defined as the cities within the 7-county area of Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Hennepin,
Ramsey, Scott and Washington counties. As previously noted, while the Minnesota Lawyer Registration Office collects an attorney’s address as part of the attorney’s registration, those addresses are not designated as either work or home residence addresses.
17
earning less than $25,000 (48%) reported in Greater Minnesota than in the state as a whole, and this number has decreased by 4% since 2014. Finally, the data shows that a much higher number of women report income of less than $25,000 when their address is listed as in a different state (66%) or a foreign address (75%).
TABLE 3: METRO VS GREATER MN BY GENDER FOR RESIDENT ATTORNEYS PRACTICING MORE THAN THREE YEARS, UNDER $25,000 INCOME
CURRENT STATUS
2014 NUMBER
BLANK
2018
NUMBER BLANK
2014 NUMBER
MALE
2018
NUMBER MALE
2014 %
MALE
2018
% MALE
2014 NUMBER FEMALE
2018
NUMBER FEMALE
2014 %
FEMALE
2018 % FEMALE
2014 TOTAL
NUMBER
2018
TOTAL NUMBER
Metro City Name 2 2 333 242 45% 41% 406 354 55% 59% 741 598
Greater MN City Name 0 0 83 85 48% 52% 90 78 52% 48% 173 163
Some Other State 0 1 37 30 37% 34% 64 57 63% 66% 101 88
Foreign Address = Yes 1 0 2 1 29% 25% 5 3 71% 75% 8 4
TOTALS 3 3 455 358 45% 42% 565 492 55% 58% 1023 853
(Refer to Appendix 3 for 2014 and 2018 data detail).
Further Analysis of 2018 Data for Income under $25,000
The following Tables 4, 5 6 and 7 provide overall results for Final Status by Gender for Income under $25,000, along with the information presented separately for Greater Minnesota, for the metro area, and for other states. (Note: the sum of a cell across the Tables 5, 6 and 7 totals to the overall number in that cell in Table 4.) In summary, the total number of attorneys earning income under $25,000 was about the same as in 2018 as it was in 2014. There were 1,406 attorneys earning income under $25,000 in 2018, and there were 1,413 in 2014. However, 57% of the attorneys earning income under $25,000 were female in 2014 and 64% of them were female in 2018. Unfortunately, this means that female attorneys are now even more likely to be over-represented in this category than they were in 2014.
18
Furthermore, these tables show that 55% of the attorneys earning income under $25,000 in Greater Minnesota were female, that 64% of the attorneys earning income under $25,000 in the metro were female, and that 72% of the attorneys earning income under $25,000 in other states were female. Although female attorneys are more likely to be over-represented in this category in all three geographic areas, they are closer to an equal distribution with males in Greater Minnesota than in the other two geographic areas.
TABLE 4: 2018 FINAL STATUS BY GENDER FOR INCOME UNDER $25,000 OVERALL
CURRENT STATUS
2018
NUMBER BLANK
2018 NUMBER
MALE
2018
% MALE
2018
NUMBER FEMALE
2018 %
FEMALE
2018 TOTAL
NUMBER
2018
% TOTAL
Under $25,000 income (all categories) 15 497 36% 894 64% 1406 100%
NOT under $25,000 income 291 19903 62% 11980 38% 32174 100%
TOTALS 306 20400 61% 12874 39% 33580 100%
(Refer to Appendix 4 for Table 4 data detail).
TABLE 5: 2018 FINAL STATUS BY GENDER FOR INCOME UNDER $25,000 IN GREATER MINNESOTA
CURRENT STATUS
2018
NUMBER BLANK
2018 NUMBER
MALE
2018
% MALE
2018
NUMBER FEMALE
2018 %
FEMALE
2018 TOTAL
NUMBER
2018
% TOTAL
Under $25,000 income (all categories) 1 106 45% 127 55% 234 100%
NOT under $25,000 income 38 2920 67% 1457 33% 4415 100%
TOTALS 39 3026 66% 1584 34% 4649 100%
(Refer to Appendix 4 for Table 5 data detail).
19
TABLE 6: 2018 FINAL STATUS BY GENDER FOR INCOME UNDER $25,000 IN THE METRO AREA
CURRENT STATUS
2018
NUMBER BLANK
2018 NUMBER
MALE
2018
% MALE
2018
NUMBER FEMALE
2018 %
FEMALE
2018 TOTAL
NUMBER
2018
% TOTAL
Under $25,000 income (all categories) 8 304 36% 540 64% 852 100%
NOT under $25,000 income 133 12530 61% 7913 39% 20576 100%
TOTALS 141 12834 60% 8453 40% 21428 100%
(Refer to Appendix 4 for Table 6 data detail).
