Author: Lisa Kays

A holistic approach to wage-gap warfare (or, at least, heated discussion).

Posted on by Lisa Kays

My, oh my, the blogosphere is all a-sizzle with talk of the wage gap. 

Not over whether there is one (there’s progress for you), but whether it matters.  And whose fault it is, of course.

It started like this: Feministing took Carrie Lukas of the Independent Women’s Forum to task for her recent Washington Post column on how, in sum, the wage gap is really the fault of women for choosing the wrong careers, staying home with children, prioritizing money less and being unwilling to do the "tough" jobs men do. 

I will confess that reading her op-ed got my feathers in a ruffle.  But, being the rational, responsible, informed blogger-type that I strive to be, I set off to do some independent research.

I checked out some information on the book Carrie cites, Why Men Earn More: The Startling Truth Behind the Pay Gap and What Women Can Do About It by Dr. Warren Farrell.  Not having time to read the entire book, because my boss actually insists that I work while I’m here, I consulted a review.  The review explained that the book cites these issues as a significant factor in why women continue to earn less than men throughout our society:

1.  Women choose fulfilling, overly saturated jobs and careers.
2.  Women avoid well-paying, but risky work.
3.  Women avoid nontraditional fields.
4.  Women ignore career paths that would make them more upwardly mobil.
5.  Women work fewer hours. 

I found my feathers, again, ruffled.  But wasn’t sure why.  Was I having a knee-jerk reaction, unable to look the truth in the eye and see that really women’s issues are a result of women’s own, well,  issues?   

Nah, I didn’t think so.  Given my last post on pay equity for women, I’m a girl who can own my gender’s stuff as a means to empowerment when necessary. 

No, it felt like something more than that.  It basically just felt like something wasn’t quite right, wasn’t entirely accurate here.  That part of the picture was obscured.

So, of course, respectable blogger and all that I am, I checked the assumptions. 

1.  Women choose fulfilling, overly saturated jobs and careers (that pay less). 

Really? 

Because according to a recent article, "10 Industries Where Women Rule," women are moving upwards and onwards in fields like: healthcare (78%), employment services (57.4%), educational services (69%), social assistance (73.8%), pharmaceutical and medicine manufacturing (46.3%), advertising and PR (52.3%), day care (95.8%), insurance (60.9%), hotels and lodging (57%) and advocacy/grantmaking/civic organizations (66.9%).

Health care is currently experiencing a serious nursing shortage, and has been for many years.  As far as I know, quality educators are also equally sought after and increasingly harder and harder to find.  The pharmaceutical field seems to be faring similarly.

And the issue in these fields (well, education and nursing in any case) is that, by and large, they do not pay well.  Often, to be a teacher, a second income (either from a spouse or second job) is required if one is to be able to afford a reasonable standard of living.

Not to mention that these fields require ongoing education and certifications, none of which is free.

So, I would ask, is it really fair to say that the wage gap is a result of women’s tendencies towards saturated, overly desirable fields, when a number of the top fields employing women now are some requiring the most rigorous, difficult work with extreme stress (children and lives in your hands), difficult hours and generally low wages?

Rather, as per my last post on the inequity of women’s wages and advancement in the nonprofit sector (despite their being the overwhelming majority of employees), I would contend that the issue is that these sectors–despite their overwhelming importance and service of fundamental needs in our society–go largely undercompensated and undervalued.

Whether this is because they have always largely been fields occupied by women, or because of a general societal statement about their worth as industries, I won’t speculate.  Because in the end it doesn’t matter.  What matters is that women continue to subsidize–at the expense of their own economic security and equity–these fields crucial to our social makeup.

So is the only solution really that we discourage women from taking these jobs, that we narrow even further the already slim applicant pools and further drive down quality? 

Or do we, perhaps, as a society, determine that perhaps these fields warrant the pay, respect and advancement opportunities worthy of the services they provide–that it no longer be acceptable to pay less for "women’s work" (which we do) just because it is done by women?

2.  Women avoid well-paying, but risky work. 

Or, again, perhaps our society has mis-defined "risky" work.  A recent report done on trade union initiatives revealed that, in fact, it is a signfiicant misperception, in Europe and in the U.S., that, men do the physical hard work and women do not.  The report states, "Men do heavy, dangerous work, women do light, safe work – so it’s men that are at risk of musculoskeletal disorders. Nothing could be further from the truth."   

So, while no, women may not be terribly prevalent in The 10 Most Dangerous Jobs in America, it is not entirely correct to assume that their pay is a reflection of the physical risks associated with their work.  There are risks (carpal tunnel syndrome, mental health strain, dangerous locations, contact with aggressive people, etc.) related to a number of industries that employ a number of women that are underestimated as a source of emotional, financial or phsycial strain on employees.

