GENDER  MAINSTREAMING  Finding  a  place  for  women  in  public  policy  

Gender  Mainstreaming  is  a  Strategy  

• Mainstreaming  a  gender  perspec@ve  is  the  process  of  assessing  the  implica@ons  for  women  and  men  of  any  planned  ac@on,  including  legisla@on,  policies  or  programs,  in  all  areas  and  at  all  levels.      

•  It  is  a  strategy  for  making  women's  as  well  as  men's  concerns  and  experiences  an  integral  dimension  of  the  design,  implementa@on,  monitoring  and  evalua@on  of  policies  and  programs  in  all  poli@cal,  economic  and  societal  spheres  so  that  women  and  men  benefit  equally  and  inequality  is  not  perpetuated.      

•  The  ul@mate  goal  is  to  achieve  gender  equality  

Defined  

PUBLIC  POLICY  CAN  BE:  

• Gender  unequal  • Gender  neutral  • Gender  blind  • Gender  specific    • Gender  responsive/redistribu5ve  

EXAMPLES?  

• Gender  unequal  –  unequal  treatment  based  on  gender  

• Gender  blind  –  don’t  take  into  account  gender  differences    

• Gender  neutral  -­‐  what  most  gender  blind  policies  are  thought  to  be  

• Gender  specific  –  prac@cal  needs  

• Gender  redistribu@ve  -­‐  strategic  

GENDER  BLIND  

Women  are  more  likely  to  be  in  college  aWer  star@ng  a  family  &  to  take  break  

• Pell  grant  eligibility  • Child  care  needs  

• Women  on  TANF  –  any  job  will  do,  limited  allowances  for  educa@on  

• Drug  crime  sentencing  

 

Gender  Disaggregated  Sta@s@cs  

Global  Gender  Gap  Report  

2012        World    Economic    Forum  

Global  Gender  Gap  -­‐  2012  Measures  gap  between  women  and  men  in  four  categories:  1.  Economic  par@cipa@on  and  

opportunity:    •  female  labor  force  par@cipa@on,  wage  equality  &  the  percentage  of  women  in  high-­‐ranking  jobs.  

2.  Educa@onal  a]ainment    •  female  literacy  &  school  enrollment  

3.  Health  and  survival  •  female  and  male  life  expectancy  and  mortality  rates.  

4.  Poli@cal  empowerment  •  number  of  women  holding  poli@cal  office  as  well  as  the  number  of  female  heads  of  state  over  the  last  50  years.  

GGG  2012  United  States  

Gender  Inequality  Index  

• Reflects  women’s  disadvantage  in  three  dimensions  •  reproduc@ve  health,    •  empowerment  and  the    •  labour  market  

• The  index  shows  the  loss  in  human  development  due  to  inequality  between  female  and  male  achievements  in  these  dimensions.    

Gender  Inequality  Index  

Gender  Inequality  Index  Table 4 - Gender Inequality Index and related indicators

Rank Value Female Male Female MaleTotal fertility

rate

HDI rank 2011 2011 2008 2011 a 2011 2010 2010 2009 2009 2005-2009b 2005-2009b 2005-2009b 2011 a

1 Norway 6 0.075 7 9.0 39.6 99.3 99.1 63.0 71.0 88.0 .. .. 2.0

2 Australia 18 0.136 8 16.5 28.3 95.1 97.2 58.4 72.2 71.0 100.0 100.0 2.0

3 Netherlands 2 0.052 9 5.1 37.8 86.3 89.2 59.5 72.9 69.0 .. 100.0 1.8

4 United States 47 0.299 24 41.2 16.8 95.3 94.5 58.4 71.9 73.0 .. 99.0 2.1

VERY%HIGH%HUMAN%DEVELOPMENT

Reproductive Health

Gender Inequality Index

Maternal mortality ratio

Adolescent fertility rate

Seats in national

parliament (% Female)

