Seeing the stimulus package through a gender lens.

Posted on March 3, 2009 by Lisa Kays

Today, the Chicago Foundation for Women released its analysis of how the economic stimulus package will impact women.

It’s findings? Some of the big wins for women are:

To reduce job cuts for educators and teachers, nearly $45 billion was allocated to the Department of Education.
Medicaid, which supports the health of more than 20 million women, will receive $87 billion.
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families received $1.1 billion, as well as $20 billion to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (formerly Food Stamps).
Community child care got $2 billion and child support enforcement received $1 billion, both of which help single mothers thrive.

More of their analysis can be found here.

The Chicago Foundation for Women conducted this analysis through its role as part of the Women’s Economic Security Collaborative, which Washington Area Women’s Foundation is also proud to be a part of. The Collaborative’s goal is to find and implement effective strategies to raise awareness about policies impacting women’s financial independence.

Chicago’s analysis today is a great start to this work and we look forward to our work with the Collaborative to further encourage examinations of national policies and practices through a gender lens.

Because we know, as do all other women’s funds throughout the world, that when you see policies through the eyes of women, you envision better policies–and end results–for everyone.

Lisa Kays is The Women’s Foundation’s Director of Communications.

Weekly Round-Up: News and Analysis on Women and Poverty (Week ending February 27, 2009)

Posted on February 27, 2009 by The Spotlight and Opportunity Team

Spotlight on Poverty and Opportunity, a national foundation-led initiative, is excited to collaborate with The Women’s Foundation to bring you the latest news and analysis on women and poverty.

Spotlight is the go-to site for news and ideas about fighting poverty. And every Friday, look for our weekly rundown of the top news stories on women and poverty.

Here’s this week’s news:

• In an op-ed appearing in the New York Times, William Saletan argues for a practical, moral approach to the family planning debate.

• In an article on the Earned Income Tax Credit, the St. Louis Post Dispatch interviews several single mothers who say that their benefit goes to basic bills, debt, and childcare.

• The Miami Herald profiles a Girl Scouts program that offers scouts from low-income families activities encouraging healthy lifestyles.

• In a report on a controversial community center closing, the Kansas City Star reports on a neighborhood where single mothers account for 55 percent of residents.

• In an op-ed in the Deming Headlight, Children’s Defense Fund President Marian Wright Edelman argues that impoverished parents need help raising children and mentions several programs that provide assistance to low-income mothers.

• The Associated Press highlights a think tank report urging more public funds for family planning, which the report said dramatically lowers abortion rates among low-income women.

To learn more about Spotlight visit www.spotlightonpoverty.org. To sign up for our weekly updates with the latest news, opinion and research from around the country, click here.

The Spotlight on Poverty and Opportunity Team

Spotlight on Poverty and Opportunity is a foundation-led, non-partisan initiative aimed at ensuring that our political leaders take significant actions to reduce poverty and increase opportunity in the United States. We bring together diverse perspectives from the political, policy, advocacy and foundation communities to engage in an ongoing dialogue focused on finding genuine solutions to the economic hardship confronting millions of Americans.

Focusing on not being able to afford a $15 martini? What about workers earning $15,000/year?

Posted on February 25, 2009 by Gwen Rubinstein

I have a few story ideas to pitch to the Washington Post, which has devoted scarce front-page inches in the last week to articles about how the recession is affecting the dating lives of men in their 20s and 30s who are active in the local bar scene and extreme text messaging among teenagers.

I think The Post needs help in understanding the true dimensions of what is happening in our region, particularly how the economy is affecting women and families who never had the resources to afford $15 specialty drinks and expensive cell phone plans.

Here is what keeps me up at night:

Our Grantee Partners are experiencing significant increases in demand for social and health services.
One of our Northern Virginia Grantee Partners reports that nonprofits there are seeing a 30 percent increase in requests for housing assistance and a 50 percent increase in requests for health assistance. Of the overall increase in demand, about 25 percent of it is from people who have never asked for help before.

Another one of our Northern Virginia Grantee Partners notes that participants in its shelter program are needing to stay longer (up to two to four months longer) because of reductions in other local programs providing for next-step housing and basic needs.

Our Grantee Partners are facing increasing challenges in placing their graduates in good jobs.
One of our District of Columbia Grantee Partners preparing women for jobs in medical and office administration and building maintenance reports that graduates have lower job placement rates this year because, as a result of the economy, they are competing with higher-skilled individuals for the same entry-level positions.