3.  Women avoid nontraditional fields.

I guess if this were entirely untrue, the fields wouldn’t be considered nontraditional. 

But I must say that given the number of successful training and placement programs for women to prepare them for nontraditional careers funded by The Women’s Foundation–from construction to telehealth to security to real-estate–I have trouble accepting this outright.

Then there is the fact that the barriers to nontraditional work for women are not minimal–and are not controlled by the women who may or may not choose to go into those fields.  Barriers include sexual harrassment (in classrooms and on the job), unsupportive friends and family, lack of role models, lack of access to education, training or experience, lack of support services (child care, transportation) and discrimination on the job.

So, while yes, increasingly women entering nontraditional industries and jobs will help increase their pay equity and economic security, there are very real, complex societal and industry-based barriers to these careers that must also be addressed. 

As a case in point, programs such as those funded by The Women’s Foundation do so, and women engage in these trainings with great enthusiasm and success.

And with that, I’ll stop.  Numbers 4 and 5 are another post for another day.

For today, I wanted to just add my two cents to this dialogue with a statement that conversations that continually assert that the wage gap is entirely the fault of women’s choices concern me deeply because they ignore and invalidate two of the primary changes that need to be made to ensure economic security and equity for women:

1)  Increased pay, respect and value of fields traditionally occupied by women–which, I feel, would not only benefit women, but society as a whole through increased quality of important social services such as health care, education, mental health care, etc.  Underfunding and underpaying these fields is a disservice to everyone–not just those who work in them. 

2)  Elimination of barriers to nontraditional fields and increased support services to enable and encourage access to those fields for women, which must include a true understanding of–and commitment to addressing–the complex factors that inhibit women’s participation. 

There, said it.  I can feel my feathers unruffling as I type. 

For more information on some exciting programs doing excellent work locally on removing the barriers to nontraditional work for women, check out the Goodwill’s construction training program for women or Northern Virginia Family Service’s Training Futures.  Community Preservation and Development Organization has also had a successful training in telehealth and Casa of Maryland continually encourages women who take its English and women’s program courses to apply for jobs traditionally held by men. 

There are multitudes of others, all of whom are doing the heavy lifting necessary not only to evaluate and determine those fields that will be increasingly lucrative and accessible to women, but providing the services and support necessary to help them get there.

And that’s what I call a holistic approach to the wage-gap. 

The dollars and sense of financial literacy…

Posted on by Lisa Kays

In honor of Financial Literacy Month around the nation and here in our fair region, today’s blog is brought to you by the symbol $ and the letter S (for Save). 

Voila some facts, issues and thoughts that highlight the need for increased financial literacy and awareness and the potential impact it could have on individuals, communities and even our nation as a whole. 

Take a look, and then please join us to add your two cents worth of financial wisdom.  (Extra points for puns worse than that one). 

In October 2002, The National Endowment for Financial Education convened the first ever meeting of institutional and individual leaders committed ot increasing the financial literacy of Americans.  The symposium was titled, "Financial Literacy in America: Individual Choices, National Consequences," and found, among other conclusions, that paramount to a successful financial literacy movement would be a focus on youth, information distribution, goal-setting and partnership across organizations, industries and sectors.

And when such partnerships exist, such as those taking place through Maryland Saves and DC Saves, and financial literacy increases, everyone stands to benefit.  According to the Enterprise‘s fact sheet on financial literacy: 

  • Evidence on the benefits of financial literacy are consistent with conventional wisdom–the more people know, the better decisions they make about their financial planning and future.
  • Studies have shown that financial literacy training is effective at moving people closer to their goals. Even short training sessions can help people create positive behavioral changes for many months.
  • The most important factor in a financial literacy training program’s effectiveness is its design.  The curriculum must be tailored to the goals of the people it serves.
  • Despite an increase in financial literacy training programs in the last few years, those most in need of such training are usually the least likely to receive it.

The question then becomes, who most needs financial training and literacy?

  • According to the U.S. Department  of Labor, women are twice as likely as men during retirement to receive income below the poverty level.
  • Forty-three percent of adults in the United States at the lowest level of financial literacy live in poverty, compared to only four percent of those at the highest level of financial literacy.
  • Twenty percent of families earning less than $50,000 a year spend nearly half of their income on debt payments.
  • Conservative estimates put the number of households who do not use banks at 10 percent of the U.S. population. This problem is greatest among low-income families, seniors, immigrants, minorities and young people.
  • According to Demos, three groups hardest hit by the recent dramatic rise in personal debt are: students, people of color (particularly African Americans and Hispanics) and older Americans.

And in our region specifically, here are some organizations doing the heavy lifting of increasing financial literacy: 

Capital Area Asset Building Corporation (a Grantee Partner) is a leading member of the DC Saves Campaign and is hosting a number of financial education seminars throughout the month of April.