Population with at least secondary education(% ages 25 and older)

Labour force participation

rate(%)

Contraceptive prevalence

rate, any method (% of

married women ages 15–49)

At least one antenatal visit

(%)

Births attended by

skilled health personnel (%)

Other  Interna@onal  Indices  

• Gender  Inequality  Index    • UNDP    

• Gender  Equity  Index    •  Social  Watch    

• Women  Economic  Opportunity  Index    •  The  Economist    

• Social  Ins@tu@ons  &  Gender  Index    • OECD    

• Gender-­‐related  Development  Index  • UNDP    

• Gender  Empowerment  Index    • UNDP    

Tools  of  Gender  Mainstreaming  

Gender  Budge@ng  

• Used  primarily  outside  of  the  US  

•  Focuses  on  gendered  impact  of  public  policy  budget  decisions  

Other  Tools  

• Gender  Audit  • Gender  Impact  Assessment  • Gender  Needs  Assessment  • Monitoring  &  Evalua@on  •  Training  

Of  the  $10  billion  in  state  spending  cuts  already  made,  93  percent  have  targeted  educa@on,  health,  and  human  services  –  areas  that  dispropor@onally  employ  and  serve  women.  This  is  taking  a  major  toll  on  the  economic  well-­‐being,  health,  and  safety  of  women  and  their  families:  •  Fewer  jobs  for  women  and  persistent  overall  unemployment.  Over  half  of    public  service  jobs  are  in  educa@on,  

health,  and  social  services,  where  women  make  up  nearly  three-­‐quarters  (72  percent)  of  the  workforce.  Cuts  in  these  areas  have  forced  a  large  number  of  women  out  of  work,  contribu@ng  to  stubbornly  high  unemployment  overall.  

•  Women’s  economic  disadvantages  prior  to  the  recession  made  them  more  vulnerable  to  cuts.  Women  are  at  greater  risk  for  poverty  than  men  due  to  their  large  numbers  in  lower-­‐paying  fields  and  under-­‐representa@on  in  higher-­‐paying  jobs;  greater  likelihood  of  working  part-­‐@me;  earnings  that  are  lower,  on  average,  than  men’s;  and  their  role  as  primary  caregivers  for  children,  which  affects  whether  and  how  much  they  can  work.  

•  Cuts  to  work  supports  especially  jeopardize  women’s  ability  to  work  and  meet  their  families’  basic  needs.  Time  limits  have  cut  23,000  Washingtonians  off  from  resources  that  support  work  and  keep  them  engaged  with  the  economy.  Over  27,000  fewer  families  are  receiving  assistance  to  help  them  afford  child  care  so  they  can  work.  AWer  recent  cuts,  cash  assistance  provides  just  27  percent  of  the  resources  families  need  to  meet  basic  needs.  

•  Cuts  to  reproduc5ve  health  programs  threaten  maternal  and  child  health.  In  36  of  39  coun@es  in  Washington  state,  use  of  Maternity  Support  Services,  a  program  proven  to  promote  healthier  pregnancies  and  safer  births,  has  declined.  Forty-­‐nine  family  planning  agencies  have  lost  funding,  resul@ng  in  46,000  fewer  women  receiving  cri@cal  reproduc@ve  health  services.  

•  Less  help  for  survivors  of  domes5c  violence  and  sexual  assault  as  need  is  rising.  The  Governor  has  proposed  cuts  to  assistance  for  vic@ms  of  violence  just  as  two  alarming  trends  appear  to  be  on  the  rise  in  Washington  –  more  women  are  seeking  help  for  domes@c  violence  and  sexual  assault,  and  are  increasingly  reques@ng  help  with  finding  shelter,  feeding  their  children  and  other  economic  hardships.    