Our Grantee Partners involved in preparing women for jobs in construction report that fewer jobs are available for their graduates because of layoffs and attrition. One program has told us that it is paying increasing attention to helping participants develop a “Plan B” for alternative employment until hiring picks up again.

Many of our Grantee Partners face serious challenges to raising the funds they need to provide their current levels of services – let alone expand them to meet growing need.
State and local government budget shortfalls are part of the problem. Fairfax County, for example, has a $650 million deficit this year.

Local (and national) foundations supporting these nonprofits have seen their endowments decline 30-50 percent. Because many base their giving decisions on three-year-rolling averages, 2009 grant-making is down, but 2010 (and now also probably 2011) will be even worse because more bad years will be included in the averaging.

Local foundations, including The Women’s Foundation, have begun doing staff lay-offs. This is to do everything they can to maintain or increase their current level of grantmaking in a difficult environment. But it may be a sign of more to come, if the economy does not turn around.

The unanswered question of what will happen to Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac’s charitable giving is an additional threat in our community.

There are many, many more stories – and many, many women, children and families who are part of these stories.

Washington Post: If you need any help learning more about these issues so you can cover them, please call The Women’s Foundation. We know these issues all too well and would love to connect you to them to increase their visibility in our community.

Gwen Rubinstein is a program officer at The Women’s Foundation.

Weekly Round-Up: News and Analysis on Women and Poverty (Week ending February 20, 2009)

Posted on February 20, 2009 by The Spotlight and Opportunity Team

Spotlight on Poverty and Opportunity, a national foundation-led initiative, is excited to collaborate with The Women’s Foundation to bring you the latest news and analysis on women and poverty.

Spotlight is the go-to site for news and ideas about fighting poverty. And every Friday, look for our weekly rundown of the top news stories on women and poverty.

Here’s this week’s news:

• In an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, Kay Hymowitz argues that fathers are indispensable and that because children of single mothers more frequently grow up in poverty and face other problems, mothers who choose to raise kids alone are adopting an “untenable” position.

• Columnist Jim Wooten, in an op-ed for the Atlanta Journal Constitution, proposes that cases like the California octuplets demonstrate that there should be set limits for the number of children women can bear and for which they can expect to receive public assistance.

• A Milwaukee Journal Sentinel article highlighting a high mortality rate for black infants in Wisconsin cites teen pregnancy, poverty, and lack of prenatal care as concerns.

• Writing an op-ed in response to Bristol Palin’s recent interview, Tina Griego, columnist for the Denver Rocky Mountain News, argues that opportunity and education are needed to avoid teen pregnancy.

• Volunteers in Dunlap, Tennessee, are raising funds to establish a prenatal care center to offer alternatives to abortion, as reported by the Chattanooga Times Free Press.

• The Bradenton Herald writes that child care advocates in Florida are advocating an increase in cigarette taxes to avoid cutbacks to Healthy Start, a program supporting at-risk pregnant women and their children.

• According to the Associated Press, women in New Mexico suffer from a high rate of postpartum depression.

To learn more about Spotlight, visit www.spotlightonpoverty.org. To sign up for our weekly updates with the latest news, opinion and research from around the country, click here.

The Spotlight on Poverty and Opportunity Team

Spotlight on Poverty and Opportunity is a foundation-led, non-partisan initiative aimed at ensuring that our political leaders take significant actions to reduce poverty and increase opportunity in the United States. We bring together diverse perspectives from the political, policy, advocacy and foundation communities to engage in an ongoing dialogue focused on finding genuine solutions to the economic hardship confronting millions of Americans.

What the Summit of leadership looks like.

Posted on February 20, 2009 by Tuti Scott

Pat Summit reached 1,000 wins last week – the first coach, male or female, in history to reach this milestone.

She has coached 12 Olympians and 18 All-Americans and has a 100 percent graduation rate of student athletes – an amazing summary of success.

What would comparative success look like in the business and nonprofit sectors?

There doesn’t seem to be numerical data that demonstrates such a level of excellence so succinctly. Perhaps it would be stock performance or scale of outcome of work in changing lives or industry benchmark awards.

For the non-basketball or sports fans who did not get a chance to hear about Pat Summit’s remarkable achievement, feel free to review her bio for its impressive storyline.