The National Association of Black Accountants and the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants are joining together this year to improve the Money $ense of the African American Community throughout the 50 states through the use of the AICPA’s 360 Degrees of Financial Literacy curriculum.

Casa de Maryland (a Grantee Partner) provides classes on goal-setting, budgeting, loans and other financial literacy concerns primarily for low-income Latinos in Maryland.  Their program is based on Freddie Mac’s CreditSmart Espanol curriculum. 

Virtuous Enterprises, Inc. (another Grantee Partner) in D.C. is launching a Financial Literacy Campaign for Women to help women-headed householders increase their net worth through financial literacy, saving, investing and homeownership.   

And I am sure there are countless others doing work to further the financial literacy and economic security of area residents, particularly women and low-income families. 

Drop a line to let us know about your favorites that I may have missed, or check out our Volunteer and Connect database to search for other nonprofits in our region doing financial literacy programming!

Federally funded fatherhood…fair?

Posted on by Lisa Kays

A few weeks ago, in response to my post inspired by Oxygen’s new series, Who cares about girls?," one of our readers left a comment, saying, "I have two young daughters so I worry as much as anyone about what the kids are going through these days–but there are problems and then there are PROBLEMS.  Fairfax ain’t India.  That said, maybe something on the importance of the father/daughter relationship?" 

He provided a link to some work being done in this arena by an organization called Dads & Daughters, which has a mission of "making the world safe and fair for our daughters."

After a few minutes on the site, I can’t help but love this organization, and their work.  As any girl with a father will tell you, dads matter–whether good or bad, there or not. 

That this organization is committed to supporting and enhancing this key relationship in a young (and adult) woman’s life, providing dads the tools to be better fathers and daughters the ability to come to terms with, learn from and integrate their "father issues," whatever they might be, is clearly a worthy, valuable goal.

And I’m glad someone has taken it on. 

And while I want to go on and on about how great this is, I’m also reminded that the same week I read that comment, I read an article in the Washington City Paper called "From Here to Paternity."

The article describes the work of The East River Family Strengthening Collaborative doing good work in the interest of encouraging men to be better fathers.  The article describes how program staff cruise for "reluctant fathers" at various health and community centers, looking for those they can influence to take a more active, positive role in their children’s lives.

Good work, noble work, necessary work.

Work that is receiving, the article says, millions in federal funding in Washington, D.C.  Two hundred such grants are handed out nationally, with Maryland in second place on the list in terms of the amount of money received (California was first) and D.C. third.

The grants have become part of a significant new "fatherhood" strategy on the part of the government because of the facts and data indicating that single mothers are more likely to fall into poverty, crime and repeat the cycle of poverty for the children.

In 2004, in Washington, D.C., the article states, 53 percent of all children lived in households headed by a single woman.

So, say the feds, get the dads back, fight poverty.

Not bad.

But, I keep thinking, are there similar, federally funded programs just for single moms? 

After some quality time on my beloved Goodsearch, and a few conversations around the office, we couldn’t come up with any.  While a number of programs such as TANF might primarily serve women, men are not excluded.

I’m left with this funny feeling that yet again, we’re focusing on Chris when we could be focusing on Christine.  Particularly since Christine is facing odds like these:

  • Only 15 percent of women going through a divorce are awarded any form of court-ordered spousal support.
  • Thirty-four percent of those women never receive what is due to them.
  • Less than half of the women who claim child support ever receive the full amount.
  • Within the first year of divorce a women’s average standard of living falls 45 percent while a man’s will grow 15 percent.

So somehow, an initiative just for fathers doesn’t seem entirely, well, fair. 

And according to the National Organization for Women, it might be quite a bit more…it may be illegal. 

For NOW is currently demanding access for women to programs geared to fathers under the Promoting Responsible Fatherhood Initiative, for which the Bush administration gives out $50 million annually. 

NOW is targeting 34 programs, three of which are local to our region, such as a $2 million grant for the D.C. Department of Human Services to help 2,500 low-income fathers with parenting skills, substance-abuse prevention and treatment, job training and educational development. 

Women are not eligible. 

Also on the radar is $1 million for the National Fatherhood Initiative, a Gaithersburg group, and the Latin American Youth Center in D.C., which received $250,000 to provide 30 young fathers a year with job training, language classes and parenting skills.  (Though with the LAYC program, women can enroll, too.)

NOW is advocating under Title IX (the law that prevents sex discrimination in federally funded education programs) that the funds be redirected as a parenthood initiative that focuses equally on services for men and women. 

That instead of Chris or Christine, the program provide services equally to both. 

And I’m inclined to agree. 

But I am neither the federal government, nor a lawyer, nor a single father or mother nor an expert on federal policy.