TABLE 7: 2018 FINAL STATUS BY GENDER FOR INCOME UNDER $25,000 IN SOME OTHER STATE OR A FOREIGN ADDRESS
CURRENT STATUS
2018
NUMBER BLANK
2018 NUMBER
MALE
2018
% MALE
2018
NUMBER FEMALE
2018 %
FEMALE
2018 TOTAL
NUMBER
2018
% TOTAL
Under $25,000 income (all categories) 6 87 28% 227 72% 320 100%
NOT under $25,000 income 120 4453 63% 2610 37% 7183 100%
TOTALS 126 4540 62% 2837 38% 7503 100%
(Refer to Appendix 4 for Table 7 data detail).
20
Years Admitted by Gender
The data listing the years for admission by gender is contained in Table 8. This data shows that there was a continuing increase in the proportion of female lawyers admitted to the bar in Minnesota until 2005 when the proportion began to decrease.
TABLE 8: YEAR ADMITTED BY GENDER
YEAR ADMITTED
2014 NUMBER
BLANK
2018
NUMBER BLANK
2014 NUMBER
MALE
2018
NUMBER MALE
2014 %
MALE
2018
% MALE
2014 NUMBER FEMALE
2018
NUMBER FEMALE
2014 %
FEMALE
2018
% FEMALE
2014 TOTAL
NUMBER
2018
TOTAL NUMBER
Prior to 1965 11 23 899 836 96% 96% 35 34 4% 4% 945 893
1965-1969 4 7 692 676 97% 97% 24 23 3% 3% 720 706
1970-1974 6 17 1122 1146 93% 93% 79 84 7% 7% 1207 1247
1975-1979 9 17 1878 1917 80% 79% 456 501 20% 21% 2343 2435
1980-1984 8 24 1844 1894 69% 68% 840 909 31% 32% 2692 2827
1985-1989 11 24 1772 1827 64% 62% 994 1109 36% 38% 2777 2960
1990-1994 7 18 1841 1958 61% 59% 1194 1342 39% 41% 3042 3318
1995-1999 12 23 1772 1848 56% 54% 1392 1571 44% 46% 3176 3442
2000-2004 3 23 1784 1871 52% 52% 1636 1762 48% 48% 3423 3656
2005-2009 13 40 2384 2396 53% 52% 2107 2212 47% 48% 4504 4648
2010 0 7 509 522 54% 54% 442 442 46% 46% 951 971
2011 1 3 492 477 54% 54% 421 409 46% 46% 914 889
2012 1 12 567 535 55% 54% 458 450 45% 46% 1026 997
2013 3 2 557 539 56% 56% 429 418 44% 44% 989 959
21
2014 2 15 218 523 57% 55% 162 433 43% 45% 382 971
2015 N/A 9 N/A 507 N/A 56% N/A 404 N/A 44% N/A 920
2016 N/A 15 N/A 463 N/A 56% N/A 368 N/A 44% N/A 846
2017 N/A 24 N/A 448 N/A 54% N/A 381 N/A 46% N/A 853
2018** N/A 3 N/A 17 N/A 44% N/A 22 N/A 56% N/A 42
TOTALS 91 306 18331 20400 63% 61% 10669 12874 37% 39% 29091 33580
(Refer to Appendix 5 for 2014 and 2018 data detail).
**NOTE: Incomplete data is available for 2018.
MWL Gender Data Analysis Compared to 2017 Annual Report of the Minnesota Judicial Branch Demographic Data
For the first time in its 2016 Annual Report of the Minnesota Judicial Branch (Judicial Report), the Minnesota Supreme Court provided a summary of the demographic data that is now collected on the annual Minnesota Attorney Registration Form, including both gender and race. This demographic report was an exciting development in the effort to better understand the make-up of the Minnesota legal community. (The full Judicial Report is available at http://www.mncourts.gov/mncourtsgov/media/CIOMediaLibrary/Documents/2017-MJB-Annual-Report-to-the-Community.pdf). For purposes of further data analysis, the 2017 Judicial Report, released in March 2018, was compared to the data in MWL's 2018 gender classification study, as reflected in this report (MWL Report)2. In considering this comparison, the data points used for the two reports do not exactly correspond. Specifically, the Judicial Report splits attorneys into Active and Inactive categories, whereby the MWL Report identifies attorneys by Current Status, which has 12 categories including disabled, military, nonresident, resident but not practicing in MN, resident, resigned, and retired. As a result, any direct data comparison is limited. However, the summary data contained in both reports is indeed reflective of one another. In
2 The Judicial Report reflects attorney demographic data through the end of calendar year 2017. The MWL Report reflects data provided to MWL in early
January 2018.