What I enjoy talking about as a former player, coach, and social change activist is her leadership style. I had the opportunity to be in a meeting with Pat Summit in the mid 1990’s when we were working on the then formation of women’s professional basketball leagues. There was much conversation in the room around the league format, potential coaches and general managers, and sponsors.

Pat was very clear that the image of the league leadership should reflect success, strength and confidence from day one.

We can learn a lot from Pat Summit’s leadership style. While her intense and formidable presence on the sideline may deter some from modeling this type of behavior, know that her heart and mind is ultimately focused on her players: How can I make them better? What resources or training do they need to be stronger, smarter or quicker? What combination of people and strategies are needed right now for success in this situation?

Imagine if every leader had this type of focus every day in their work.

Today, I bring these messages to the nonprofit clients and philanthropists I get to work with at Imagine Philanthropy. Feel free to read these, share with your work teammates and ask one another the questions around your work together.

1. Play to people’s strengths. Take the time to listen, observe and provide feedback on your teammate’s efforts. Think about bringing out the potential in every person. Provide a vision of the highest standards and success with measurable objectives and hold everyone accountable to that level. Related question: What does winning look like?

2. Focus on fundamentals. With all of the distraction in the work environment, it is more important than ever to bring people back in line with their job priorities. The more time we focus on a priority measurable objective, the better results we produce. Clearly, people understand that practice produces results. Related question: What is the quality of your practice?

3. Detail equals confidence. Being prepared allows you to demonstrate confidence and understanding of a situation. When you have given sequential attention to detail to a project – going through a series of steps to insure that every angle was explored and completed– your project will have a higher chance of success. When you present your work, 70 percent of what people hear is the tone of your voice. If you have done your homework, calm confidence will be revealed in your voice. Related question: What is the tone of your leadership?

Tuti Scott is a point guard who still plays in a weekly basketball game to remind herself of the leadership skills learned from sport. Her company, Imagine Philanthropy, helps strengthen the brand and capacity of organizations and provides leadership coaching for nonprofit executives and philanthropists.

Weekly Round-Up: News and Analysis on Women and Poverty (Week ending February 13, 2009)

Posted on February 13, 2009 by The Spotlight and Opportunity Team

Spotlight on Poverty and Opportunity, a national foundation-led initiative, is excited to collaborate with The Women’s Foundation to bring you the latest news and analysis on women and poverty.

Spotlight is the go-to site for news and ideas about fighting poverty. And every Friday, look for our weekly rundown of the top news stories on women and poverty.

Here’s this week’s news:

• A New York Times article profiles a 19-year-old Native American woman from an impoverished reservation trying to turn her life around through boxing.

• The Chicago Tribune, in an article on a federal law meant to help homeless kids stay in school, interviews a homeless single mother working to keep her oldest in the same school as the family moves.

• The Los Angeles Times reports that the removal of family-planning funding for the poor from the stimulus package, as well as other indicators, shows that Democrats are likely to approach abortion issues slowly and with caution.

• A recent appeal by Philadelphia anti-hunger advocates utilized video testimonies from 40 women describing their experience with hunger, as reported by the Philadelphia Inquirer.

• In an op-ed in the Atlanta Journal Constitution, columnist Jim Wooten highlights the example of octuplets born in California to argue against children being raised by single mothers.

• The Salt Lake Tribune covers a report indicating that Utah Latinas have a high teen birth rate, which correlates with poverty.

To learn more about Spotlight, visit www.spotlightonpoverty.org. To sign up for our weekly updates with the latest news, opinion and research from around the country, click here.

The Spotlight on Poverty and Opportunity Team

Call for presenters: 2009 Stepping Stones Research Briefing!

Posted on February 11, 2009 by Gwen Rubinstein

The fourth annual Washington Area Women’s Foundation Stepping Stones Research Briefing will be held the morning of Wednesday, May 20, 2009 at The Urban Institute in Washington, D.C.

The Women’s Foundation and The Urban Institute co-sponsor the annual research briefing. This year’s will highlight research on issues relevant to low-income, women-headed families.

Stepping Stones is The Women’s Foundation’s multi-year initiative focused on increasing economic security and financial independence for low-income, women-headed families in the Washington metropolitan area. The Stepping Stones Research Briefing provides an opportunity for The Women’s Foundation and its partners to learn about the latest research that can inform their work supporting this population.

The first three research briefings each drew audiences of over 100, including representatives from community-based organizations, funders, government agencies, and research institutions.

