The Washington Post published an article this past Thursday entitled “Decline in Teen Sex Levels Off, Survey Shows” on the leveling of teenage sexual activity in the United States, despite the continuation of abstinence-only education in public schools. The leveling comes after a period of decline in teen sex from 2001 to 2007 along with the flattening of a rise in condom use in 2003. Also reported was that approximately one in four teenage girls today has a sexually transmitted disease and that the teen birth rate has increased for the first time in the past 15 years.

While abstinence-only education proponents might argue that teenage sex has decreased because of the mandated (and restrictive) curricula, it has been shown that when teens do have sex, they are now more likely to not use any form of protection—which increases their risk of pregnancy, AIDS, and a number of other sexually transmitted infections. Thus, the number of teens who have unplanned pregnancies or who contract STIs has increased since the rise of abstinence-only sex education. John Santelli of Columbia University is quoted in the article, arguing that, "Since we’ve started pushing abstinence, we have seen no change in the numbers on sexual activity. The other piece of it is: Abstinence education spends a good amount of time bashing condoms. So it’s not surprising, if that’s the message young people are getting, that we’re seeing condom use start to decrease."

Naturally, supporters of abstinence-only education argue otherwise. Valerie Huber of the National Abstinence Education Association argues that sexual education that is not centered on abstinence gives teens a “green light” to sexual activity. In the same vein, Charmaine Yoest of the Family Research Council notes that, “Our culture continues to tell [young girls] the way to be cool is to dress provocatively and to consider nonmarital sexual activity as normative.”

Studies confirming these trends were released, somewhat ironically, during the birthday week of Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), the Supreme Court case that overturned a Connecticut law prohibiting the use of contraceptives and confirmed a woman’s right to privacy.  I attended a small gathering on Saturday to not only celebrate the birthday of Griswold, but to also participate in a counter-protest hosted by the National Organization for Women in response to the recent formation of an abstinence-advocating, anti-choice contingent, The Pill Kills. Funded by the American Life League, these individuals lined the sidewalks of the downtown Washington, D.C. Planned Parenthood and harassed individuals entering the clinic.

Members of the Washington Area Clinic Defense Task Force (WACDTF) were present as well, escorting those who entered the clinic all the way from the sidewalk to the doorway, as anti-choicers followed each person seeking care to the door, nearly touching them at times in an attempt to distribute pamphlets, etc. I was in total awe of the work that the WACDTF does, but simultaneously appalled by the behavior of those who verbally harass those seeking care at Planned Parenthood.

Though Planned Parenthood does provide abortions, it also provides a whole slew of other kinds of crucial reproductive care to all women and men, no matter their ability to pay.  At Planned Parenthoods in Washington, D.C. for instance, one can have a gynecological exam, seek pregnancy planning, obtain various forms of birth control, and receive testing for sexually transmitted infections such as HIV/AIDS.

Given the importance of the services that Planned Parenthood provides, I somewhat naively thought that such badgering at their health centers was illegal.

Coupled with the Washington Post piece, my Saturday morning birthday celebration and the counter-protest reminded me how precious a woman’s right to the reproductive health care of her choosing truly is and that it is crucial to continue advocating for our right to choose, seek, and obtain the reproductive health care and information we need.

Nancy Thebaut is a summer intern with The Women’s Foundation.  This fall she will be starting a master’s degree in art history at the Courtauld Institute of Art

Philanthropist Laurie Emrich, a "woman moving millions," and a founding board member and supporter of The Women’s Foundation, as well as many international women’s funds, describes how her journey from Denver to Africa to Washington, D.C. was an intellectual, spiritual and emotional one leading to her commitment to give back to her community and to "participate in the long-term building of an inclusive, community-based, multi-racial movement for justice."

Read more about Laurie’s journey to social justice and philanthropy in her own words here.

Laurie explains in her piece that she derives inspiration from the words of 1960s rhythm and blues singer-songwriter Wilson Pickett: "Ya gotta shake whatcha brought whicha."

Laurie’s story is one of transforming the gifts and abundance she has received into a true spirit and lifetime of giving back. 

She inspires us all to consider what we all "brought whicha," and how we can use it–whatever our gifts–to better our communities and the world.