22
Table 9, the Judicial Report indicates that 38% of all attorneys (active and in-active) were female, while 54% of all attorneys (active and in-active) were male. 8% of respondents chose not to answer the question. The MWL Report similarly shows that 38% of all attorneys (by current status) were female, while 61% of all attorneys (by current status) were male. 1% of attorneys were not classified. A comparison of the two reports suggests that those who marked the "choose not to answer" answer to the gender question on the Minnesota Attorney Registration Form are more likely to be male.3
TABLE 9: TOTAL NUMBER OF ATTORNEYS: MWL GENDER DATA ANALYSIS COMPARED TO DATA IN THE 2017 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE MINNESOTA JUDICIAL BRANCH
GENDER
MWL REPORT DATA: #
MWL REPORT DATA: %
JUDICIAL REPORT DATA:
# (ACTIVE)
JUDICIAL REPORT DATA:
% (ACTIVE)
JUDICIAL
REPORT DATA: # (ACTIVE & INACTIVE)
JUDICIAL
REPORT DATA: % (ACTIVE &
INACTIVE)
Female 12874 38%
9286 36%
11161
38%
Male 20400 61%
14016 55%
15810
54%
Choose Not to Answer (Judicial Report) N/A N/A
2207 9%
2495
8%
Not Classified (MWL Report) 306 1%
N/A N/A N/A N/A
TOTALS 33580 100%
25509 100%
29466
100%
3 Again, as previously stated, MWL recognizes that its methodology did not provide for an individual to specify his or her own gender classification, and
subsequently could not take into account an individual's self-selected gender identity.
23
YEARS ADMITTED TO THE BAR: MWL GENDER DATA ANALYSIS COMPARED TO DATA IN THE 2017 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE MINNESOTA JUDICIAL BRANCH In considering "years admitted to the bar" in the two reports, once again the data points do not exactly correspond. Specifically, the Judicial Report reflects the number of years since the person was admitted to the bar, while the MWL Report includes the actual year the person was admitted to the bar. Thereby, in order to conduct further data analysis, the MWL Report collapsed its many “year admitted” categories into five categories, to most closely align with the categories in the Judicial Report: admitted 0 to 10 years ago = admitted 2005 - 2018, admitted 11 to 20 years ago = admitted 1995 - 2004, admitted 21 to 30 years ago = admitted 1985 - 1994, admitted 31 to 40 years ago = admitted 1975 - 1984, admitted 41+ years ago = admitted before 1975. Table 10 reflects the MWL Report’s data with these collapsed, corresponding data points, and is provided for reference purposes. Table 11 reflects data from the Judicial Report, including both active and inactive attorneys. In reviewing the data from the Judicial Report in Table 11, it is clear that the number of female attorneys had dramatically increased from the years prior to 1975 through the period 1995 to 2004. Only 5% of the attorneys admitted prior to 1975 were women, while by the period 1995 to 2004 nearly half (47%) of the attorneys admitted were women. However, this dramatic increase appears to have ended, with the period 2005-2018 remaining at 46%, nearly identical to the previous decade. This same pattern appears whether the "choose not to answer" responses are included in the analysis or excluded from the analysis. Additionally in Table 11, where attorneys who selected “choose not to answer” for the gender question are included in the data analysis, attorneys who have been admitted 0 to ten years are much more likely to select “choose not to answer.” While 13% of the attorneys who have been admitted 0 to 10 years selected “choose not to answer,” by comparison between 4% and 8% of attorneys who were admitted more than ten years ago selected “choose not to answer.” Finally, the same pattern that was present in the MWL Report appears here in the data reported in the Judicial Report. The number of female attorneys has dramatically increased between those who were admitted to the bar more than 41 years ago and those who were admitted 11 to 20 years ago. Only 8% of the attorneys admitted prior to 41 years ago were female, which increased to nearly half (46%) in the period 11 to 20 years ago. Again, this dramatic increase appears to have now ended, with females comprising 42% of attorneys admitted in the past ten years.
