Politics

DCWA: DC Council candidates respond to issues important to local women.

Posted on by Debbie Billet-Roumell

In an election guide released this week by the DC Women’s Agenda, DC Council candidates were challenged to find solutions to staggering issues confronting women and girls in DC, including the facts that 12% of DC women lack health insurance; 25,000 individuals, primarily women, are on the DC Housing Authority wait list for affordable housing; and, 9% of babies born with HIV/AIDS nationwide come from DC.

In response to a proposed policy that would support the adjustment to inflation each year for the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) (currently at 19% of the federal poverty line), the At-Large candidates offered different point of views. Councilmember Kwame Brown said he would “consider supporting this option but would like to have more information…to ensure that this is the best option to improve the quality of life for our local parents and children,” and Candidate Patrick Mara said he “would need to assess the implications of such a policy change in light of the present budget situation.” Councilmember Carol Schwartz said she “favored adjusting the amounts of TANF benefits to account for inflation” and Candidate David Schwartzman said “a cost of living adjustment every year for TANF benefits is absolutely necessary.”

This issue is especially important when you consider that for a family of three, to meet their basic living expenses, they must pay $4,386 per month, according to Wider Opportunities for Women. Even with a variety of public benefits, including food stamps in the amount of $426 per month, Child Care and Development Fund Subsidy and Medicaid, families’ expenses are more than they can afford with the TANF benefit of only $427 a month.

The 2008 Election Guide/ Issues Affecting Women and Girls details candidates’ responses to questions related to women’s issues in the upcoming election and is designed to help voters understand candidates’ positions on issues related to health care, housing/homelessness, wages, benefits and economic self-sufficiency, teens and child care. The D.C. Women’s Agenda calls for candidates to focus on the issues facing women and girls and encourages D.C. residents to expect the same of the candidates – both now and after the elections in the fall.

Debbie Billet-Roumell is the coordinator of the DC Women’s Agenda, a Grantee Partner of The Women’s Foundation that is a coalition of advocacy organizations, service providers, and individuals working to promote the advancement of equality, safety and well-being for women and girls in the District. It is chaired by the DC Employment Justice Center and Wider Opportunities for Women.

The Election Guide is available online or by requesting a hard copy at DBRoumell@wowonline.org.

Modified paid sick and safe days bill passed in D.C.

Posted on by Karen Minatelli

For those of you who have been tracking the legislation around the paid sick and safe days bill at the DC Council, I wanted to provide an update of what happened Tuesday during the Council’s vote.

The Council voted unanimously to pass the Accrued Sick and Safe Leave Act, and the Mayor has announced that he plans to sign the bill. This puts D.C. as the second place in the country (San Francisco was first) to have a law requiring employers to provide paid sick days to their workers.

It also makes D.C. the first place in the nation to require paid safe days, which victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking can use to address their situations.

It is also important to note that before passing the bill, some Council members voted in support of a number of amendments that dramatically affect the bill’s impact and reach.

First, the Council voted to replace the bill’s definition of employee with the Family and Medical Leave Act definition of employee. In practical terms, this means that all workers will have to be on the job for at least 12 months, and have to have worked at least 1,000 hours (an average of 19 hours/week) before they are eligible for leave.

This is a major change from the previous version, where workers had to be on the job 90 days before being able to use leave. We were disappointed that some of our core supporters, who said they would not support amendments that go to the core of the legislation, voted in favor of this amendment.

Two other amendments exempted health care workers who participate in premium pay programs and wait staff. One of the main purposes of the bill was to address public health issues, so exempting these groups of workers is particularly troubling.

In addition, the Council adopted a hardship provision, which allows businesses to apply for exemption if they can prove hardship. The language in this amendment was quite vague, potentially leading to a large loophole. The Council also inserted a provision requiring an economic impact study and another that caps at $1000 the penalty for employers who willfully violate the posting requirement.

Two very problematic amendments were defeated.

The first would have changed the categories so that workers in businesses with up to 100 employees would earn only three days per year, and workers in larger businesses just five days.

The second would have exempted employees in businesses with 15 or fewer employees. Both of those were withdrawn when it became clear they lacked enough support to pass, so the final version has the following categories: three days for businesses with 1-24 employees; five days for businesses with 25-99 employees, and seven days for all others.

This is an important first step for the District and for workers, but the DC Employment Justice Center looks forward to a time when the city provides essential paid sick and safe time for all its workers.