Last Monday, I met with 12 other women for three hours and discussed our shared goal: improving the lives of young women in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area.

This might sound like wishful thinking, but it was much more than that.  We are members of The Women’s Foundation’s Rainmakers Giving Circle and have pooled our charitable contributions in order to make a bigger impact than we would by writing individual checks.

Our task on Monday was to review and sort through 34 proposals from nonprofit organizations seeking funding from our circle and narrow the field to those we want to consider further and visit.  It was daunting, but we were up for the challenge.

I left the meeting feeling overwhelmed by the vast needs of so many at-risk populations in this area but, at the same time, exhilarated by the circle’s collective energy and humbled and inspired by the good work of the 34 organizations we reviewed.

This is my fourth year as a Rainmaker, and the proposal review meeting is my favorite part of the grantmaking process.  I love the free flowing sharing of ideas, as well as the dynamic and organic nature of the discussion. The conversations take unexpected twists and turns, are always lively and sometimes intense, but never contentious.

Many questions are raised, discussed, partially resolved, discussed again and sometimes even left unanswered.

Do we want to find the “diamond in the rough” where our money will help a program get off the ground?  Or should we support an established organization with a strong track record and add our name to a reputable list of funders?  Should we decline a prior grantee organization that seems to be having managerial problems?  Or stick with it so as not to abandon the organization at a fragile time?  Does a particular issue push our buttons, tug at our heartstrings and compel us to say, "Yes!…Let’s keep that organization on our list"?  Or, should we ignore our emotions and just look at the statistics?

These questions and many others make the review process exciting, frustrating and, ultimately, rewarding.

The Rainmakers have a few requirements for the proposals, such as the age of the target population and a specific geographic focus, but we have a lot of discretion in reaching our decisions—and that discretion generates rich debate.  I have learned that grantmaking is an art,  not a science, and the life experiences of each member as well as the “pulse” of the circle as a whole make a tremendous impact on the decisions that we reach.

By the close of our meeting, we had narrowed our 34 organizations to eight that will remain on the docket and receive site visits in the next phase of our grantmaking process.

We didn’t raise our hands to vote or record our preferences on pieces of paper that were tallied.  Instead, we reached our decisions by consensus, ultimately selecting a slate of organizations that likely does not match any one individual member’s dream list of organizations, but represents the collective thinking of our giving circle.

Since we have joined together to leverage our charitable giving, I can’t think of a more fitting or satisfying result.

Debbi Lindenberg is co-chair of the Rainmakers Giving Circle.  In her professional life, she is an attorney working as a grantmaking consultant to foundations.

With only two weeks left in the school year, yesterday my daughter’s third grade class in Fairfax County began week one of their Cities program.  Now, you might be wondering what the Cities program is. 

I asked myself that same question when my daughter began excitedly telling me about it.  The more I learned, the more intrigued I became.

Essentially, each third grade class is turned into a “city” for a few hours a day.  My daughter now resides in “Cougar County” and was both thrilled and concerned to learn that she would receive a 100 Zapper (equivalent to the dollar) loan from the mayor to begin her residency in Cougar County, but would have to pay back the loan at the end of the two weeks.  She received a check book and quickly learned how to write checks, make deposits in the Green Place Bank, and balance her checkbook.

There were many decisions that needed to be made.

First, which job would she apply for? She carefully weighed her options: mayor’s assistant, banker, police officer, maintenance, newspaper editor, government, or private sector. She opted for the private sector and decided she wanted to be an entrepreneur (much to the chagrin of her dad, a lifelong bureaucrat).

Her second decision: how much to charge for her products? As an entrepreneur, she was required to submit a project proposal to be approved by the mayor. She carefully calculated her supply fees (20 Zappers per week) and rental fees (10 Zappers per week) to assist her in determining the price of her products (homemade clay animals and friendship rings—absolutely worth every Zapper if you ask her very unbiased mom).

Third decision: should she purchase the optional health insurance and optional business insurance at 10 Zappers per policy per week? 

This is where she hit her stumbling block.

The mayor informed the citizens that each day a medical disaster or a business disaster would randomly hit one citizen.  The cost if you were not insured—250 Zappers.

