And you thought it was just another Wednesday, when in actuality today was the kick-off of the DC Saves campaign with the first "Money Saving Wednesdays" seminar! 

First reports indicate that 30 people attended–primarily Department of Insurance, Securities and Banking (DISB) and D.C. government employees–and that as of the end of the day, there were already 10 completed enrollment forms signed and several people promising to make monthly deposits to accounts opened as a result of DC Saves.

These folks are now officially DC Savers, a proud title earned, according to the Mayor and DC Saves, by "anyone who agrees to save regularly for a specific goal such as a rainy day fund, car or home purchase, college tuition, retirement or debt repayment and reduction.  DC Savers set monthly saving goals of as little as $10, and then develop a strategy to deposit this amount to a savings account each month.  District banks have signed on by offering savings accounts to DC Savers at no cost for 12 months."

For more information on DC Saves, National Financial Literacy Month and the importance of financial literacy for our communities (and pocket books), check out our earlier post this week and the new DC Saves Web site, which will be live soon. 

In the meantime, turn your Wednesdays from blah to bank with this informational series sponsored by a partnership of Mayor Fenty, DISB, Capital Area Asset Builders (a Grantee Partner!) and DC Saves!

According to the Mayor’s press release on the seminars, “Encouraging District residents to check up on their personal finances during tax season in April will help individuals and families reduce debt, save money and build wealth.  Financial literacy and education are critical to enabling people of all income levels to achieve their personal financial goals, and maintain and improve their quality of life.”

Money-Saving seminars are a key part of the strategy.  Straight from the Mayor himself (or, well, his very official press release): 

Throughout the month of April, DISB will take its Money-Saving seminars into the community starting with District government employees. During the weekly noontime seminars, attendees will be able to sign up for the DC Saves program. To RSVP, please e-mail Michelle Phipps-Evans.  Feel free to bring your lunch.

WHAT: Money-Saving Wednesdays financial-education seminars
WHEN: Every Wednesday in the month of April, from noon to 1 p.m.
WHERE: 810 First St., NE, Suite 701. Call (202) 727-8000 for information

TOPICS:

April 4 – Making Saving a Habit
April 11 – Five Keys to Investing Success
April 18 – ABCs of Saving for Education
April 25 – Planning a Worry-Free Retirement

Why not?  Make Wednesdays worry free with the end of (or at least an improvement on) your financial woes. 

Knowledge, as they say, is power! 

(And don’t forget to bring your lunch from home…that’s $6-10 in the bank!) 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Really? 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.  Women avoid nontraditional fields.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If you own cable television or listen to the radio, surely you’ve heard all the hoopla over Oprah’s new girls’ school.

I think her project is great.  A lot of young girls will have an opportunity to get a quality education in a safe (very comfy, I might add) environment thanks to Oprah’s two new schools, The Seven Fountains Primary School and The Oprah Winfrey Leadership Academy for Girls. 

As we know here at The Women’s Foundation, supporting women and girls means supporting families and communities.

But, being the diverse world that it is, there is always room for disagreement and people who will voice questions or concerns about something.  When I first heard that some people were unhappy with Oprah’s schools, I thought “Come on, even something like building new schools?  Get a grip.” 

Of course, I believe in free speech, and as I always say, people should do and think “whatever floats their boat.”  So, even though I don’t agree with most of the negative backlash, I think it’s interesting and worth exploring.  I’m curious to see what other people out there think about these contrasting points of view.

The positives are some of the obvious, like the fact that these girls will receive a better education with a promising future to pursue their passions.  Many lived in unsafe neighborhoods and traveled far to school, but with Oprah’s campus-like environment with dorms, the girls get to interact with other girls on the same property.  They have healthier diets, more clothing, comfy beds, the works.

I admit that some of the facility equipment may be extravagant (like the fireplace) as some of the negative comments say, but at the same time, this is a woman worth millions, what did we think she would build? 

Oprah goes all out when it comes to building new houses and presenting gifts, and believes that everyone is worthy, as anyone who watches her show can see.  I can go on and on with the good stuff, but it’s not hard to read or hear about it somewhere, so I’ll stop here.

On to some of the more pessimistic outlooks. To my surprise, the rules limit family visits and communications.  Cell phone use and emailing are not allowed during the school week, and girls can only visit their families once a month.  Family visitors have to be approved by the school at least two weeks in advance, and they are not allowed to bring “treats” such as chocolates and other things considered “junk food” to their girls.  One mother commented that her child called her crying, and the mom wondered whether the school was more like a prison.

I admit some of the rules are a bit strict, but I think they were framed in the interest of the students’ safety and keeping the campus as uniform as possible.  It is Oprah’s first stab at this, so perhaps rules will flex later.  She views the rules as “safe,” not “strict.”  A lot of American public schools and university rules have seemingly ludicrous rules, too.  And, healthy food makes a difference in physical and mental performance, so I’m all for blocking the junk food (I should take that advice myself).  I thought back to the Supersize Me food documentary and the segment on how schools for at-risk children feed organic, healthy foods and how it does correlate with their improved behavior.

Then there are the more controversial debates, like why she built schools in Africa versus America, and how the school is elite.  I’ve also heard that the girls attending the schools cannot become pregnant, but I haven’t found legitimate information to confirm that.  I didn’t see this on TV for myself, but apparently Oprah answered the America vs. Africa question with something along the lines that the children of America were more interested in iPods, shoes, and other brand items instead of learning.

I don’t totally agree with that point of view, if indeed Oprah or someone else said it, but she’s not totally off the map. In our culture, many children are become materialistic at a young age.  A lot are not taught the meaning of a good education, and the real things to get fulfillment out of.  Consumerism and consumption are priority in America, and I can understand in some way why this may have influenced her to build the schools in Africa, and not here right now. It’s not the best or likely the only explanation, but I’m okay with it.

Education is a key to future success and I’m glad for a new school to be built anywhere.

I think Oprah is making an effort to solve a root problem. A good education from the start is like pouring water over the seeds to grow good flowers.  (By the way, William Ryan’s Blaming the Victim  is a another good read to add to your list about solving problems at the surface vs. attacking the real sources.) 

Yes, the school didn’t help students in her own country, but she does other things over here, and I think we should take these new schools in stride and not condemn the restrictions in place.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not praising every little thing about the schools, I’m just saying that I think the good outweighs the bad and as the administration and Oprah get more experience, they will only become better–and the extreme comments that can’t find one good thing with the schools seem a bit out of bounds.

Food for thought.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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…