Karen Minatelli is the deputy director of DC Employment Justice Center, a Grantee Partner of The Women’s Foundation.

Read more about how this bill impacts women here.

Hillaryland, and you and me.

Posted on by Lisa Kays

However you feel about Hillary, it’s hard to deny that she represents far more than a Democratic bid for the presidency at every possible level. 

Love her or hate her, love her and hate her, even just feel a little lukewarm (Okay, noone feels that way), whatever your inclination, Hillary, and how she is treated in the media, as a candidate, by women, by everyone, mirrors back how uncomfortable or comfortable we are–as a nation, as women–with women’s leadership at the highest levels.

While certainly the controversial nature of her candidacy in itself is a variable in this election and in the discourse around her, we would be wise to truly ask ourselves–consistently and throughout her candidacy (and potential presidency)–if that is really the issue when we are speaking, reading or learning about her.

If we are truly talking about Hillary–or if we are talking about women’s leadership or about Hillary as a woman candidate.  It is an important distinction, and one we would all be well-served to ask ourselves, whatever side of the aisle we sit on.

Over the past few weeks, a number of articles and blogs have brought this home, raising issues not only about Hillary, but about women’s leadership in general.

The Washington Post article, Gatekeepers of Hillaryland, described her campaign, and its primarily female cadres of staffers and advisors self-titled as "Hillaryland." 

AlterNet featured a piece showcasing "What Women See When They See Hillary" that discusses how some feminists feel about Hillary, and how, and why, feelings have shifted over time. 

Feministing ran a post on "Female candidates and women’s issues" on the double standard that impacts women leaders, who can be labeled as too soft for focusing on women’s issues, or too "mannish" if they focus on things like national security. 

Reinvention featured a post along the same lines, addressing three "damned if you do, damned if you don’t" contradictions that face women leaders in business–and certainly apply to those in politics.

On yet another dichotomous note, Feministing then describes how "Hillary faces dowdy/whore dichotomy," asking whether America can tolerate female leaders and politicians who flaunt their feminine, sexual sides. 

All of this begs a few questions:

1.  One female blogger notes:  "This Washington Post article calls her campaign Hillaryland.  That name doesn’t bode well with me. I smell sexism. You never hear them saying Guillianiworld or Romneyville. Hillary’s campaign is groundbreaking. The media needs to show it some respect."

I find myself agreeing, because I think she’s right.

But then I remember that Hilaryland is self-titled, not media appropriated.  The campaign is calling itself this, and, as many are speculating, possibly pitching articles like these to soften and humanize Hillary. 

I want to know why.  Because it seems rather, well, frankly, un-Hillary-esque in terms of her actual leadership style. 

Perhaps getting back to that whole damned if you do, damned if you don’t issue referenced above. 

Maybe by boxing Hillary’s campaign away into an image conjuring a happy, safe place, like, say, Disneyland–even if just through language–the campaign is thinking that we’ll all be a little more comfortable with the idea of a Hillary remaining within some semblance of a contained, private, secret space.  Even a home. 

But, at what cost?  Will keeping Hillary tied to the concept of home lead her to the ultimate one, the White House? 

Because generally, do we expect that kind of thing of candidates?  That softening, humanizing, a return to the hearth to prove their validity to lead? 

Of male candidates it seems we typically ask the opposite, for military service, decisiveness, strength. 

2.  Which leads me to my second question:  When will women be able to stand alone as leaders, separate from their being a woman? To be seen for their own unique leadership styles, rather than as emblems of the typical perceived framework of women’s leadership?

We don’t discuss Barack or Bush within a framework of how their being men–and being advised primarily by men–influences their decision-making.

So with Hillary, we are then choosing not a leader among leaders, but between two options–women’s leadership and men’s.  More than likely, I think, a false choice. 

3.  Largely because I’m not sure that women’s leadership even exists.  Yes, women lead.  Yes, women can and should hold power.

But is there a monolithic mandate on women’s leadership and how it operates? 

We don’t discuss male leadership as an overarching theme of male leaders.  We view them as individual leaders. 

So, on that note, is it fair, effective or wise to ever consider "women’s leadership" as a concept? 

4.  I’m not sure, but I do know that one bothersome offshoot of this occurs in how Hillary is treated in the media, well documented by WIMN’s Voices in their post, "When Does Wife Trump Senator?" which documents how often the media refers to Hillary as the wife of the former president (and often, I might add, in light of needing his support.), and leaving off her title as "Senator" and, often, even her last name. 