I’m just a girl with opinions (and biases, having been raised by a single mom).  And so I am sure there are nuances I’m missing, issues left uncovered, questions worth asking.

Here are a few of mine.  Throw in some of yours, or some answers, because however this turns out, it promises a number of precedents and implications that will be rather important to our work–and how we think about it.

And so I ask:  

1.  It seems to be that the fatherhood programs are providing social services that have been shown through research and data as being extremely beneficial to single mothers and low-income women, such as parenting skills, substance-abuse prevention and treatment (the importance of which for women was recently highlighted by Women’s E-news), job training and educational development. 

Why then, would the federal government only be inclined to provide them when they apply to fathers?  Why has a similar investment in single mothers never been a priority?  Does this just smack of sexism and unfairly aligned priorities, or am I missing an angle? 

2.  While equity is at the heart of NOW’s legal battle and call for revision of the initiative’s priorities, is equity truly the best solution?  If we know that there are far more single mothers than single fathers out there, and that the impact of such programming when invested in women tends to go further than a similar investment in men–is equity really the case that should be made, or should women’s advocates be arguing for similar, one-track, exclusive programming and funding just for single moms and low-income women? 

Where research indicates that the social benefits would justify it, is gender-based or "sexist" programming at the federal level ever justified? 

3.  One of the implications of the Fatherhood Initiative is that a household with two parents is always stronger economically and socially than one without.  But does this account for situations where a spouse is being abusive or has chemical dependencies, and where that presence could actually have a far more negative impact on the other spouse and children than his/her absence? 

Does the initiative screen for such cases?  Should it? 

And if so, where then are the supports and services for the responsible spouse who remains in the household with the children, if that spouse turns out to be the mother?

4.  Fatherhood programs such as the one described in the City Paper article expend a great amount of resources, time and energy recruiting and chasing down fathers to convince them to enroll in their services.  Programs for mothers tend to not experience this trend–rather there are usually more women needing services than are available.

Should the willingness and tendency of a population to participate willingly in programming be factored into priority decisions when funding and resources are limited?  Should social services also apply a supply and demand model when funding decisions are being made?       

And I’m sure there are other questions, issues and implications to be uncovered.  Let’s hear them…

Women in nonprofits…paying too high a price?

Posted on by Lisa Kays

Today, I was most fascinated to come across a blog post at The Chronicle of Philanthropy titled, "Why Women are Held Back in the Nonprofit World."

I was even more fascinated to see that it was based on actual research, and not just the anecdotal tidbits and random theories I’ve long used with my friends to try to explain this phenomenon.

Which, based on our collective experience, and the experience of our friends and people we hardly know, we are fairly certain exists.

And clearly does, since now it’s on the Internet.  And in The Chronicle, no less.  And everything either on the Internet or in The Chronicle has to be true.  And if it’s in both, well, I dare you to argue.

But let me get to the point, before I italicize us all to death.

The blog cites research done by Futures Leaders in Philanthropy (FLIP), reported in an article called, "The Women’s Sector? Not Quite," which finds that:

  • Women hold 68 percent of nonprofit jobs, but,  
  • They are scarce when it comes to running the biggest organizations and they earn less overall than their male colleagues.  Also,
  • Almost 85 percent of the chief executives at nonprofit groups with budgets of at least $50 million are men and,
  • Men in all nonprofit jobs earn a median compensation that is 28 percent higher than that of women.

Dude.  Or dudettes, I should say.

Why?

Well, our friends at FLIP speculated, of course.  They came up with a few theories:

  1. Women may fill the majority of nonprofit jobs because, if married, they feel less pressure to be the primary breadwinner, so they can give priority to their “feel-good” career goals.
  2. In terms of wages, women who grow within organizations can find themselves on the bottom of the pay scale at each promotion, whereas men who come to organizations from the outside more often demand to be hired on their previous pay scales.
  3. Nonprofit groups should do more to bring women into senior management positions for the good of the charity.  In a study of 353 Fortune 500 companies, it was found that companies with the highest number of women in senior management positions had a 34 percent higher return to shareholders than companies with the lowest number of women in such positions.

Interesting theories all.  And I have some to add (which The Chronicle encouraged, so it’s okay).

1.  The payscales and number of opportunities within the nonprofit world are a mirror of societal values–we value helping the homeless and free tax education less than we do celeb magazines and Coca-Cola, and therefore we invest less in it. 

Heck, we’re way more likely to contribute to the fight against AIDS when there’s a Red iPod attached, right?   

As a result, there are fewer opportunities and funds to go around, and where funds and opportunities are slim, women have always traditionally been the least likely to cash in.

2.  This is compounded by the fact that women, typically, don’t ask.  Which has been documented thoroughly in a book by that same title (which is worth a read) which explains that in many respects, women don’t earn as much as men in great part because we don’t ask or expect to. 

