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 ([email protected])
• NCAA (ncaa.org) • Educa@on Stats (nces.ed.gov)
• Census/American Community Survey: facuinder2.census.gov
• The Ins@tute on Women ([email protected])
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
Top Related