24
TABLE 10: 2018 MWL REPORT REVISED CATEGORIES: YEAR ADMITTED BY GENDER
YEAR ADMITTED # BLANK # MALE # FEMALE TOTAL #
% BLANK % MALE % FEMALE TOTAL %
% MALE % FEMALE TOTAL %
INCLUDING BLANKS
EXCLUDING BLANKS
Prior to 1975 47 2658 141 2846
2% 93% 5% 100%
95% 5% 100%
1975-1984 41 3811 1410 5262
1% 72% 27% 100%
73% 27% 100%
1985-1994 42 3785 2451 6278
1% 60% 39% 100%
61% 39% 100%
1995-2004 46 3719 3333 7098
1% 52% 47% 100%
53% 47% 100%
2005-2018 130 6427 5539 12096
1% 53% 46% 100%
54% 46% 100%
TOTALS 306 20400 12874 33580
1% 61% 38% 100%
61% 39% 100%
25
TABLE 11: 2017 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE MN JUDICIAL BRANCH REPORT TO THE COMMUNITY (ACTIVE AND INACTIVE ATTORNEYS): YEAR ADMITTED BY GENDER
YEAR ADMITTED
# 'CHOOSE NOT TO ANSWER'
# MALE
# FEMALE
TOTAL NUMBER
% 'CHOOSE NOT TO ANSWER' % MALE % FEMALE TOTAL %
% MALE % FEMALE TOTAL %
INCLUDING 'CHOOSE NOT TO ANSWER'
EXCLUDING 'CHOOSE NOT TO ANSWER'
41+ years 86 1793 155 2034
4% 88% 8% 100%
92% 8% 100%
31 to 40 years 239 3066 1365 4670
5% 66% 29% 100%
69% 31% 100%
21 to 30 years 438 3249 2398 6085
7% 53% 39% 100%
58% 42% 100%
11 to 20 years 563 3513 3415 7491
8% 47% 46% 100%
51% 49% 100%
0 to 10 years 1169 4189 3828 9186
13% 46% 42% 100%
52% 48% 100%
TOTALS 2495 15810 11161 29466
8% 54% 38% 100%
59% 41% 100%
Final Summary
In 2014 and once again in 2018, MWL, in collaboration with OMS, conducted a gender classification study based on information provided by all licensed attorneys on the Minnesota Lawyer Registration form. In 2018, of the 33,580 attorneys licensed to practice in the State of Minnesota, 99.1% were classified on the basis of gender in this study. Of that 99.1%, 61% of the lawyers registered in Minnesota are male and 38% are female. This is consistent with 2014 data: of the 29,091 attorneys licensed to practice in the State of Minnesota, 99.7% were classified on the basis of gender in this study. Of that 99.7%, 63% of the lawyers registered in Minnesota were male and 37% were female.
The data was broken down further by examining the following: (i) status by gender; (ii) metro area vs. greater Minnesota by gender – general; (iii) metro area vs. greater Minnesota by gender for resident attorneys practicing more than three years under $25,000 income; and (iv) year admitted by gender. The data was also compared to the 2017 Annual Report of the Minnesota Judicial Branch demographic data collected during calendar year 2017 on the Minnesota Attorney Registration Form.
Despite the study excluding those lawyers for whom a gender was not determined and not accounting for certain analyses based on lack of data availability (e.g., attorney practice type, county presence, attorney title/position, part-time or full-time employment status, attorney salary/compensation levels, work vs. home residence, and individual's self-selected gender identity), the baseline data collected for this study is a valuable snapshot as MWL continues to follow demographic trends and determine what further steps may be taken to establish not only parity, but more importantly, equity for all women lawyers in Minnesota.
27
Recommendations
The MWL Gender Data Project: 2019 Follow-Up Report is an important next step in understanding the evolving picture of women attorneys in the Minnesota legal community. Not only does this study further inform a baseline count of the number of women in Minnesota’s legal profession, but together with other research available now and potentially in the future, it will help us to better understand how to advance towards parity, and more importantly, equity. Certainly, additional research (and in particular, more data) is needed to truly understand the status of women attorneys in Minnesota. Such data would ideally account for attorney practice type, county presence, attorney title/position, part-time or full-time employment status, and attorney salary/compensation levels.
Moreover, in specifically considering the data collected on the Minnesota Lawyer Registration Form (Form), additional steps could be taken to provide valuable information. For example, when attorneys report an address on the Form, those addresses are not designated as a work or a home residence address. The Form could request more specificity related to the address, thereby allowing a better understanding of the distribution of attorneys throughout the state, and how that relates to gender, race and other demographic indicators.
Minnesota Women Lawyers applauded the decision by the Minnesota Supreme Court in 2015 to add a race/ethnicity question on the Form and to make a response to that question mandatory (including the “choose not to respond” option). These significant measures have provided a better understanding of race, ethnicity and gender in the Minnesota legal community. However, more work must be done. For example, the data from the Minnesota Supreme Court identified that over 4,000 attorneys chose not to answer the race/ethnicity question on the Form. Allocating demographics to those unknown 4,000 attorneys could be significant given that the number of attorneys of color reported as practicing in Minnesota does not reflect the number of people of color in the State of Minnesota. In order to encourage all attorneys to complete the demographic questions, a marketing campaign similar to MWL's successful 2013 “I Want to be Counted” campaign4, may prove useful. By encouraging attorneys to complete each of the demographic questions on their attorney registration form, the number of people checking the box will hopefully continue to increase, and in turn, increase the data's accuracy.