We have the best natural negotiation skills, but we, for whatever reason, are far better at using them on behalf of others instead of ourselves. 

So again, smaller pie, less to go around, so you use it on those who are more likely to demand a higher salary, what they’re worth against a fair market and the opportunities that match their skills: men. 

Women therefore are left holding the remaining positions and salaries.

3.  People in nonprofits are largely values driven.  That is why they’re there. 

But my sense from numerous discussions with women, including a recent one at a Women’s Information Network nonprofit networking event, is that women are more prone to be swayed by guilt in salary negotiations when confronted with the whole "contrast between what we could give you vs. what we could give the children or women or beneficiaries of our work" card. 

(I’d be very curious, however, to know, if that card is played more, on average, with women than men, but my anecdotal jury hasn’t turned up a decision on that yet.) 

And it’s possible, of course, that women play that card on themselves before the negotiation even begins–that we tell ourselves that to work in the nonprofit sector, or to do good, we are expected to make sacrifices.

Maybe men just don’t expect the tradeoff.  

In any case, if these trends continue, it seems that it will continue to be yet another–albeit subtle–way that women subsidize societal advancement and welfare.

But at what cost? 

Tough choices with Prof. Siobhan at Philanthropy 101

Posted on by Lisa Kays

As a self-professed excellent student (I had my first Franklin Planner at 17 and used to like nothing better than getting a new Trapper Keeper ready for a new school year), I expected Philanthropy 101 to be a cakewalk.

I mean, isn’t that what 101 means?

Clearly, Professor Siobhan never got the memo, because she put us through the ringer (in a good way, of course, seeing as how she is my boss) today at the first of a series of philanthropic education workshops The Women’s Foundation is hosting for current donors. 

I knew this wasn’t going to be underwater basket weaving when the good professor handed us a worksheet with a ton of values words–from acceptance to peace to democracy to dignity to justice to opportunity to access (and that’s just the beginning)–and asked us to narrow the list down to our top three.

Three? 

Then, just when we thought we’d had enough, she did the same with a list of issues a mile long, including women’s rights, literacy, drug and alcohol abuse, environmental preservation, domestic violence, international development and employment training (Oh, and I’m not even covering a fourth of it.). 

Only this time she asked us to narrow it down to one.

One.

It was madness, I say.  Pure madness. 

But educational madness, I must admit. 

Philanthropy, she explained (as she has before), is as much about learning to say no as it is about finally getting to say yes.  (The technical term for which, Prof. S explained is, "the good part.")

(And yes, you will be quizzed on this later.)

While at times tricky, the discussion overall was a thought-provoking, welcome introduction to thinking about philanthropy from an individual perspective and how to begin thinking about how to link your individual giving strategy (whether you’re the $10 or $10K donor) with your values and a personal mission statement (argh, homework).

It was also an intro–because there were 11 of us, with very diverse values, issues and interests–to the difficulty, and reward, of moving from individual philanthropy to the power of giving together and the real challenges, benefits and transformation that can occur from doing so.

When people begin to really examine their giving, Professor Siobhan explained, they realize it isn’t all that simple or easy.  That giving thoughtfully is work.

As the discussion moved into sharing of our own individual backgrounds and experience with giving and philanthropy, I couldn’t help but realize that my first real introduction to being in a position of Big Giving was as a Peace Corps volunteer in West Africa.

Where even though I earned less than $200 a month, lived in a simple cement structure with no electricity or running water and cruised around town on a bicycle, I was comparably rich beyond measure.

I remember the day it occurred to me–after months of fielding requests to build a well, send this or that child to school, help this mother feed her family, pay for new desks at the high school (where kids were crammed four to a bench) and so on and so forth (seriously, on and on and on), combined with months of being the single most recognizable, sought after person in town–that I was as close to celebrity as I would ever be.

I get it, I thought.  I get why movie stars and the extremely wealthy just want to run and hide much of the time.  Why some with wealth would prefer to give anonymously, or quietly, at the very least.

Because no matter how much wealth you have, you cannot say yes all the time.  And when you say no, often it’s never really understood why.

People in my village never really understood that I didn’t pay for desks because I was choosing to pay school fees for specific girls so they could stay in school, or that I was deliberately funding the education of girls over boys for a reason. 

As much as I explained, no one ever really understood why I couldn’t do it all. 

I had so much, after all.  And it wasn’t like there weren’t poor, poor young men also deserving of an education.

But I had to make choices.

Maybe then, that was my Philanthropy 101.  And today was a refresher. 

But an important one, because as we discussed, every life stage and change can alter your giving priorities, issues and interests.

A re-introduction is never a bad idea, to make sure that your giving is on track with who you are–emotionally and intellectually.

