Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
24822499
label
Women's Events - Magazine Editors and National Council [of Women's Organizations], March 15, 1999 [3]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
24822499
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Women's Events - Magazine Editors and National Council [of Women's Organizations], March 15, 1999 [3]
citationUrl
collections
Records of the First Lady's Office (Clinton Administration)
Nicole Rabner's Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
24822499
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
otherTitles
42-t-7763278-20121035S-019-013-2015
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
81e5c5308fffe018
ocrText
PHOTOCOPY
PRESERVATION
NC
CLINTON LIBRARY PHOTOCOPY
NC
National Council
of Women's Organizations
A nonpartisan network
of over 100 organizations
representing more than
six million women.
1126 16th Street, N.W.
Suite 411
Washington, D.C. 20036
202.331.7343
Fax: 202.331.7406
Fax: 202.331.7406
202.331.7343
Washington, D.C. 20036
Suite 411
1126 16th Street, N.W.
NC
National Council
of Women's Organizations
Women's Equality Summit and Congressional Action Day
March 15 - 16, 1999
Hillary Rodham Clinton - Guest Speaker
Grassroots leaders and activists from D.C. and across the country will
convene to educate themselves and Congress about the NCWO
Women's Agenda for the 106th Congress
The Equality Summit will highlight the following issues:
Protecting and improving Social Security for women
Securing affordable, quality child care for all who need it as a national priority
Improving access to health care by increasing funding for family planning and requiring
private insurance coverage for contraceptives
Supporting Senate ratification of the United Nations Convention for the Elimination of
All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and measures to
oppose gender apartheid in Afghanistan
Supporting Fair Pay legislation
Ending hate violence against all citizens and supporting the Hate Crimes Prevention Act
March 15:
1:00 - 1:30 pm
Registration - National Education Association
1:30 - 2:00 pm
Opening remarks by Ellie Smeal, Pat Reuss, Susan Bianchi
2:00 - 8:00 pm
Issue Briefing
3:00 - 3:15 pm
Hillary Rodham Clinton on Social Security Reform
6:00 - 7:00 pm
Screening of Lifetime TV film on Child Care
March 16:
7:45 - 9:00 am
Breakfast with Congressional Leaders
#325 Russell Senate Office Building Caucus Room,
Issue Briefings continue for new arrivals
10:00 -12:30 pm
Congressional visits
12:30 -2:00 pm
Lunch (restaurant map available)
2:30 -5:30 pm
Congressional visits and feedback
6:00 -8:00 pm
Reception with Gloria Steinem & the New Ms. Magazine ($35)
To Participate - Contact Mulhauser and Associates with your name, address, phone number,
fax and or email and affiliation. Phone (202) 463-0180, fax (202) 463-0182 or email,
[email protected]
For more info & a complete up-to-date Summit Guide visit www.wlo.org/summit
DON'T AGONIZE
ORGANIZE!
OWL
A Better Future for Women
The Older Women's League
666 11th Street NW
Suite 700
Washington, DC 20001-4512
202-783-6686
STRENGTHEN
SOCIAL
SECURITY
STREET
NATIONAL
ORGANIZATION
202-331-0066
FOR WOMEN
Lesbian Rights Summit Co Sponsors
The Summit is organized by the National Organization for
Women and sponsored by:
ACLU of Southern California ~ Act Up/East Bay ~ the Advocate
~ African-American Woman's Clergy Association ~ Allentown
Women's Center ~ American Friends Service Committee
- American Psychological Association - Catholics for a
Free Choice ~ Center for Democratic Renewal ~ Center for
Victims of Violent Crime - Center For Women Policy Studies -
Children Of Lesbians & Gays Everywhere - The Common
Agenda Coalition ~ DC Rape Crisis Center - Emergency
Services Network - Everywoman's Center ~ Faith Temple Church
- Feminist Majority - Feminist Women's Health Center ~ Gay &
Lesbian Activists Alliance of Washington, DC ~ Gay & Lesbian
Attorneys of Washington, DC - Gay & Lesbian Advocates &
Defenders (GLAD) - Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against
Defamation (GLAAD) ~ Girlfriends Magazine - Human Rights
Campaign ~ Justice For All ~ Lambda Legal Defense &
Education Fund ~ Lesbian Avengers of Washington, D.C. ~
Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender Committee of the National
LESBIAN
Lawyers Guild - Metroplitan Community Church of Washington
- Ms. Foundation For Women - N Street Village, Inc. ~ National
RIGHTS
Black Lesbian & Gay Leadership Forum - National Center For
Lesbian Rights ~ National Gay & Lesbian Task Force ~ National
SUMMIT
Latinas Caucus - National Lawyers Guild - National Women's
Alliance ~ National Women's Political Caucus, Lesbian Caucus
~ Noonmark Consulting - Northern CA Common Agenda
Network ~ NOW Foundation - NOW Legal Defense & Education
Fund - Ohio Gender Equity Coalition ~ Parents, Families &
Friends of Lesbians and Gays ~ Planned Parenthood Federation
of America ~ Planet Out ~ Pride At Work/AFL-CIO: The National
Constituency Group of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender
terminist
Trade Unionists - Pride Institute ~ Purple Berets of Santa Rosa
~ Service Members Legal Defense Network - Sexual Trauma &
session
Recovery Services - Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence ~ SMYAL ~
Stonewall Columbus - Tompkins Co. Task Force for Battered
Women & Child Sexual Abuse Project - War Resisters League ~
West Contra Costa Rainbow Coalition ~ Women Organized
Against Rape ~ Women's Alliance for Theology, Ethics, and
Ritual - The Women's Center ~ Women's Coalition of South
April 23-25
Bay - Women's Institute on Sport & Education - Women's
Supportive Services ~ World Congress of Gay, Lesbian &
Washington DC
Bisexual Jewish Organizations - YWCA of the USA (Office of
Racial Justice and Human Rights) - YWCA of Western N.Y.