Public  Policy  –  Gender  Impact  Assessment  

At  Work  

• Minimum  wage  laws  •  Equal  Pay  •  Pregnancy  Discrimina@on  •  Family  &  Medical  Leave  •  Paid  Sick  Leave  •  Child  Care  Assistance  • Unemployment  •  Job  Segrega@on  

At  Risk  of  Violence  

•  Pros@tu@on  • Human  Trafficking  • Domes@c  Violence  •  Rape  

Public  Policy  –  Gender  Impact  Assessment  

In  the  Prison  System  

•  Sentencing  prac@ces  –  related  to  drug  offences    

•  Sexual  assault  

Welfare  Reform  

•  Focus  on  any  job  employment  has  reduced  number  of  low  income  women  pursuing  addi@onal  educa@on  When  They  Re5re  

•  Labor  Force  par@cipa@on  •  Social  security    

Public  Policy  –  Gender  Impact  Assessment  

At  School  

•  Title  IX    •  Academics,  sports,  harassment,  STEM,  pregnancy    

In  the  Military  

•  Female  soldier  is  more  likely  to  be  raped  by  a  fellow  soldier  than  killed  by  enemy  a]ack.  

At  Home  • Homeless  Families  

•  Budget  Cuts/Recession  –  Impact  on  Funding  •  In  Georgia,  Governor  Nathan  Deal  proposed  $4.5  million  budget  cuts  for  domes@c  violence  shelters,  elimina@ng  state  funding.    

•  In  Washington  state,  at  the  end  of  October  2011,  the  Department  of  Social  and  Health  Services  no@fied  organiza@ons  with  domes@c  violence  programs  it  would  reduce  state  funds  for  domes@c  violence  by  25  percent  January  1,  2012,  and  another  50  percent  the  following  July  1.  

•  In  Iowa,  “the  A]orney  General’s  office  says  federal  support  for  the  state’s  vic@m  assistance  programs  has  dipped  by  $1.5  million  and  state  funding  has  gone  down  more  than  $200,000  in  the  same  @me.  

•  Gov  Nikki  Haley  –  cut  $400K  for  DV  and  rape  crisis  centers  –  distrac@on  from  larger  public  health  issues  –  special  interest  

Mary  Kay:    2012  Truth  About  Abuse  Na@onal  Survey:  •  8  out  of  10  domes@c  violence  shelters  na@onwide  reported  an  increase  in  women  seeking  help.  

•  74%  of  women  stayed  with  an  abuser  longer  for  economic  reasons.  

•  58%  of  shelters  reported  that  the  abuse  is  more  violent  now  than  before  the  economic  downturn.  

•  62%  of  survivors  could  not  find  jobs  due  to  the  economy.  

•  43%  of  shelters  had  to  decrease  services  offered.  

 

GENDER  LENS  Occupation Number of Employees Hourly median Wage Annual Median Wage* Percent of Standard**

ALL OCCUPATIONS 5,091,490 $15.72 $32,706 71%

Registered nurses 117,870 $28.76 $59,823 130%

Office Clerks general 103,220 $12.68 $26,366 57%

Cashiers 133,860 $8.36 $17,396 38%

Waiters and Waitresses 92,700 $8.10 $16,831 36%

Customer service representatives 80,650 $14.84 $30,867 67%

Combined food Preparation and serving Workers Including fast food 150,720 $8.08 $16,790 36%

Retail salespersons 146,360 $9.43 $19,626 43%

Janitors and Cleaners except maids and Housekeeping Cleaners 85,240 $10.52 $21,886 47%