Persons interested in participating in this year’s research briefing should submit an abstract of their research and findings (no more than 1,000 words) to Peter Tatian at The Urban Institute by 5:00 pm on Friday, March 13, 2009. Abstracts should make clear how the research is relevant to issues facing low-income, women-headed families and those who are working to assist these women.

We are particularly interested in abstracts related to how best to protect women’s economic security in a recession, including submissions on:
• Changing Demographic and Economic Conditions for Women
• Increasing Income, Building and Preserving Assets
• Workforce Development and Emerging Employment Sectors
• Job Retention and Work Supports (including public benefits)
• Early Care and Education
• Health and Safety

Final selection of presenters will be made by March 31, 2009.

Copies of all presentations, as well as audio recordings of the entire event, will be posted on The Urban Institute’s Web site after the event. Presentations from last year’s research briefing can be found here. More information on the 2007 and 2008 research briefings is available at The Women’s Foundation.org.

Questions about the research briefing should be addressed to Peter Tatian or Gwen Rubinstein at The Women’s Foundation.

Please share this announcement with anyone who may be interested.

Why women's funds are too (blank) to fail.

Posted on February 10, 2009 by Lisa Kays

Yesterday in Philantopic, Foundation Center President Bradford Smith made the case for which nonprofits are "too big, too important or too (blank) to fail." In other words, these are the nonprofits that he’d give a bailout to, if he had the choice.

Women’s funds make the list of only 14 nonprofits he named, including Greenpeace, Oxfam, World Wildlife Fund and Doctors Without Borders.

Not bad company.

Bradford writes of women’s funds, "It started with Mama Cash in the Netherlands, spread to San Francisco with the Global Fund for Women, branched out to Mexico with Semillas, and keeps on growing."

Indeed.

There are 134 women’s funds throughout the world today. And Bradford putting them on the list begs the question–are they too important or too (blank) to fail? And if so, why?

I’ve got a few theories, and I’ll even leave out all the (very true) stuff about how investing in women is the best way to improve a community and the world and will come up with some new stuff.

First, women’s funds and the way they do business are shifting the power dynamics of philanthropy. Philanthropy and community development generally operate on a top-down model, with program officers or funders making grants to nonprofits who are hesitant to share concerns, ideas, or mistakes with that funder for fear of a future loss of funding. As a result, the organization doesn’t improve over time and weak aspects of a program or funding strategy aren’t addressed. Further, the funder loses the valuable input of the organizations working most closely with the people and issues they want to address.

Women’s funds tend toward community-based philanthropy, using diverse groups of people–whether in a giving circle or on a grantmaking committee–to award grants. Decision-making is spread throughout the community, which leads to decisions that reflect the true needs and realities of what is happening on the ground, and also makes it possible for the nonprofits receiving the funds to have open, honest dialogue with the fund’s program officers and other staff. Staff can serve more as advisors, capacity builders and partners than as "bosses."

This model is a win-win for the nonprofits, the funder and the community they’re serving.

Second, women’s funds are fostering community involvement, ownership and social change. Because they don’t just give out grants, women’s funds rely on their donors and supporters to be geniunely involved in their work, which requires them to learn more about their community, the issues impacting it and how strategies to address it.

Whether that individual then stays in that community or moves to another one, or to another charity or nonprofit, they take all that they have learned about effective, strategic giving with them–meaning that every philanthropic dollar they invest is likely to have a greater return than if they had just written a check and never learned about how to make their gift go as far as possible.

Third, women’s funds are risk-taking and innovative, and therefore tend to root out and support the best strategies and organizations. Due to the wisdom of collective grantmaking, which leads to its ability to seek out, find and fund organizations that may be small, new and/or struggling, they are truly able to elevate the best strategies, programs and ideas to a more visible, effective playing field. Often when other funders won’t take that risk.

And, because they foster open dialogue with their nonprofit partners, they are able to see when an effective program is otherwise being hindered by a management or fundraising issue–and help correct it. And so organizations and ideas that may otherwise never have made it–but prove tremendously effective years later–receive the support they need to be seen beyond the more established organizations and strategies.

So, just off the top of my head, I’d agree with Bradford that women’s funds are too (important) (innovative) (effective) (inspiring) and (gamechanging) to fail.

Would you agree? What other aspects of women’s funds make them too (blank) to fail?