www.now.org 202-331-0066
lesbians & allies
REGISTERFORTHE SUMMIT!
pre-registration deadline: 3/23/99
This national summit will focus on current challenges
on-site registration on a first come basis
and future strategies. We will celebrate our diversity
Name
and commonality, share ideas, have fun, and create a
framework to ensure the values, vision and inclusion
:
Address
of lesbians in the feminist movement and feminists in
the LGBT movement.
City
State
Zip
:
Mail registration and payment to:
Phone
Fax
National Organization for Women
1000 16th Street NW, # 700; Washington, DC 20036
E-Mail
Fax credit card registration to:
Check one:
202-785-8576
[ } Post-marked before 3/23/99
$75.00*
Register Online:
[ ] High-income attendees
$110.00
http://www.now.org/rsummit.html
[ ] Sliding scale
($74 $35)**
Location & Accommodations:
*on-site registration fee is $85
Hyatt Regency on Capitol Hill
**limited number of scholarships available
(conference rates avail. for reservations made by 3/24/99)
1-800-554-2220
Please pay by check or Mastercard/Visa/AMEX:
Airline reservations:
[ ] enclosed is my check
1-800-368-5874
[ ] please charge my [] Visa [ ] Mastercard or [ JAMEX
Summit questions & updates:
Credit Card Number:
202-331-0066 ext. 771
www.now.org
Expiration Date:
Signature:
Have special needs? Please circle and we'll send you
NATIONAL
more information: financial assistance, childcare, disability
ORGANIZATION
FOR WOMEN
accommodations, alternative housing.
NATIONAL
COALITION
AGAINST
DOMESTIC
The Hate Crimes Prevention Act
VIOLENCE
Strikes the Right Balance Between Federal and State Interests
Every Home A Safe Home
The Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 1999, encourages federal and state cooperation to
fight hate crimes. These proposed amendments a federal criminal civil rights statute (18 U.S.C.
§ 245) add coverage for bias crimes based on sexual orientation, gender, and disability and
eliminate the highly restrictive jurisidictional requirements for prosecuting bias crimes based on
race, national origin or religion. These important changes would provide a limited but crucial
basis for federal authority to respond to acts of prejudice resulting in death or bodily injury.
This bill builds on the models of the Church Arson Prevention Act and the Violence
Against Women Act, in striking the balance between federal and state responsibilities. In
those two important recent pieces of legislation, Congress identified a need for federal
leadership, as well as a need to work in partnership with state and local jurisdictions, to ensure
that all citizens are kept safe from bias-motivated violence. The limited use of these laws
demonstrate that authorizing dual federal/state authority does not overwhelm the federal system
and does improve the overall response to criminal activity.
Federal prosecutions under § 245 have always been limited, and this trend will
continue under the HCPA. In 1996, only 8 cases were brought for acts of violence based on
race, national origin or religion under the existing § 245 statute. In the past two decades, there
have never been more than ten in any one year. Even though this bill adds new protected
categories, and gives prosecutors more flexibility, we would not expect a large increase in the
number of federal prosecutions. Rather, the historical trend towards identifying a few important
and particularly egregious cases for federal involvement should continue.
Federal bias crime laws can help support local jurisdictions in their response to hate
violence. This statute allows federal investigators to assist in complex investigations, including
interstate cases, conspiracies, and other kinds of cases where federal resources and assistance
proves necessary.
Because the statute requires the Attorney General to certify that any case subject to
federal prosecution "is in the public interest and necessary to secure substantial justice,"
only the most serious cases will be prosecuted under federal law. When Congress passed the
original statute in 1968, they included this certification requirement to ensure that federal
prosecutions under this statute did not intrude too much on state law enforcement and
prosecutorial responses to hate violence. The federal statute has, in fact, been used in instances
of egregious violence -- such as murder cases, serious assaults, and bombings -- particularly in
situations where state responses proved insufficient.
Too many state bias crime statutes omit sexual orientation, gender and/or disability.