"Because," said the Prof, "When the head and the heart come together to find their cause, their organization, their area of giving…that’s where the magic happens."

Indeed.

So, thanks Siobhan for the very cool workshop and discussion today.  I’m sure I’ll be writing more about it as I continue to think through what we discussed and shared, and I hope the rest of you that attended will join the conversation as well as share your thoughts and impressions. 

And for the rest of you, I hope you’ll join us for the next session, Research 101, on April 19 at 12, where Siobhan will lead us through the key steps in researching and finding those organizations that are the best match for your giving values and issues. 

All current donors are welcome and are urged to R.S.V.P. to Tiffany Lightfoot (202-347-7737).  (And if you’re not a current donor now, why not become one and see what the power of giving together is all about?)   

Piola restaurant scores "sweet" victory for The Women's Foundation!

Posted on by Lisa Kays

When Jihane Achi from Piola restaurant in Arlington got in touch with us about hosting an International Women’s Day fundraiser on our behalf, explaining that she and her husband (who owns the restaurant) wanted to contribute 50 percent of the proceeds of all dessert sales on International Women’s Day (and the week leading up to it) to The Women’s Foundation as a means of giving back to the community, I knew that this could mean only one thing.

Field trip. 

Quality control is, after all, of the essence at The Women’s Foundation, and we do what we have to do.  No sacrifice is too great, no sugar rush too small. 

We made our trip after work on International Women’s Day itself and were pleasantly surprised to find ourselves greeted by servers who presented us each with a flower, and then proudly showed us the banner that publicized the fundraiser.  As we were served our complimentary mimosas to honor the day (after arms were twisted all around, of course), we all felt that Piola was not only making a generous contribution to the women of the Washington area, but also truly taking on the spirit of International Women’s Day by honoring every woman who walked through the door and making it a true celebration.

Who needs a parade when you’ve got this, I thought.  

The tone of the evening rang true with what Jihane had told me about the restaurant’s perspective on marketing and community.  "We could spend a lot of money on advertising," she said.  "But instead we’d rather take that money and expand our business by truly connecting with and supporting organizations doing good work in our community."   

A few days later, Jihane contacted us to share the good news that the fundraiser had raised nearly $600 for The Women’s Foundation, and had led to an increase in their total dessert sales of about 30 percent–a generous demonstration of their investment in the women of the Washington area, and their own business.

Staff were elated with the success of the fundraiser, and touched by the generosity and warm feel of the restaurant. 

They were not, however, surprised by the link between the fundraiser’s success and, well, the desserts. 

As Opa said afterwards, "Dessert was definitely my favorite part of the evening.  Profiteroles.  I couldn’t finish it, but it was delicious."

In sum, we’d like to extend our sincere thanks to Jihane and Nabil for their generosity, and for their investment in the women of the Washington metropolitan area and their community.  We’re proud to have the support of a young business venture led by two people who instinctively get the fact that investing in women is investing in communities, and that philanthropy can often be good business.

And to our readers out there, if you haven’t yet visited Piola (at 1550 Wilson Blvd, just off the Rosslyn Metro stop), take it from us, you should. 

Between the pizza and the profiteroles, it’s a sweet deal all around!     

NOTE: Piola is an Italian based pizzeria-restaurant chain with locations in six countries: Italy, USA (New York, Miami Beach, Washington D.C. and Hallandale Beach), Brazil, Argentina, Chile, and Mexico.  Each restaurant promotes International Women’s Day in its own way.  In New York, Piola also hosts a fundraiser for the local women’s foundation, the New York Women’s Foundation. 

Who cares about girls?

Posted on by Lisa Kays

While catching up on a little television this week, I saw some promos for a new documentary series about to start airing on the Oxygen network, wherein correspondent Lisa Ling will be asking, Who cares about girls?

The first part of the series, which will debut on Sunday, March 25th at 10 p.m. ET on Oxygen, will focus on the lives of girls whose mothers are in prison.  The next one will focus on child labor and prositution in India.

Each episode will look at the challenges and circumstances facing girls worldwide, as well as the efforts of those trying to help.

Sounds intriguing, particularly since girlhood these days, at least for me, has become a fairly confusing concept. lagunabeach.jpg

It seemed so clear-cut when I was experiencing it, before girls at 12 started wearing clothing and makeup more revealing than I ever felt comfortable wearing at 25, and before Laguna Beach showed high school kids experiencing levels of drama, maturity and complexity in their relationships and behaviors than I have been able to muster at 30.   

Before I could walk into the Nordstrom’s juniors department with a girlfriend and find age-appropriate "going out" clothing, and have to turn to said girlfriend to ask, "Is this too revealing?"  Followed by, "Wait a minute, this is how 13 year-olds dress now?" 