MWL further encourages a cross-comparison of gender and race for the data collected on the Form, in order to best evaluate the demographics of women of color attorneys in our legal community. Although MWL is sensitive to the need to maintain attorney
4 At the time of MWL's 2013 "I Want to be Counted" campaign, gender was the only demographic question included on the Minnesota Lawyer Registration
Form.
28
confidentiality in completing the Form, we believe a creative solution may be found to balance the need for privacy and the value of this vital demographic data.
Finally, MWL respectfully advocates that the Minnesota Supreme Court consider including additional demographic data on the Form, including sexual orientation and disability status. The Minnesota Lawyer Registration Office is in a unique position to collect and provide the most comprehensive data on the status of all attorneys registered in Minnesota. Should additional demographic data become available, future research will provide an important opportunity to examine the current demographic position of Minnesota attorneys and identify trends towards not only parity, but more importantly, equity for all women lawyers, regardless of race, ethnicity, disability status, sexual orientation or gender identification.
Looking ahead, it is not likely that MWL will conduct its gender classification study for a third time. Certainly, the 2014 study was groundbreaking in providing the first-ever baseline number of female attorneys in the State of Minnesota. This 2019 Follow-Up Report helped to reinforce and re-evaluate those original findings. However, MWL also recognizes that the current data available to MWL for this gender classification analysis presents serious limitations, given it does not include many variables that would assist in the determination of parity, as previously outlined. Additionally, MWL acknowledges the important and evolving conversation about gender in our society, thereby making the binary male/female classification reflected in this study limiting. With all of this as background, MWL will continue to evaluate the statistically-significant data now provided in the Annual Report of the Minnesota Judicial Branch, further explore and advocate for additional data collection by the State of Minnesota, and consider additional opportunities to collect and analyze research here in Minnesota and across the country. Together, these efforts will allow the Minnesota legal community an opportunity to understand the efforts needed to advance towards equity for all attorneys.
29
Additional Resources5
The following links provide additional research and statistics related to women in the legal profession.
Legal Profession Statistics Gathered by the American Bar Association https://www.americanbar.org/about_the_aba/profession_statistics/
ABA Commission on Women in the Profession: https://www.americanbar.org/groups/diversity/women/resources/statistics/
National Association of Women Attorneys: National Surveys and Special Reports: https://www.nawl.org/p/cm/ld/fid=82 National Association of Law Placement: Resources and Initiatives: https://www.nalp.org/resources__initiatives Annual Report of the Minnesota Judicial Branch 2017 2016 Minnesota Law School Related Statistics: As provided on the 2018 ABA Standard 509 Information Report
Mitchell Hamline School of Law
University of Minnesota Law School
University of St. Thomas School of Law
5 Please Note: links are provided for information purposes only. These sites are not endorsed or supported by Minnesota Women Lawyers. This list is not meant to be exhaustive. No recommendation or representation is made or implied with respect to the sites or the information therein. Risk of use of the sites and the information therein is solely that of the user.