Lengthy discussions ensued as she weighed the decision.  What if she couldn’t sell enough of her products to pay for the supply and rental fees?  Would she have any Zappers to shop in Cougar County?  Could she repay the 100 Zapper loan?  How could she afford the insurance if her products didn’t sell?  How could she afford to pay 250 Zappers if she was uninsured and hit by a disaster?

While the scenario my daughter faces in Cougar County is merely a third grade lesson plan, unfortunately, it is a stark reality for thousands of women and their families in the Washington metropolitan area.

According to The Portrait Project, low-income, women-headed families are the most economically vulnerable population in the Washington metropolitan area–57 percent of families living in poverty in the region are women-headed households. 

They are living one paycheck, one car repair, or one medical crisis away from disaster.

A recent report from the Urban Institute stated, “Savings and assets can cushion families against sudden income loss, increase economic independence, and bolster long-term economic gains.”  And yet, 24 percent of low-income families do not hold bank accounts, 35 percent do not own cars, 90 percent have no retirement account, and 60 percent do not own homes, leaving them with nothing to fall back on when hard times hit.

We’ve all seen the recent headlines, “Rising Prices Hit Home for Food Stamp Recipients,” “Jobless Claims Jump 25 Percent from ’07 in N. Va,” “Economic Troubles Multiply Requests for Help in DC Area.”

Gas and food are at record prices. Foreclosures are increasing. Unemployment rates have reached new highs. By all accounts, hard times are here.

So then, what does it mean to be one step away from a financial crisis?

To get a better sense of what it takes to truly survive economically in the Washington metropolitan area, I consulted the Family Economic Self-Sufficiency (FESS) Standard, a tool created by one of our Grantee Partners, Wider Opportunities for Women (WOW).  The standard “estimates the level of income necessary for a given family type—whether working now or making the transition to work—to be independent of welfare and/or other public and private subsidies.”

You might be surprised to learn that according to WOW, the 2005 self-sufficiency standard for a single mother with an infant and a preschooler living in D.C. was $53,634. That’s what it would take to cover the family’s basic needs (housing, child care, transportation, food, health care, miscellaneous expenses, and taxes). 

Compare that to the federal poverty guidelines, which calculate the poverty level for a family of three at $16,090. If that same mother works full-time making minimum wage in Washington, DC, she would earn just $19,322.

If you earn 36 percent of what is necessary to provide for your family’s basic needs, what exactly constitutes “hard times”?  Aren’t you already there?

As my daughter struggled to make her decisions about Cities, I asked her think about this reality.

What would it be like to come home from school to discover she had to move out of the only home she’s ever known and not be sure where she’s going?  What would it be like to live on $1 per meal per day?  What if she had no health insurance and the three trips to the pediatrician that we’ve made in the last two weeks for her bronchitis threw our family into debt?

She had no answers to my questions.

And so when my daughter came home last night, I was anxiously awaiting her final decision. Did she purchase the insurance or did she decide it was simply too expensive?

In the end, she opted to purchase both the health and business insurance.  But, concerned that she wouldn’t be able to pay back her Zappers loan, she stayed up late to make additional clay animals to sell the next morning.

Yes, it’s a simple third grade lesson plan, but imagine if it were real.

Jennifer Lockwood-Shabat is a Program Officer at The Women’s Foundation

And then this amazing, inspiring video explains their logic, called The Girl Effect.

Check it out.

And, they’re backing up their idea with dollars.  The Nike Foundation has joined with the NoVo Foundation to invest $100 million in girls. 

Because investing in girls, they think, is the best way to change the world. 

So why not just do it?

I recently hosted a reception at my home to introduce my friends to the Sexual Minority Youth Assistance League (SMYAL), an organization I learned about through my participation in The Women’s Foundation’s Rainmakers giving circle.

I loved doing the event.  SMYAL is such a worthy organization, and I had never heard of it before I was assigned to do a site visit last year for Rainmakers. I was totally taken with the fact that I knew so little about how at risk lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered (LGBT ) youth are in this community. 

I really wanted to do the "friend" raiser to educate people about this.  It was very successful, with 25 or so attendees that are now better educated about LGBT issues, have new friends and had great conversations about how to get some political types involved in Arlington.  Many said they would volunteer and stay involved!