Meaning that we’re more likely to perceive her first as a women, and secondly as a leader. 

5.  Which leads to the central question that surrounds Senator Clinton’s candidacy for me–and, I sense, for a lot of women: 

Do I, as a woman, as an advocate for women’s leadership, rights and equality, evaluate her based on her leadership alone, and compare her, genderless, just as I would any of the other candidates? 

Or do I evaluate her based on the fact that she’s a woman, and what her election would mean for women generally, and for women leaders? 

I ran across this statement, from a male blogger, commenting on the article:  "One upside of a Hillary presidency would be the totally unprecedented amount of women that would move into positions of real power. This can’t be discounted when considered the merits of Clinton’s campaign."

An undeniable truth. 

So, my quandary is clear–because I want Senator Clinton to be evaluated on her own merits.  As a leader among leaders, not as a woman among leaders, or as a chance we’re all taking that will reflect on every woman in this country, on every future bid for leadership or candidacy. 

I’d like for her to just be a candidate, standing in line with other candidates, equal. 

But at the same time, I know that’s ridiculous.  She is clearly a woman, a woman candidate, a woman leader.  Potentially the first at this level.  And as such, is evaluated that way. 

I’m left with the thought I always come back to, of sitting in villages in Africa, talking with young girls and women about the importance of role models.  Of writing a calendar showing women as parliamentarians, journalists, doctors, judges.

So that the girls would know that it was possible, that they could reach for more.  That it wasn’t bizarre, or weird, or strange for them to want these things.  To expect them.

That it was normal. 

And I think about my third grade teacher writing a note to my sister saying, "Maybe we’ll be able to vote for Lisa for president some day."  (I was a terribly precocious third grader.)

And how she got that note when I was old enough to know how unlikely that was, because we weren’t there yet, because that was something for the future, for way off.

Something to talk about in terms not of "when" or "who" but in terms of debating how many years it might take, when the country might be ready, when it wouldn’t be bizarre, or strange for me, as a girl, to aspire to that.  

And now, I think, much like it has already come to pass in other countries throughout the world (and, in recent news, India!), the future could really be now. 

DCWA: Economic security is key to the city's health.

Posted on by Jessica Goshow

In keeping with my promise last week, I’m back with more on the DC Women’s Agenda’s white paper, Voices and Choices for D.C. Women and Girls: Recommendations for City Leaders 2007–and action you can take to encourage city leaders to increase the economic security of our region’s women.

This week’s topic is economic security for women and girls, or, the lack thereof, and how it feeds into a number of other issues facing our city.  Economic security is at the forefront of every issue in the white paper, largely because we can talk about the housing crisis, healthcare, and domestic violence and other safety issues (and don’t worry, we will), but without a good job, these topics are all moot.

An individual must have a job in order to survive, to have basic needs met.  Having a good job is the starting point to all other things in one’s life.

As the white paper details:

Economic security is a critical component of healthy, stable lives. Individuals and families fall apart in the absence of good jobs—ones that pay self-sufficient wages, include benefits such as health insurance and paid sick days, and provide flexibility to balance work and family. The foundation to obtaining and maintaining a job is a quality education and strong skills in areas where there is a need and where good jobs exist.

For women and girls in the District of Columbia, unfortunately, both the foundation for economic security and that security itself are in short supply. The school system fails to adequately educate our young women, and the job training programs that exist inadequately position women to obtain good jobs in strong markets. Even when a woman is able to receive the education and training she needs, the jobs themselves frequently lack the kind of flexibility that is so crucial for balancing work and family.

The large majority of single parent households in the District of Columbia are headed by women, so women are the ones who suffer by the city’s lack of affordable, available child care and the nonexistence of laws requiring employers to provide paid sick days of family and medical leave.

There is no hiding the fact that the gap between the rich and the poor in D.C. is extremely vast. The business community in D.C. is booming, but it is not D.C. residents who are benefiting.  In D.C., employers are required to fill 51 percent of all new jobs with D.C. residents in an effort to ensure that those who live in the city are getting its jobs.

This sounds like a good idea…if it were enforced.  According to a report done by the D.C. Fiscal Policy Institute, the Department of Employment Services has never fined a business for failure to comply.

In D.C., 30 percent of women-headed families are living in poverty and 11 percent of women are unemployed. This is just shy of double the national rate of unemployment.

There are many barriers that women and girls face when it comes to attaining sustainable employment, the largest of these being education and job training.