Lisa Kays is The Women’s Foundation’s Director of Communications

Weekly Round-Up: News and Analysis on Women and Poverty (Week ending February 6, 2009)

Posted on February 6, 2009 by The Spotlight and Opportunity Team

Spotlight on Poverty and Opportunity, a national foundation-led initiative, is excited to collaborate with The Women’s Foundation to bring you the latest news and analysis on women and poverty.

Spotlight is the go-to site for news and ideas about fighting poverty. And every Friday, look for our weekly rundown of the top news stories on women and poverty.

Here’s this week’s news:

• In a New York Times op-ed, columnist Gail Collins criticizes verbal sparring over the stimulus bill, which led to cuts from the bill, including funding for family planning for low-income women.

• The Washington Post notes that President Obama’s new faith-based office will attempt to reduce both poverty and the number of abortions, while USA Today mentions that its increased scope will include teen pregnancy.

• According to the New York Times, one of the most significant elements of the new SCHIP bill for low-income health care is that it covers pregnant legal immigrants.

• The Kansas City Star covers a state lawmaker who is citing her sexual orientation and stance on Roe vs. Wade as possible reasons she’s been left of Kansas’s House Special Standing Committee on Children and Families.

• An Orlando Sentinel column sheds light on the increased need faced by a charity that provides low-income women appropriate professional attire for job interviews.

To learn more about Spotlight, visit www.spotlightonpoverty.org. To sign up for our weekly updates with the latest news, opinion and research from around the country, click here.

The Spotlight on Poverty and Opportunity Team

Ledbetter Act doesn't solve the problem of fair pay. That's up to us.

Posted on February 3, 2009 by Sharon Levin

Last week, President Obama signed his very first bill and it was on a key economic issue for women – fair pay. What a wonderful and symbolic way to start the new Administration. I am thrilled by all of this.

But, I have to admit that I do have some concerns about our next steps in the fight for equal pay for equal work .

The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act reverses a Supreme Court decision from 2007 that ignored decades of legal precedent and closed the courts to women and minorities seeking redress from employees who had discriminated against them. (Please note, in Ledbetter’s case, a lower court found that she had – in fact – been discriminated against. The Supreme Court didn’t disagree with that fact; it just disagreed about when she should have filed the case.)

There are a lot of things to celebrate about the President’s signing of the Ledbetter bill:

It signals to the country that discrimination against women and any type of wage discrimination will be taken seriously by the Administration.
It tells the nation that the President understands the concerns of working women and their families and that he is on our side.
It proves a political theory that I have long believed to be true. Most polls show that fair pay is a top issue for women. Many of us have said that if we can show that government can make a difference in this area, women will vote based on it. President Obama campaigned with Lilly Ledbetter and made this a signature issue of his campaign. And, as we know, many more women voted for him than voted for McCain.
As a legal matter, the Supreme Court’s 2007 decision needed to be fixed and the law needed to be returned to the pre-2007 standard if our anti-discrimination laws were to have any teeth.

So, why do I have concerns?

We must remember that this bill does not move us forward in our fight for fair wages. It – very necessarily – bring us back to where we were two years ago. And, in 2007, we had not made any real dents in the wage gap for 20 years.

We still have a lot of work to do.

My fear is that – as so often happens in our media age of sound bites – the message that people will take from the press coverage of the bill signing is that this new law solves the problem of the wage gap completely.

It doesn’t.

I am also concerned that when we turn to Congress to address the “nitty gritty” of dealing with the wage gap, they will say, “We’ve already done something on equal pay. You’ve had your day and we have other issues to address.”

And, my final worry is that the tremendous political support for fair wages that was created during the campaign will dissipate now that the Ledbetter bill has been passed.

Now, while public attention is still on the wage gap, we have to start building the case for the measures that are needed to really bring men’s and women’s wages into equity: we need women to be able move from the lowest paying jobs to jobs that allow them to support their families; we need laws that support work-family balance so that working moms are not penalized at the office; and, we need employers to bring transparency to the wages that they pay so that their employees will know if they are being treated unfairly.

I thank President Obama for making fair pay the focus of his first bill signing. And, I salute Lilly Ledbetter for her tremendous courage and effort to make sure other women don’t face the same discrimination that she did.

We must take advantage of the opportunity that they have given us to really create a public conversation on the wage gap. To do anything less would be a failure to honor both of their work.

Sharon Levin is The Women’s Foundation’s director of policy advocacy.

Invest