30
Acknowledgements
Minnesota Women Lawyers extends its sincere thanks to the following individuals, whose efforts and support made this research and report possible:
Chief Justice Lorie Skjerven Gildea, Minnesota Supreme Court Judge Wilhelmina Wright, U.S. District Court
Margaret Corneille, formerly of the Minnesota Board of Law Examiners; Office of Lawyer Registration Emily Eschweiler, Minnesota Board of Law Examiners, Office of Lawyer Registration Linda Olson, Minnesota Office of Lawyer Registration
Bridget Gernander, Minnesota Supreme Court Legal Services Dan Gustafson, Gustafson Gluek PLLC
Rossana Armson, Minnesota Center for Survey Research, University of Minnesota
Judge Elizabeth Cutter, Fourth Judicial District Adine Momoh, Stinson Leonard Street LLP Judge Kathleen Sanberg, U.S. Bankruptcy Court Kate Westad, Larkin Hoffman
Appendix 1
TABLE 1: 2014 STATUS BY GENDER
CURRENT STATUS # BLANK # MALE #
FEMALE TOTAL #
% BLANK % MALE % FEMALE TOTAL %
% MALE % FEMALE TOTAL %
INCLUDING BLANKS
EXCLUDING BLANKS
Disabled 1 115 82 198
1% 58% 41% 100%
58% 42% 100%
Military 2 125 40 167
1% 75% 24% 100%
76% 24% 100%
Nonresident 13 1216 834 2063
1% 59% 40% 100%
59% 41% 100%
Nonresident under $25,000 income 4 66 147 217
2% 30% 68% 100%
31% 69% 100%
Resident 3 years or less 3 1528 1239 2770
0% 55% 45% 100%
55% 45% 100%
Resident 3 years or less, under $25,000 income 1 84 88 173
1% 49% 51% 100%
49% 51% 100%
Resident more than 3 years 43 12970 7244 20257
0% 64% 36% 100%
64% 36% 100%
Resident more than 3 years, under $25,000 income 3 455 565 1023
0% 44% 55% 100%
45% 55% 100%
Retired - fee exempt 21 1772 430 2223
1% 80% 19% 100%
80% 20% 100%
TOTALS 91 18331 10669 29091
0% 63% 37% 100%
63% 37% 100%
32
Appendix 1
TABLE 1: 2018 STATUS BY GENDER
CURRENT STATUS # BLANK # MALE
# FEMALE TOTAL #
% BLANK % MALE
% FEMALE
TOTAL %
% MALE
% FEMALE
TOTAL %
INCLUDING BLANKS
EXCLUDING BLANKS
Disabled 4 120 96 220
2% 55% 44% 100%
56% 44% 100%
Military 1 112 32 145
1% 77% 22% 100%
78% 22% 100%
Nonresident 43 1221 919 2183
2% 56% 42% 100%
57% 43% 100%
Nonresident under $25,000 income 3 47 159 209
1% 22% 76% 100%
23% 77% 100%
* Resident - Not practicing in MN 13 613 635 1261
1% 49% 50% 100%
49% 51% 100%
* Resident - Not practicing in MN, under $25,000 income 6 62 217 285
2% 22% 76% 100%
22% 78% 100%
Resident 3 years or less 53 1403 1198 2654
2% 53% 45% 100%
54% 46% 100%
Resident 3 years or less, under $25,000 income 3 30 26 59
5% 51% 44% 100%
54% 46% 100%
Resident more than 3 years 120 13526 8100 21746
1% 62% 37% 100%
63% 37% 100%
Resident more than 3 years, under $25,000 income 3 358 492 853
0% 42% 58% 100%
42% 58% 100%
* Resigned 12 515 310 837
1% 62% 37% 100%
62% 38% 100%
Retired - fee exempt 45 2393 690 3128
1% 77% 22% 100%
78% 22% 100%
TOTALS 306 20400 12874 33580
1% 61% 38% 100%
61% 39% 100%
* NOTE: New categories since 2014
33
Appendix 2
TABLE 2: 2014 METRO VS GREATER MN BY GENDER
CURRENT STATUS # BLANK # MALE #
FEMALE TOTAL #
% BLANK
% MALE % FEMALE
TOTAL %
% MALE
% FEMALE
TOTAL %
INCLUDING BLANKS
EXCLUDING BLANKS
Metro City Name 49 11859 7251 19159
0% 62% 38% 100%
62% 38% 100%
Greater MN City Name 13 2796 1306 4115
0% 68% 32% 100%
