The discussion in the preceding chapter started with the observation that the four race–gender categories had approximately equal access to the informal networks but quite distinct combinations of advantages and disadvantages, both internal and external, that helped explain their ability to gain that access. On the basis of this conclusion, it was possible to argue that four distinct pathways to network integration existed, in contrast to the single allocation rule stressed by rationalist theories. In this chapter, the focus is on relationships to the formal authority structure, as measured by the ability of different groups to participate in the decision-making process, the frequency of their contact with their supervisors, and their evaluations of the usefulness of that contact.

The analysis here parallels the three stages employed in the analysis of network centrality. A simple regression analysis is followed by separate analyses for race, gender, and race–gender subgroups; later, the measures of client–practitioner homophily and external ties will also be brought in to clarify the findings. The results are complicated, but it will quickly become apparent that the data follow a pattern quite different from the one that characterized access to informal network resources. As a preview, I shall cite four major substantive differences.

First, compared to the analysis of informal centrality, much of the variance in access to authority is left unexplained, both in the overall regression analysis and in the various subgroup analyses. The addition of client–practitioner homophily, external contact, and community activism improved some of the predictions considerably, but until those variables are brought in, the results here are less decisively drawn than were those for informal centrality.