The education system in the District is lacking.  By 8th grade, 69 percent of students in D.C. public schools have below average math skills, as compared to 32 percent nationwide. With statistics like that, it is not surprising that many of D.C.’s children are not prepared when it comes time to find a job. 

And that therefore job training would be extremely beneficial.

For those who are fortunate to get a job in D.C., the barriers do not stop there.

Half of the city’s private sector jobs do not provide paid sick days or paid family and medical leave.  If an individual is lucky enough to find a decent paying job in D.C., they better not get sick because they do not have the luxury of being able to take a day off with pay.  Most low wage workers are forced to make the decision of staying home to care for themselves or go to work sick.

Many do not have a choice. They have to go to work.

Some even run the risk of getting fired for taking a day off to care for themselves.

Allowing workers to take a day or two to take care of themselves will ensure a shorter recovery time and mean that when the worker is at work, they are working at their full potential and not nursing an illness.

Currently there is legislation going through the DC City Council that would provide full time workers up to 10 paid sick days and part time workers five days.  With these available days, a worker can stay home to take care of themselves as well as a child or other family member if they are sick. The employee can take the days without fear of repercussion.

The DC Employment Justice Center, along with many other nonprofits, service providers and advocates hope that this legislation will provide some relief to already over worked, underpaid D.C. workers.

Talking about topics such as these can be overwhelming and frustrating. It’s hard to know what to do to combat such complex issues. One thing that you can do to help provide the workers of D.C. with some time off to take care of themselves is to contact your councilmember and tell them that you support the Paid Sick and Safe Days Act of 2007. You can also show your support by coming out to the public hearing on July 9 at 3 p.m. at the John A. Wilson Building at 1350 Pennsylvania Ave, NW.

Or, if you would like more information about the paid sick and safe days initiative, please feel free to contact me at any time.

For more information on the Paid Sick and Safe Days Act of 2007, see Jack Mahoney’s previous post on how you can help build economic security in an office near you!

Jessica’s previous post on the white paper can be found here.  And there will be more to follow! 

Jessica Goshow is DC Employment Justice Center’s (DCEJC) legal and policy associate.  Being that EJC and Wider Opportunities for Women are the co-chairs of the DCWA, she was involved in the coordination, writing, and reviewing of the white paper.

The DC Women’s Agenda, DC Employment Justice Center and Wider Opportunities for Women are all Grantee Partners of The Women’s Foundation. 

Food Stamp Challenge: Lessons learned, from the personal to the global.

Posted on by Sherell

Well, I didn’t successfully complete the one-week D.C. Hunger Food Stamp Challenge, but, I did learn valuable lessons and new personal insights. 

But first, full disclosure.  Why didn’t I finish?  I pretty much gave up.  I tried, but it was pretty tough.

The first lesson I learned was, if grocery shopping on a limited budget, it’s best to buy everything before the week begins. That way, it’s harder or better yet impossible, since there’s no money, to be tempted to buy high priced foods here and there throughout the week that you really don’t need.

The second lesson I learned is how connected I am with food, emotionally, physically, and psychologically. The fourth night of the challenge was the hardest. I went to bed feeling almost depressed because I couldn’t eat what I really wanted. The smell and taste was so close, yet so far.  Up until the fourth day, physical hunger wasn’t a problem, but that night, my stomach was feeling empty.  Ironically while I write this, an ABC Nightline commercial just aired about gastric-bypass surgery and referred to food “as an addiction.”

On the morning of the third day, I was so irritable that I grabbed a cold cookie from a refrigerator and ate it within 20 seconds. I felt so restricted that I didn’t even warm it up like I usually do. I didn’t even like that particular chocolate flavor, but it was sweet, quick, satisfying, accessible, and free.

I pretty much knew that I was going to go back to the usual eating regime on the morning of the fifth day. I still can’t really imagine how people who are really suffering from chronic hunger, and people who don’t necessarily starve, but who can’t afford the foods of their choice, feel.

I think I took it so hard because it was such a fresh experience for me, but for someone who hasn’t had the foods of their choice for months, I wonder if there is a kind of desensitization to the whole thing of missing tastes.

All this wondering made me pull the late Elliot Liebow’s, Tell Them Who I Am: The Lives of Homeless Women, off my bookshelf.  I like this book because the information comes from his participatory observation of single, homeless women in emergency shelters in DC.  One of the main problems of daily living was health and diet.