68% 32% 100%
Some Other State 22 3604 2067 5693
0% 63% 36% 100%
64% 36% 100%
Foreign Address = Yes 7 72 45 124
6% 58% 36% 100%
62% 38% 100%
TOTALS 91 18331 10669 29091
0% 63% 37% 100%
63% 37% 100%
TABLE 2: 2018 METRO VS GREATER MN BY GENDER
CURRENT STATUS # BLANK # MALE #
FEMALE #
NUMBER
% BLANK
% MALE % FEMALE
TOTAL %
% MALE % FEMALE
TOTAL %
INCLUDING BLANKS
EXCLUDING BLANKS
Metro City Name 141 12834 8453 21428
1% 60% 39% 100%
60% 40% 100%
Greater MN City Name 39 3026 1584 4649
1% 65% 34% 100%
66% 34% 100%
Some Other State 100 4455 2792 7347
1% 61% 38% 100%
61% 39% 100%
Foreign Address = Yes 26 85 45 156
17% 54% 29% 100%
65% 35% 100%
TOTALS 306 20400 12874 33580
1% 61% 38% 100%
61% 39% 100%
34
Appendix 3
TABLE 3: 2014 METRO VS GREATER MN BY GENDER FOR RESIDENT ATTORNEYS PRACTICING MORE THAN THREE YEARS, UNDER $25,000 INCOME
CURRENT STATUS # BLANK # MALE #
FEMALE TOTAL
#
% BLANK
% MALE
% FEMALE
TOTAL %
% MALE % FEMALE
TOTAL %
INCLUDING BLANKS
EXCLUDING BLANKS
Metro City Name 2 333 406 741
0% 45% 55% 100%
45% 55% 100%
Greater MN City Name 0 83 90 173
0% 48% 52% 100%
48% 52% 100%
Some Other State 0 37 64 101
0% 37% 63% 100%
37% 63% 100%
Foreign Address = Yes 1 2 5 8
13% 25% 63% 100%
29% 71% 100%
TOTALS 3 455 565 1023
0% 44% 55% 100%
45% 55% 100%
TABLE 3: 2018 METRO VS GREATER MN BY GENDER FOR RESIDENT ATTORNEYS PRACTICING MORE THAN THREE YEARS, UNDER $25,000 INCOME
CURRENT STATUS # BLANK # MALE #
FEMALE TOTAL
#
% BLANK %
MALE %
FEMALE TOTAL
%
% MALE % FEMALE
TOTAL %
INCLUDING BLANKS
EXCLUDING BLANKS
Metro City Name 2 242 354 598
0% 40% 59% 100%
41% 59% 100%
Greater MN City Name 0 85 78 163
0% 52% 48% 100%
52% 48% 100%
Some Other State 1 30 57 88
1% 34% 65% 100%
34% 66% 100%
Foreign Address = Yes 0 1 3 4
0% 25% 75% 100%
25% 75% 100%
TOTALS 3 358 492 853
0% 42% 58% 100%
42% 58% 100%
35
Appendix 4
TABLE 4: 2018 STATUS BY GENDER FOR INCOME UNDER $25,000
CURRENT STATUS # BLANK #
MALE #
FEMALE TOTAL
#
% BLANK %
MALE %
FEMALE TOTAL
%
% MALE % FEMALE TOTAL %
INCLUDING BLANKS
EXCLUDING BLANKS
Under $25,000 income (all categories) 15 497 894 1406
1% 35% 64% 100%
36% 64% 100%
NOT under $25,000 income 291 19903 11980 32174
1% 62% 37% 100%
62% 38% 100%
TOTALS 306 20400 12874 33580
1% 61% 38% 100%
61% 39% 100%
TABLE 5: 2018 STATUS BY GENDER FOR INCOME UNDER $25,000 IN GREATER MINNESOTA
CURRENT STATUS # BLANK # MALE #
FEMALE TOTAL
#
% BLANK % MALE %
FEMALE TOTAL
%
% MALE % FEMALE TOTAL %
INCLUDING BLANKS
EXCLUDING BLANKS
Under $25,000 income (all categories) 1 106 127 234
0% 45% 54% 100%
45% 55% 100%
NOT under $25,000 income 38 2920 1457 4415
1% 66% 33% 100%
67% 33% 100%
TOTALS 39 3026 1584 4649
1% 65% 34% 100%
66% 34% 100%
36
TABLE 6: 2018 STATUS BY GENDER FOR INCOME UNDER $25,000 IN THE METRO AREA
CURRENT STATUS # BLANK # MALE #
FEMALE TOTAL
#
% BLANK % MALE % FEMALE TOTAL %
% MALE % FEMALE TOTAL %
INCLUDING BLANKS
EXCLUDING BLANKS
Under $25,000 income (all categories) 8 304 540 852
1% 36% 63% 100%
36% 64% 100%
NOT under $25,000 income 133 12530 7913 20576
1% 61% 38% 100%
61% 39% 100%
TOTALS 141 12834 8453 21428
1% 60% 39% 100%
60% 40% 100%
TABLE 7: 2018 STATUS BY GENDER FOR INCOME UNDER $25,000 IN SOME OTHER STATE OR A FOREIGN ADDRESS