"Yeah," she said.  "Wierd."  90210cast-1.jpg

We were brought up when 90210 was as racy as things got and we were darned near scandalized if anyone even considered going beyond kissing.   

(And where we could at least console ourselves, if we started to feel a little less pretty, or less exciting, or less dateable than the girls on television, that they at least weren’t real–unlike with Laguna.)

Now, I look at young women, and I don’t know how they manage amid all these mixed signals and expectations.  I watch Laguna Beach and find myself, at 30, completely intimidated by these kids, who are like, 16.

And I wonder, then, how do  young women negotiate this?   

Then there are the girls I worked with in Africa, who face totally different negotiations, like trying to acquire the skills to convince their fathers that they’re worth educating, or finding time (and lamp light) to study at 10 p.m., when they finally finish hauling water, cooking the family meals and caring for younger siblings.  Or maintaining the sense of self, and perseverence, to continue with school at all, when every aspect of their culture and family generally tells them that this is useless, that they’re not worth it, that an education, a career and self-sufficiency are not their place. 

So, indeed, my sense of girlhood is fairly confused lately, and filled with concern. 

I don’t know how girls these days manage, in many respects, and I’m very curious to see what aspects of this Lisa will cover, and how. 

And what will surface as the strategies that are working to give girls more hope, and enable them to tap into their fullest, most positive potential, despite all the crazy messages and signals they’re being bombarded with.

My hope is that the feeling I emerge with is not that the one thing girls share worldwide is vulnerability, or victimization, but hope, intelligence, resilience and the ability to stand up to whatever pressures might be pointing them in other directions.

I guess I’ll have to tune in to find out. 

And in the meantime, drop a comment to let us here at The Women’s Foundation know what your thoughts are on the issues and pressures facing girls these days–here in the U.S. or abroad.

If you were Lisa Ling, what angle would you cover?  What solution would you surface? 

What story would you tell, if you could tell the world about girls these days, and who cares?

International Women's Day: Where's the parade?

Posted on by Lisa Kays

I haven’t always been a fan of International Women’s Day.

Largely because I haven’t always known it existed.  Here in the U.S., it seems to pass without a lot of fanfare, for the most part.  Seems its dwindled a bit around here.

There are no parades, no celebrations, no awareness campaigns taking over the streets like those I experienced in Africa, where I learned that International Women’s Day was a thing.

A fun thing, an important thing, a thing where important people gathered and gave important speeches, where women got together to celebrate their common struggles, and their solidarity.

A day that seemed to be at once an ironic reminder of how far women had come, and how very, very far they had yet to go in terms of status, rights, safety and equity.

I absolutely loved being in Africa, as an American woman, on March 8, because it was such a palpable reminder of how similar the struggles of women around the world, no matter how great the differences usually seemed.

For, while I, and my fellow female Peace Corps volunteers, were liberated, post-feminist American women with rights and freedoms and a sense of independence pretty much off the charts from what most of our African colleagues, mamans, sisters, students, teachers, market vendors and friends could imagine, we didn’t discuss our advancements compared to their lack thereof.  We did not compare struggles, trying to determine who was better off, who had traded what for what.

On International Women’s Day we gathered, and sent cards, and planned parades and trainings and gave hugs and laughed in the joy of our solidarity and that common, inexplicable, indescribable bond that comes from the shared struggle of living as women.

And that until systems right themselves and power is shared, our strength is our solidarity, along with our common understanding that what happens to victimize or make vulnerable one woman, happens to each of us.

The theme of International Women’s Day this year is, "Ending Impunity for Violence against Women and Girls" and Lucille Marshall has made a great case in AlterNet for the degree to which violence against women is a necessary focus for the world’s attention and women’s solidarity. 

And, while, of course the official International Women’s Day theme is about Violence with a capital V, her article got me to thinking about how so many acts of injustice against women–though not necessary acts of Violence–are equally as detrimental, just as scary, just as disempowering.  That violence, defined as, "an abusive or unjust exercise of power," is often far less obvious than a fist in the face.

For when war is waged, it is women who increasingly are forced to give up their lives, sexual and reproductive health and economic security–even if they’re not in uniform. 

And when women have no status in marriage and are economically dependent upon men who are enabled and encouraged by society to have multiple sexual partners, it is women who are assaulted in the form of AIDS. 

And when girls spend their days hauling water and doing laundry, rather than sitting in school rooms, they are being robbed of the information and knowledge that would protect their health and economic status. 

And when a lack of health insurance, an overload of bureacracy and economic insecurity for a mother mean the unnecessary death of a child,  these crimes extend beyond the women herself to the society as a whole–and its future.

And the list goes on, as I sit, this March 8, in Washington, D.C., thinking about how injustice against women at any level, to any degree, is not just an act of injustice, but, in fact, often an act of violence. 