“Obesity, stomach disorders, diabetes, food allergies, cardiovascular irregularities, and other disorders for which diet is integral to treatment made up another class of common health problems that resisted treatment by the very nature of homelessness…typically in shelters, few choices were available. Low-fat, low-salt, low cholesterol…and other low-this-or-that dietary injunctions were almost impossible to observe,” Liebow writes.   

Nobody, especially in the U.S., should go hungry, and/or be subject to affordable but highly unhealthy food. We have enough food in our stores and restaurants for everyone to eat sufficiently and healthy. This made me want to do a little research.

According to the nonprofit organization CARE:
•  More than 840 million people in the world are malnourished — 799 million of them live in the developing world;
•  Over 153 million of the world’s malnourished people are children 5 years of age or younger; and,
•  A lack of essential minerals and vitamins contributes to increased child and adult mortality. Vitamin A deficiency impairs the immune system, increasing the annual death toll from measles and other diseases by an estimated 1.3 million-2.5 million children.

That’s hard to digest (no pun intended), not because it doesn’t seem valid (I wish that were the case), but because it’s mind blowing.

What’s going on in the most developed country?

Looking at hunger stats at home (the U.S.) according to FRAC (The Food and Research Action Center):
•  At least 10.8 million people live in homes considered to have “very low food security.”
•  In my home state, Maryland, 196,000 households were considered “food insecure” from data gathered between 2003-2005. 115,165 of people in these households were WIC recipients (Women Infants and Children). Minimum wage in Maryland was $6.15 as of 2006. That is not enough for a woman who has a young child or children, and is trying to pay for decent housing, to live on.
•  In DC, the number is lower, with 31,000 households considered to be “food insecure” from data gathered between 2003-2005. 15,193 of people in these households considered food insecure are WIC recipients. The minimum wage in DC was $7.00 as of 2006.

These types of facts outrage me, especially when I hear about the kids.  That’s also what made it frustrating to quit the challenge prematurely–guilt from knowing that I have the privilege to return to my “regular eating” when many don’t.

On a positive note, a good insight I had from all this was that I should continue volunteering at the Pathways shelter I go to monthly.  I am a “dinner volunteer” for the smaller subcomponent of Calvary Women’s Services in DC, and in the two weeks prior to the challenge, I’d just started searching for different volunteering opportunities that might provide more direct interaction between me and the clients.   

Pathways houses about 10 chronically homeless women, some with mental disorders, and at the site there isn’t much talk between me and the women when I go to deliver food and prepare plates.  While I understand why they wouldn’t want to chat it up with someone they see bring some dinner in every once in a while, I really would like an opportunity that allows me to interact more, so I was thinking of not going anymore, and instead looking into reading for children in local hospitals or something.

After this challenge, while I can look for other opportunities, I know I can’t stop bringing the food.  The women always say they like my dishes, and the least I can do is send some hot, tasty, nutritious dishes their way.

Nobody should have to go hungry, and for me it starts on working on issues that affect the women right here in the local community.

For information on other ways to get involved in our community, Volunteer and Connect! 

Food Stamp Challenge: Final reflections…

Posted on by nisha

I did it! I made it through all seven full days of the Food Stamp Challenge without breaking!

Day 4, Thursday, was okay.  Breakfast was the standard yogurt and Special K Bar.  Lunch was my $1 pizza, which felt like such a treat even if it wasn’t the best tasting thing I’ve ever eaten. I ate my dinner of a Boca burger with cheese on whole wheat before heading to my Bread for the City board meeting.  I resisted eating the usual pizza and salad provided at our Board meetings, and just had a glass of water. Several other board members and staff were participating in the challenge, so there were many of us who weren’t eating.  We spent some time at the meeting reflecting on our experiences, and the solidarity was helpful in reminding me why I agreed to take on this challenge in the first place and why an organization like Bread is so necessary.

Day 5, Friday, was the toughest of all for me throughout the challenge. Lately, I’ve been hitting the gym five days a week and I tried to stick with it during the challenge, which was tough. After my workout on Friday, the rest of the day was a struggle. After four and half days of eating so few calories, burning quite a lot (although not as much as usual, as I had zero energy left to do any weights), and then enduring the Code Orange air and 90 percent humidity, memories of heat exhaustion in Delhi came flooding back. But, alas, no access to Limca Cola to perk me up.