CURRENT STATUS # BLANK # MALE #
FEMALE TOTAL
#
% BLANK % MALE % FEMALE TOTAL %
% MALE % FEMALE TOTAL %
INCLUDING BLANKS
EXCLUDING BLANKS
Under $25,000 income (all categories) 6 87 227 320
2% 27% 71% 100%
28% 72% 100%
NOT under $25,000 income 120 4453 2610 7183
2% 62% 36% 100%
63% 37% 100%
TOTALS 126 4540 2837 7503
2% 61% 38% 100%
62% 38% 100%
37
Appendix 5
TABLE 8: 2014 YEAR ADMITTED BY GENDER
YEAR ADMITTED # BLANK # MALE # FEMALE TOTAL #
% BLANK % MALE % FEMALE TOTAL %
% MALE %
FEMALE TOTAL %
INCLUDING BLANKS
EXCLUDING BLANKS
Prior to 1965 11 899 35 945
1% 95% 4% 100%
96% 4% 100%
1965-1969 4 692 24 720
1% 96% 3% 100%
97% 3% 100%
1970-1974 6 1122 79 1207
0% 93% 7% 100%
93% 7% 100%
1975-1979 9 1878 456 2343
0% 80% 19% 100%
80% 20% 100%
1980-1984 8 1844 840 2692
0% 68% 31% 100%
69% 31% 100%
1985-1989 11 1772 994 2777
0% 64% 36% 100%
64% 36% 100%
1990-1994 7 1841 1194 3042
0% 61% 39% 100%
61% 39% 100%
1995-1999 12 1772 1392 3176
0% 56% 44% 100%
56% 44% 100%
2000-2004 3 1784 1636 3423
0% 52% 48% 100%
52% 48% 100%
2005 0 381 375 756
0% 50% 50% 100%
50% 50% 100%
2006 3 478 403 884
0% 54% 46% 100%
54% 46% 100%
2007 6 539 474 1019
1% 53% 47% 100%
53% 47% 100%
2008 4 494 438 936
0% 53% 47% 100%
53% 47% 100%
2009 0 492 417 909
0% 54% 46% 100%
54% 46% 100%
2010 0 509 442 951
0% 54% 46% 100%
54% 46% 100%
2011 1 492 421 914
0% 54% 46% 100%
54% 46% 100%
38
2014 YEAR ADMITTED BY GENDER, Continued
YEAR ADMITTED # BLANK # MALE # FEMALE TOTAL #
% BLANK % MALE % FEMALE TOTAL %
% MALE %
FEMALE TOTAL %
INCLUDING BLANKS
EXCLUDING BLANKS
2012 1 567 458 1026
0% 55% 45% 100%
55% 45% 100%
2013 3 557 429 989
0% 56% 43% 100%
56% 44% 100%
2014 2 218 162 382
1% 57% 42% 100%
57% 43% 100%
TOTALS 91 18331 10669 29091
0% 63% 37% 100%
63% 37% 100%
TABLE 8: 2018 YEAR ADMITTED BY GENDER
YEAR ADMITTED # BLANK # MALE # FEMALE TOTAL #
% BLANK % MALE % FEMALE TOTAL %
% MALE % FEMALE TOTAL %
INCLUDING BLANKS
EXCLUDING BLANKS
Prior to 1965 23 836 34 893
3% 94% 4% 100%
96% 4% 100%
1965-1969 7 676 23 706
1% 96% 3% 100%
97% 3% 100%
1970-1974 17 1146 84 1247
1% 92% 7% 100%
93% 7% 100%
1975-1979 17 1917 501 2435
1% 79% 21% 100%
79% 21% 100%
1980-1984 24 1894 909 2827
1% 67% 32% 100%
68% 32% 100%
1985-1989 24 1827 1109 2960
1% 62% 37% 100%
62% 38% 100%
1990-1994 18 1958 1342 3318
1% 59% 40% 100%
59% 41% 100%
1995-1999 23 1848 1571 3442
1% 54% 46% 100%
54% 46% 100%
39
2018 YEAR ADMITTED BY GENDER, Continued
YEAR ADMITTED # BLANK # MALE # FEMALE TOTAL #
% BLANK % MALE % FEMALE TOTAL %
% MALE % FEMALE TOTAL %
INCLUDING BLANKS
EXCLUDING BLANKS
2000-2004 23 1871 1762 3656
1% 51% 48% 100%
52% 48% 100%
2005-2009 40 2396 2212 4648
1% 52% 48% 100%
52% 48% 100%
2010 7 522 442 971
1% 54% 46% 100%
54% 46% 100%
2011 3 477 409 889
0% 54% 46% 100%
54% 46% 100%
2012 12 535 450 997
1% 54% 45% 100%
54% 46% 100%
2013 2 539 418 959
0% 56% 44% 100%
56% 44% 100%
2014 15 523 433 971
2% 54% 45% 100%
55% 45% 100%
2015 9 507 404 920
1% 55% 44% 100%
56% 44% 100%
2016 15 463 368 846
2% 55% 43% 100%
56% 44% 100%
2017 24 448 381 853
3% 53% 45% 100%
54% 46% 100%
2018 3 17 22 42
7% 40% 52% 100%
44% 56% 100%
TOTALS 306 20400 12874 33580
1% 61% 38% 100%
61% 39% 100%