That maybe inequity is just a euphemism for danger. 

And wondering why, then, here in the U.S., International Women’s Day will be noted, but not celebrated with the fanfare I experienced in Africa. 

One would think that here in the U.S., where our rights have evolved further than they have in Africa and many other parts of the world–and where we are so aware and empowered to make more demands and speak about how far we have yet to go–that we would have more to celebrate. 

More of a fuss to make. 

Or perhaps a little more complacency to go with our status. 

For in places like the United States, where women face inequities and injustices that are a bit more subtle, a bit less obvious than an inability to go to school or the daily threat of a conflict-sanctioned rape, we can sometimes forget to celebrate how far we’ve come, and to consider just how far we have yet to go.

Deamonte's story is hardly an isolated case…

Posted on by Lisa Kays

I hate going to the dentist as much as the next girl, but I have to tell you, these days, I’m feeling pretty grateful for the privilege.

Hearing Deamonte’s story yesterday, and then reading Robyn Fleming’s thoughts on this tragedy of a 12-year old boy dying because of a lack of basic dental care, spurned Siobhán to learn more about how widespread this problem is among children.

We were both stunned by what she found.

The American Journal of Public Health reported in July 2005 about American children that, "More than half of all low-income children without health insurance fail to go to a dentist for cleanings."  Their report contrasts these children with those who do have private or public dental coverage, among whom only 20-24 percent failed to visit a dentist for preventive care in the previous year.

The Child Trends Databank explains that, such as was the case for Deamonte, lack of dental health in children can have serious consequences.  "Untreated dental problems or poor oral health in children can result in problems in eating, speaking, and sleeping, poor performance in school, poor social relationships, difficulty concentrating, poor self-image, and problems completing schoolwork," the Databank says.  "Children with early childhood dental problems also often weigh less."

The breadth and depth of this issue only brings home Robyn’s point even further, that Deamonte’s tragic death is far from an isolated case, and that, as she so eloquently states, "The larger problem here isn’t just about access to dental care. This is a problem that so often is overlooked or ignored by this country as a whole.  This is an issue of those that have and those who have nothing. This is about poverty!"

Thinking about this story, and those words, I can’t help but think back on my pre-teen days, when one of my biggest problems, and sources of pain and anguish, was the $2,000 set of braces that were slapped on my face for purely cosmetic purposes. 

Seems embarrassingly ridiculous compared to the pain and anguish that Deamonte’s mother must now be suffering–all because her son wasn’t able to get a toothache treated.

Info and impact: the inextricable link.

Posted on by Lisa Kays

As I put together this month’s e-newsletter, I couldn’t help but notice that engaged philanthropy seemed to be the theme that carried the day (er, month)…from the Leadership Awards to the recent Washington 100 visit to CASA de Maryland to the upcoming Philanthropy 101 sessions, to the book list we generated around informed giving to Siobhán’s reflections on the real work, research and tough calls behind effective giving, it seems that February has been all about giving with a capitol G. 

And by that, I mean Giving that approaches the task from the head, as much as from the heart.  I sometimes think of it in terms of "philanthropic street cred."  Like seasoned reporters who know better than to follow just the flash of a celebrity-led press conference or humanitarian workers that go beyond the “hot” crisis of the day, philanthropists can also benefit from street cred—the experience of knowing the terrain, the people, the issues, the impact and the pitfalls.

I can think of a number of instances where information has contributed to my effectiveness as a philanthropist or as a professional making grantmaking decisions. 

One particular example that comes to mind was related to my work on a girls’ scholarship program in Africa, and particularly the Democratic Republic of the Congo.  We naturally assumed as we read proposals that the best–the best shoes, bags and books–to complement girls’ scholarships and our mentoring program was the most appropriate way to raise the girls’ self-esteem, encourage their academic success and, overall, keep them in school. 

Until we learned that in the DRC, the girls had actually been chased, taunted and occasionally had rocks thrown at them in fits of jealousy by other students who had nothing like the brand new, shiny supplies the scholarship girls received.   

While we, of course, continued to provide books and supplies to the girls in our programs, we became much more careful about ensuring that the girls wouldn’t stand out quite so much (We didn’t put a fancy American logo on their backpacks, for example), partnering with other organizations that would work in the same schools to provide comparable supplies to other students and encouraging more public awareness and education around the purpose and need for the scholarships for community members.

This experience reminded me, yet again, that giving–even with the best of intentions–must always be informed to achieve the desired outcome (and avoid undesired ones).

So, with Philanthropy 101 about to launch and an exciting site visit behind us, I’d like to ask about instances or situations where you’ve found that being an informed, educated philanthropist has truly made a difference in how you give, or in how the organizations you contribute to make decisions and, ultimately, impact their communities. 

For you, is there an inextricable link between information and impact?