I could barely focus at the morning workshop I attended, and I was so cranky and hungry and numb as I slugged back to my office throughout the downtown heat, loathing the smell of the city in the summer. I ate my last remaining tuna and cheese sandwiches. I somehow managed to stay alert by constantly drinking water through my afternoon meetings and the graduation of WAWIT’s inaugural class (even my weariness from the Food Stamp Challenge could not keep me away!).

I was too exhausted afterwards to do anything but go home and go to bed.

Day 6, Saturday, was tolerable. Having purchased just enough yogurt and Special K Bars for my weekday breakfasts, I had been counting on eating toast for breakfast on Saturday and Sunday. Unfortunately, I had miscalculated how much bread I had, so I had to skip breakfast on both Saturday and Sunday. On Saturday, I slept in and then hit the gym. I staved off my hunger with leftover pasta and beans throughout the day.  I got pretty creative with tossing pasta with a little olive oil and spices to try and fool the palate into thinking I was eating something different. I didn’t have a choice, as I was out of pretty much everything else.

Saturday evening, I met some friends for movie, which was good since eating wasn’t involved. Afterwards, we decided to enjoy the pleasant weather and catch up over drinks at a place with an outdoor patio, which meant tap water for me and beers and munchies for everyone else. It actually felt good to be able to exercise some will power, but then I was starving by the time I got home. As it was after midnight, I decided it was too late to eat and went straight to bed and tried to forget about being hungry.

Day 7, Sunday, could not pass fast enough. By the end of the day, I had eaten almost all of my remaining pasta. I have maybe a couple of ounces of dry pasta left, but other than that, I have eaten every scrap of food I purchased for the challenge.

I weighed myself before and after the challenge. I lost four pounds.  I think I ended up skipping a total of three meals during the seven days. Reflecting on the past seven days, I am reminded of my experience bungy jumping in New Zealand:

a)  I did it on a whim.
b)  It was horrifying.
c)  I’m glad I did it.
d)  I proved to myself that I could do it without chickening out.
e)  I don’t feel the need to ever do it again.
f)  Now, that it’s over, I have a feeling of sweet relief.

Making the nonprofit sector a win for women…

Posted on by Lisa Kays

As a co-chair of D.C.’s WIN‘s Nonprofit Network, I was responsible for sharing responsibility for planning a dinner party for the annual Women Opening Doors for Women event.  The dinner parties are designed to provide young women in our area the opportunity to meet in an informal setting to discuss professional issues with women who are more advanced in their careers. 

The theme for our discussion, "Women in Nonprofits: We are Not Worth Less," emerged largely from a number of discussions among women in our network around salary and professional concerns related to the nonprofit sector, as well as from research around the salary and leadership levels of women within the sector as a whole. 

Eleven women gathered for more than two hours–until after 10 p.m.–to hear Elizabeth Lower-Basch, a senior policy analyst with the Center for Law and Social Policy and Lisa Maatz, director of government relations and public policy with the American Association of University Women, discuss their perspectives and learning around careers in the nonprofit sector–and particularly the balances and choices that impact women in the sector.

Questions and discussion centered largely around the tension that surrounds a choice to prioritize doing good over making millions, and why it is often women who often decide to prioritize the former.  My sense is that the nature of this discussion–and the level of interest and energy around it (demonstrated through the number and depth of comments Elizabeth received to a blog she posted on the topic and trends and conversations within the sector [more on that later])–raises some important questions about the nonprofit sector and the (by and large) women who are employed within.

Particularly given the recent discussions and research emerging showing startling trends in the nonprofit sector, such as the recent YNPN survey report cited on On Philanthropy, which shows that out of 1,657 nonprofit professionals:

  • 82 percent are female
  • 15 percent are under 25; 41 percent are 25-29; 22 percent are 30-34, and 15 percent are over 35
  • 55 percent plan to stay in the nonprofit sector for their next job. The other 45 percent intend to leave, for sectors such as consulting and for-profit companies.
  • The top two factors they cited as drivers for leaving the sector were salary/wages and burnout both indicated by at least half the participants, with burnout the most popular answer.
  • 40 percent of respondents indicated that they were neutral or thought it unlikely that they would ever serve as executive directors. Survey respondents cited long hours, the demands of funders, and the demands of boards as the primary barriers to pursuing those positions.

On Philanthropy then asks, "If a significant proportion of these motivated young professionals, many of whom are already serving as second-tier leaders in their organizations, don’t expect to even pursue top leadership positions, who will fill the Baby Boomers’ large shoes? Are we indeed facing a leadership deficit that will cripple our ballooning sector? If so, how can we ensure that the next generation is willing and able to take on leadership roles?"   