Laborers and freight stock and material movers 108,010 $11.31 $23,530 51%

Stock Clerks and Order fillers 75,810 $10.16 $21,146 46%

THE ANNUAL SELF-SUFFICIENCY STANDARD FOR ONE ADULT, ONE PRESCHOOLER, AND ONE SCHOOL-AGE CHILD IN CUYAHOGA COUNTY

$21.85 $46,141 100%

Applying  a  Gender  Lens  

All#Occupations# 5091490 15.72 32706 0.71

OccupationNumber/of/Employees

Hourly/median/Wage/

Annual/Median/Wage*/

Percent/of/Standard**/

Cashiers/ 133,860 $8.36/ $17,396/ 38%

Office/Clerks/general/ 103,220 $12.68/ $26,366/ 57%

Registered/nurses/ 117,870 $28.76/ $59,823/ 130%

Waiters/and/Waitresses/ 92,700 $8.10/ $16,831/ 36%

Combined/food/Preparation/and/serving/Workers/Including/fast/food/

150,720 $8.08/ $16,790/ 36%

Customer/service/representatives/ 80,650 $14.84/ $30,867/ 67%

10.16 21146 46%

Retail/salespersons/ 146,360 $9.43/ $19,626/ 43%

Janitors#and#Cleaners#except#maids#and#Housekeeping#Cleaners#85240 10.52 21886 47%

Annual#Self#Sufficiency#Standard,#One#Adult,#One#PreIschooler,#Cuyahoga#County

$21.85# $46,141# 100%

84%/Female

71%/Female

66%/Female

52%/Female

Laborers#and#freight#stock#and#material#movers# 108010 11.31 23530 51%

Stock#Clerks#and#Order#fillers# 75810

74%/Female

55%/Female

Poverty  Among  Women  

Adults   Families  

•  One  in  seven  women  •  18  million  women  in  the  US    

•  40.9%  for  female-­‐headed  households  

•  Six  in  10  poor  children  live  in  a  family  with  a  single  mom  

Poverty  Among  Women  Older  Women  

Minimum  Wage  

66%  

33%  

Minimum  Wage  Workers  

Women  

Men  

•  Women  are  48%  of  the  labor  force  

•  Women  represent  nearly  two-­‐thirds  of  minimum  wage  workers  ($7.25)  

•  Women  are  nearly  two-­‐thirds  of  workers  in  5pped  occupa5ons  (Min:  $2.13)  

 

WAGE  GAP  •  For  African  American  

women,  the  gap  is  $.64  

•  For  Hispanic  women,  the  gap  is  $.55  

 At  least  40%  of  the  wage  gap  CANNOT  be  explained  by  differences  in  educa@on,  background,  experience  and  occupa@onal  choice    Wage  gap  begins  with  first  job  and  becomes  progressively  worse  as  women’s  careers  progress        

PAY  GAP  FOR  NEW  MBA  Grades  Yr Age Man Woman Diff Year Age Man Woman Diff

MBA         1 41 $196,459 $185,544 $10,914

          1 42 $206,282 $194,822 $11,460

          1 43 $216,596 $204,563 $12,033

          1 44 $227,426 $214,791 $12,635

1 25 $90,000 $85,000 $5,000 1 45 $238,797 $225,530 $13,266

1 26 $94,500 $89,250 $5,250 1 46 $250,737 $236,807 $13,930

1 27 $99,225 $93,713 $5,513 1 47 $263,273 $248,647 $14,626

1 28 $104,186 $98,398 $5,788 1 48 $276,437 $261,080 $15,358

1 29 $109,396 $103,318 $6,078 1 49 $290,259 $274,133 $16,125

1 30 $114,865 $108,484 $6,381 1 50 $304,772 $287,840 $16,932

1 31 $120,609 $113,908 $6,700 1 51 $320,011 $302,232 $17,778

1 32 $126,639 $119,604 $7,036 1 52 $336,011 $317,344 $18,667

1 33 $132,971 $125,584 $7,387 1 53 $352,812 $333,211 $19,601

1 34 $139,620 $131,863 $7,757 1 54 $370,452 $349,872 $20,581

1 35 $146,601 $138,456 $8,144 1 55 $388,975 $367,365 $21,610

1 36 $153,931 $145,379 $8,552 1 56 $408,424 $385,733 $22,690

1 37 $161,627 $152,648 $8,979 1 57 $428,845 $405,020 $23,825

1 38 $169,708 $160,280 $9,428 1 58 $450,287 $425,271 $25,016

1 39 $178,194 $168,294 $9,900 1 59 $472,801 $446,535 $26,267

1 40 $187,104 $176,709 $10,395 1 60 $496,441 $468,861 $27,580

          36   $8,625,269 $8,146,087 $479,182

Pay  Gap  –  MBA  Grads  –  Two  Kids  Yr Age Man Woman Diff   Year Age Man Woman Diff