At the reception, four staff members spoke for SMYAL, discussing the intricacies of how SMYAL helps gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered youth in our area become healthy, happy and productive members of our community.  SMYAL has been serving LGBT youth for over 24 years, providing a variety of services and opportunities including counseling, mentoring, social activities, HIV education and prevention support and serving as a vocal advocate for LGBT youth throughout our region.

These services are more important than ever as kids are coming out and dealing with their sexual orientation at a much earlier age. Yet, they are still subject to rejection by family and friends and face violence and emotional abuse, resulting in far too much homelessness and suicide.

These issues struck me deeply and I wanted to provide a way for my friends to learn about this as well, and to provide an opportunity for them to get more involved if they’d like.

If you’re interested in getting involved, please let me know!

Heather Kaye is a member of the Rainmakers giving circle.  The Rainmakers made a grant of $10,000 to SMYAL in 2007.  In her professional life, Heather is the owner of Invision, LLC.

On Saturday afternoon, I was invited to join three of our board members–Deb Gandy, Donna Callejon, and Rachel Kronowitz–to see the Washington Mystics women’s basketball team take on the Los Angeles Sparks.  The Mystics didn’t end up winning, but what struck me was that regardless, a local nonprofit did.

For every three pointer the Mystics score this season, a $100 financial gift will be made to Girls, Inc. of the Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Area.  The Mystics made 163 three pointers last year, so Girls, Inc. could receive about $20,000 this season.

This struck me not only because Girls, Inc. is a Grantee Partner of The Women’s Foundation, and I was thrilled to see their work and investments in girls highlighted in such a big public forum, but also because it got me to thinking about the interaction in our society between celebrity and charity.  As the big name players took to the court before the game to announce their team’s gift, they spoke passionately about the importance of giving and why they were investing in women and girls.

Many of the players also have their own personal philanthropy.  Nikki Teasley gives her time and talent to the American Kidney Fund.  Members of the team participate in a partnership between the Mystics and Sibley Hospital to raise money and awareness for underserved and uninsured women in D.C. facing breast cancer.  Sheila Johnson, president of the Mystics, is a major philanthropist in her own right.

Whether as individuals or together, because of their place in the public spotlight, they have the ability not only to give of themselves but to get others to give, too. 

It got me to thinking about what we expect from celebrities in terms of their giving and charity.  Oprah has become nearly as famous for her philanthropy as she has for her talk show.  Bono, and recently  Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie, have significantly increased public interest in Africa as a giving priority.  Last month, at the Women’s Funding Network Conference, Angela Bassett offered a keynote address as part of her role as spokeswoman for the Good Deed Foundation. 

These celebrities have given of their time, talent and treasure in their philanthropic endeavors.  Many would say that having a celebrity behind a cause or issue–even if they just lend a name, and no dollars–could be more valuable than a gift of millions. 

And for some celebs, like the Mystics, gifts of millions aren’t realistic.  The average WNBA player makes between $46,000 and $60,000, not the millions made by professional male players.

So our expectation of celebrities to give isn’t necessarily based on means, but on their status as a celebrity.  Because they have the power, through their public prestige, to encourage others to do the same.  To be models for the behavior we’d like to see in others and ourselves–not only on the big screen or on the court–but as neighbors, community members and concerned citizens.

So it would make sense that we view it as a bit of an expectation that celebrities will give.  Not only because they can, but because their doing so can motivate so much more giving from others.

But really, don’t we all have the power to be celebrities in our own right? 

We all have friends, colleagues, family and associates who rely on us, trust us and listen to us.  If we model giving, if we reach out and show by example that we give, wouldn’t at least some of those around us do the same?

Based on my observations and experiences with our giving networks and giving circles at The Women’s Foundation, many of which are comprised of friends of friends of friends, it seems that even if we’re not Angelina or Brad, that we all have the power to inspire giving.  As Barb Strom Thompson, co-chair of our Washington 100 network, often says in explaining the rapid success and growth of our leading giving network, "When you hear about something good, the first thing you want to do is tell your girlfriends!" 

So while we may not be Mystics players, I’d say we’ve all got the ability to score a few points for the causes and issues we care about. 

Phyllis Caldwell is president of Washington Area Women’s Foundation.