Begging the question, what can the sector–and particularly those within committed to women’s leadership, economic security and workplace equity and justice, as well as the consistent strengthening of effectiveness, innovation and impact within the sector–do to stem the ever-leaving tide of young talent?

A number of thoughts and concerns expressed at the dinner, as well as within the blogosphere, may lend some answers, or, at least, food for thought: 

Debt Driving Decisions
A point made at the dinner was that by and large, the amount of student loan debt someone has will be a great influencing factor in what sector they choose to work in.  The proposed Student Debt Relief Act could help address this, however, by providing loan forgiveness for people who enter the public service–including the nonprofit sector.  One of the speakers pointed out that, due to the prevalence of women in the nonprofit sector, this would be a large win for women, as well as for the nonprofit sector, which would gain additional recognition and stature as an industry doing service in the public good and have more talent available to it as few were forced to self-select out to pay back loans. 

Should Social Change Work Be a Luxury?
Similarly discussed was that the sector, due to its comparatively low wage base, could often be closed off to those who can’t afford to do unpaid internships, get an advanced degree (without assistance from family, the government or scholarships to help pay for it) or are single women (either living alone or heading households–particularly in an economy like D.C.’s).  As a result, does the sector then become privy to leadership only from those in the financial position to be willing to work a second job or who are fortunate enough to receive support from a spouse or family? 

You Can’t Buy Me…Diversity?
This relates to the discussions that have been taking place between a number of philanthropic thinkers on the ability of those with means to influence the sector moreso than those who may have not.  Is the sector, at every level, being closed to those who may have the largest stake in social change?  (Note that the survey results cited before indicate that currently the nonprofit sector is primarily white (72 percent), followed by 6 percent African American, 6 percent Asian/Pacific Islander, and 5 percent Latino/a)–perhaps as much an indicator that increasing diversity within the nonprofit sector will depend as much on economic and salary issues as on general cultural competency or diversity awareness.

Women’s Work…Is It Worth Less?
Then there is the piece about what this says about the status of the sector as a whole, and other sectors that are predominantly occupied by women.  I met with someone yesterday who made the excellent point that in nursing, a field long-dominated by women, demand always exceeds the number of available positions, and yet like with almost any other employment market, this never drives up salaries.  As a result, quality of care declines as the standards drop for the education and skills of those accepted into the field.  

This is interesting to consider when framed in terms of the nonprofit sector and the current trends referenced above.  Could there eventually be a significant drop in talent, leadership and ability as employment in the sector becomes based far more on financial security than on commitment, drive or professional predisposition?

Negotiations: Taking from, or contributing to the mission?
And finally, there is the personal issue of negotiation–and the difficulty many women express in negotiating for a higher salary in a context of social justice.  Or at all, as it well documented in Linda Babcock’s Women Don’t Ask.   

While we spent a fair amount of time last night discussing the nuts and bolts of negotiating, this conversation also brought out another issue–that of holding nonprofits to the same standards as their missions, and considering that if the sector is committed to economic security, a living wage and social justice that this must begin "at home" so to speak, with workplace policies, salaries and cultures that reinforce, support and contribute to the very mission they may be promoting throughout their region, country or internationally.

Generally, a lot to think about and an illustration, at least to me, of how a number of the conversations about the nonprofit sector in general–related to retention of talent, fostering young leaders and ensuring a diversity of voices across all aspects, including class and socio-economic background–deserve some serious consideration from the perspective of a gender lens.

And are an illustration, yet again, of how looking at and addressing an issue that may seem, at first, to be about women, is really about the welfare, advancement and effectiveness of everyone concerned. 

I haven’t even covered a fraction here of the wisdom of our speakers last night, or the other women who shared their experiences and ideas, and I’m sure there is a ton more here to think about.  Let us know your thoughts in comments. 

How do you think the nonprofit sector stacks up for women and in general?  What can we do to improve things?  Does any of this really matter?  If so, to what extent?  Is the sector–and other similar ones dominated by women–a statement about women’s status in society? 

How far has the sector come?  How much further do we have to go to make it a win, for women and in general?      

Nisha prepares for D.C. Food Stamp Challenge…

Posted on by nisha

In preparation for the Food Stamp Challenge next week, the policy wonk in me is coming out.  I wrote a paper with some colleagues at CLASP a few years back that framed food stamps as one of several work supports that can help low-income working families.