MBA 2 kids half-the increase     1 41 $196,459 $176,814 $19,645             1 42 $206,282 $185,655 $20,627             1 43 $216,596 $194,938 $21,658             1 44 $227,426 $204,684 $22,741

1 25 $90,000 $85,000 $5,000   1 45 $238,797 $214,919 $23,878 1 26 $94,500 $89,250 $5,250   1 46 $250,737 $225,665 $25,072 1 27 $99,225 $93,713 $5,513   1 47 $263,273 $236,948 $26,326 1 28 $104,186 $98,398 $5,788   1 48 $276,437 $248,795 $27,642 1 29 $109,396 $103,318 $6,078   1 49 $290,259 $261,235 $29,024 1 30 $114,865 $108,484 $6,381   1 50 $304,772 $274,297 $30,475 1 31 $120,609 $113,908 $6,700   1 51 $320,011 $288,012 $31,999

1 32 $126,639  $119,604     $7,036   1 52 $336,011 $302,412 $33,599 1 33 $132,971 $122,594 $10,377 2.50% 1 53 $352,812 $317,533 $35,279 1 34 $139,620 $128,723 $10,896   1 54 $370,452 $333,409 $37,043 1 35 $146,601 $135,159 $11,441   1 55 $388,975 $350,080 $38,895 1 36 $153,931 $141,917 $12,013   1 56 $408,424 $367,584 $40,840

1 37 $161,627  $149,013     $12,614   1 57 $428,845 $385,963 $42,882 1 38 $169,708 $152,739 $16,970 2.50% 1 58 $450,287 $405,261 $45,026 1 39 $178,194 $160,376 $17,818   1 59 $472,801 $425,524 $47,277 1 40 $187,104 $168,394 $18,709   1 60 $496,441 $446,800 $49,641

            36   $8,625,269 $7,817,116 $808,153

Women  Don’t  Ask  h]p://blogs-­‐images.forbes.com/brycecovert/files/2012/11/tribehr_payraise_infographic2.jpg  

h]p://www.forbes.com/sites/brycecovert/2012/11/14/women-­‐arent-­‐held-­‐back-­‐by-­‐an-­‐ambi@on-­‐gap-­‐theyre-­‐just-­‐held-­‐back/  

Women  Lack  Ambi@on  

EQUAL  PAY  •  72%  of  full5me  

year-­‐round  female  workers  earn  less  than  $50,000  a  year    

•  45%  of  full5me  year-­‐round  male  workers  earn  $50,000  or  more  a  year    

43%

42%

41%

41%

41%

38%

41%

42%

46%

42%

47%

51%

55%

59%

60%

64%

65%

68%

74%

83%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

$1 to $2,499

$2,500 to

$5,000 to

$7,500 to

$10,000 to

$12,500 to

$15,000 to

$17,500 to

$20,000 to

$22,500 to

$25,000 to

$30,000 to

$35,000 to

$40,000 to

$45,000 to

$50,000 to

$55,000 to

$65,000 to

$75,000 to

$100,000 or

EDUCATIONAL  ATTAINMENT  

•  It  takes  four  or  more  years  of  college  (or  the  equivalent)  to  increase  the  median  earnings  of  women  in  Ohio  to  exceed  the  median  earnings  of  men  with  a  high  school  diploma  ($36,911  vs.  $31,739)  

 

•  Four  or  more  years  of  college  reduces  the  rate  of  poverty  among  women  from  14  %  to  3.9  %  

•  For  African  American  women,  only  14%  have  four  or  more  years  of  college.  