Now, I am wondering if food stamps are one’s only source of income for food (because presumably any other income support or wages are going to pay for other basic needs), how much nutritious food can one actually afford to purchase that will help keep the mind and body energized on the job? Will my productivity decrease next week when I’m purchasing food limited to a $21 budget? 

I guess I’m about to find out.  (For more on my motivation for participating in the D.C. version of the Food Stamp Challenge, please see today’s News and View of Note post under "On Poverty.")

With the amount of money I often would spend on one meal out to serve as my weekly budget, I started to think about ways to economize. 

First, I was wondering whether I could save any money by purchasing food in D.C. versus Maryland or Virginia because of differential sales taxes on food. Then I recalled that most food stamp purchases are not taxable. I verified this on the Food and Nutrition Service Web site.  So, I am planning to purchase my food at the closest grocery store I can walk to from where I live.  While on the FNS Web site, I also discovered some interesting factoids:

Based on a study of data gathered in Fiscal Year 2005:

  • 50 percent of all participants are children (18 or younger), and 65 percent of them live in single-parent households.
  • 54 percent of food stamp households include children.
  • 8 percent of all participants are elderly (age 60 or over).
  • 77 percent of all benefits go to households with children, 16 percent go to households with disabled persons, and 9 percent go to households with elderly persons.
  • 34 percent of households with children were headed by a single parent, the overwhelming majority of whom were women.
  • The average household size is 2.3 persons.
  • The average gross monthly income per food stamp household is $648.
  • 46 percent of participants are white; 31 percent are African-American, non-Hispanic; 13 percent are Hispanic; 2 percent are Asian, 1 percent are Native American, and 7 percent are of unknown race or ethnicity.

Having taken all of this in, I then turned my attention to wondering what exactly I will and won’t be allowed to purchase, since I want to try and play by the rules. Also from the FNS Web site:  Households CAN use food stamp benefits to buy foods for the household to eat, such as: breads and cereals; fruits and vegetables; meats, fish and poultry; and, dairy products and seeds and plants which produce food for the household to eat.  Households CANNOT use food stamp benefits to buy: beer, wine, liquor, cigarettes or tobacco or any nonfood items, such as: pet foods; soaps, paper products; and, household supplies or vitamins and medicines, food that will be eaten in the store or hot foods.

Thinking back to points in my life when I’ve had a lot less income, I’ve started composing a grocery list in my head. I’m hoping to stay away from Ramen noodles and those blue boxes of macaroni and “cheese.”  I hoping to be able to buy: oatmeal, milk (probably won’t be able afford soy milk, so whatever kind is cheapest), an on-sale loaf of whole grain bread, some sort of cheese that isn’t processed, spinach (the generic frozen kind—I know I won’t be able to afford fresh), pasta, sauce, canned beans, and an onion.

I plan to report back with a list of my actual purchases next week. Stay tuned. . .

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 Deserve a Critical Mass

Posted on by marjorie

David Broder’s recent column in the Washington Post made me flash back to the final days of the 103rd Congress. I was working for the Congressional Caucus for Women’s Issues and there was a strong interest in demonstrating that the 22 women elected to Congress during 1992 or “Year of the Women” had made an important difference in the types of bills that were introduced and passed. The Women’s Caucus did some analysis and learned that there were an unprecedented number of bills – introduced as well as passed by the 103rd Congress – focused on issues important to women and families.

That analysis, done 12 years ago by the Women’s Caucus, was an important illustration that not only do women in office make a difference, but the number of women in office makes an even bigger difference. We can thank Pat Schroeder and Olympia Snowe, who were the Women’s Caucus Co-Chairs then, for that first-ever documentation.

The Women’s Foundation reported similar findings in our 2003 report – A Portrait of Women & Girls in the Washington Metropolitan Area. The report also includes an ambitious set of recommendations for investing in women and girls in our region. One recommendation, in particular, urges that there be stronger investments in women’s leadership at all levels.

With the general elections three weeks away, transition teams are being assembled across the Washington region and a quiet debate among women’s advocates is happening. Some are questioning whether it is still important for us to put together a slate of women who are qualified to serve in cabinet positions and on local boards and commissions. It is puzzling after all these years of us knowing that the number of women makes a critical difference that questions are being raised.

Should we develop a slate of only women prospects? Yes! Advocates for women should identify and promote well-qualified women for key appointed offices. Not all will make it, but no newly elected or re-elected mayor, county executive, state office holder, or member of congress should be able to say that a qualified woman wasn’t identified for every key post.