23%

Women In Ohio With Four or More Years of College

Men  with  HS  Diploma:  $31,739   Women  with  HS  Diploma:  $20,821  

Men  with  BA/BS:  $56,013   Women  with  BS/BA:  $36,911  

Other  Issues    

Social  Security  benefits  are  lower  for  women  than  for  men  •  The  average  Social  Security  benefit  for  women  65  and  older  is  about  $12,100  per  year,  compared  to  about  $16,000  for  men  65  and  older.  

•  Sources:    Na@onal  Women’s  Law  Center  

$12K  

$16K  

0  2000  4000  6000  8000  

10000  12000  14000  16000  18000  

Social  Security  

Human  Trafficking  

• About  1,000  American-­‐born  children  are  forced  into  the  sex  trade  in  Ohio  every  year  and  about  800  immigrants  are  sexually  exploited  and  pushed  into  sweatshop-­‐type  jobs,  a  new  report  on  human  trafficking  in  the  state  said  Wednesday.  

• Ohio's  weak  laws  on  human  trafficking,  its  growing  demand  for  cheap  labor  and  its  proximity  to  the  Canadian  border  are  key  contributors  to  the  illegal  ac@vity,  according  to  a  report  by  the  Trafficking  in  Persons  Study  Commission.  

h]p://www.cleveland.com/na@on/index.ssf/2010/02/ohio_is_hot_spot_in_human_traf.html  

HUMAN  TRAFFICKING  

• Tougher  laws  • Human  trafficking  is  now  in  Ohio’s  criminal  code  

•  Juvenile  offenders  are  directed  to  treatment  programs  

• Can  arrest  customers  paying  for  sex  with  minors  

RESOURCES  

• Na@onal  Women’s  Law  Center  (nwlc.org)  (mul@ple  issues  including  health  report  card)  

• Ins@tute  for  Women’s  Policy  Research  (iwpr.org)  

• Catalyst  (catalyst.org)  • AAUW  (aauw.org)  • Women’s  Sports  Founda@on  (womenssportsfounda@on.org)  

• NCAA  (ncaa.org)  • Educa@on  Stats  (nces.ed.gov)  

• Census/American  Community  Survey:    facuinder2.census.gov  

• The  Ins@tute  on  Women  (ins@tuteonwomen.org)  

The  Op-­‐Ed  Project  

Lede  (Around  a  news  hook)  

Thesis  (Statement  of  argument  –  either  explicit  or  implied)  

Argument:  Based  on  evidence  (such  as  stats,  news,  reports  from  credible  organiza5ons,  expert  quotes,  scholarship,  history,  first-­‐hand  experience)  

•  1st  Point  •  evidence  •  evidence  •  conclusion  

•  2nd  Point  •  evidence  •  evidence  •  conclusion  

•  3rd  Point  •  evidence  •  evidence  •  conclusion  

 

Note:  In  a  simple,  declara5ve  op-­‐ed  (“policy  X  is  bad;  here’s  why”)  ,  this  may  be  straighporward.  In  a  more  complex  commentary,  the  3rd  point  may  expand  on  the  bigger  picture—historical  context,  global/geographic  picture,  mythological  underpinnings,  etc.—or  may  offer  an  explana5on  for  a  mystery  that  underpins  the  argument–  eg.,  why  a  bad  policy  con5nues,  in  spite  of  its  failures.  

“To  Be  Sure”  paragraph  (in  which  you  pre-­‐empt  your  poten5al  cri5cs  by  acknowledging  any  flaws  in  your  argument,  and  address  any  obvious  counter-­‐arguments.)  

Conclusion  (oten  circling  back  to  your  lede)    

h]p://www.theopedproject.org/index.php?op@on=com_content&view=ar@cle&id=68&Itemid=80