In these states, even the most severe bias-motivated crimes cannot be prosecuted as such. As of
1998, the Anti-Defamation League reports that, including the District of Columbia, only 21 state
bias crime statutes cover sexual orientation, 20 cover gender, and 22 cover disability in some
way.
Congress has an important leadership role in protecting civil rights at the national
level. When Congress passed the original statute in 1968, they recognized the need
for uniform national protection from acts of violence that violate a person's civil rights. Federal
laws like § 245 fill the gaps left by in adequate state remedies or problems in state enforcement,
and may be the only remedy available if the perpetrator is a prominent or well-connected
member of the community. Where local authorities are actively pursuing the case, federal law
enforcement officers will merely play a limited monitoring role. Where local authorities are
unable or unwilling to investigate or prosecute, § 245 provides a federal "backstop" that keeps
victims of hate crimes from falling through the cracks, and reflects the historic federal role in
protecting civil rights.
Federal laws like § 245 can encourage states to take hate crimes more seriously. A
few federal prosecutions can provide the leadership to encourage more local authorities to pursue
hate crimes aggressively. Having the FBI begin investigating a case may raise the level of
awareness about hate crimes in the local community, and the seriousness with which hate crimes
prosecutions are pursued.
The bill requires an interstate commerce connection for crimes based on sexual
orientation, gender or disability. If enacted, these amendments would allow prosecution of
bias crimes based on sexual orientation, gender, or disability, where the crime was in or affecting
interstate commerce. This traditional approach to federal criminal law, followed in the Church
Arson Prevention Act and in numerous other federal criminal statutes, raises no constitutional
concerns and serves as a further limiting principle that respects state authority.
For further information contact Juley Fulcher, Public Policy Director, at (202) 544-7358.
March, 1999
NATIONAL
COALITION
119 Constitution Avenue NE Washington, DC 20002
ACAINST
DOMESTIC
Phone 202-544-7358
Fax 202-544-7893
[email protected]
VIOLENCE
Every Home A Safe Home
NATIONAL
COALITION
AGAINST
DOMESTIC
Hate Crimes Prevention Act
VIOLENCE
Violence Against Women Act of 1999 -- H.R. 357 / S.51
Every Home A Safe Home
Prosecuting Violence Against Women As A Federal Civil Rights Crime
The Hate Crimes Prevention Act
The National Coalition Against Domestic Violence (NCADV) strongly supports amending the
federal bias crimes statute, 18 U.S.C. § 245, to include gender-motivated crimes. This will cover some
acts of domestic violence, sexual assault, and other forms of violence against women. Currently, Section
245 only covers crimes based on race, national origin or religion. NCADV endorses the Hate Crimes
Prevention Act (HCPA) (also included as part of the Violence Against Women Act of 1999 (VAWA 99) -
- H.R. 357 / 51), proposing revisions to this statute adding crimes based on actual or perceived sexual
orientation, gender or disability, and expanding the circumstances under which crimes based on race,
religion and national origin can be prosecuted.
Why do we need to include gender in Section 245?
Discrimination against women is an important factor in the perpetuation of violence against
women. Batterers and rapists may view women as inferior and as deserving to be beaten or raped.
Persistent bias against women in our criminal justice system protects abuse as a male privilege, giving
men "permission" to commit violence against women. It is important to respond to this discrimination by
recognizing gender-based crimes as a violation of a woman's civil rights. In addition, focusing on the
potential motivation of the perpetrator makes it harder to blame the woman for provoking the assault or
for failing to escape the abuse she experiences. Expanding the coverage of Section 245 also allows us to
account for cases demonstrating multiple forms of bias, such as race and gender, or gender and sexual
orientation.
How would a gender bias crime be prosecuted under the HCPA?
In order to bring a case under the HCPA, the prosecutor will have to be able to prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that the perpetrator was motivated by bias against women. This proof can take the form
of statements, derogatory epithets, a pattern of targeting women, extreme cruelty and brutality, sexual
violence, and other factors showing gender-based motivation. For example, a case where a man abused
his female partner physically, sexually and emotionally, called her a "bitch" or a "slut," frequently said
that women are inferior to men, and had also similarly abused previous female partners, shows strong
evidence of gender bias.
Cases involving acquaintances and strangers are also potential bias crimes. Consider the
following example: a female college student is brutally gang raped by two male fellow students, who
assault her repeatedly. One of the men is later heard to remark that he likes to "get girls drunk" and have
aggressive sex with them. The other is later charged in a second gang rape incident. Gender bias could be
shown by the nature and character of the assault, the statement, and the pattern of sexually assaulting
women.
When Would Section 245 Be Used To Prosecute Gender-Based Violence?
Even where such evidence does exist, as a practical matter, not every act of domestic violence or
rape would be prosecuted as a federal civil rights crime. There are only a few federal prosecutions of
crimes based on race, national origin or religion each year. Most domestic violence and sexual assault
incidents will continue to be tried as state crimes of assault, rape, or murder. Some state bias crimes
statutes include gender, and in those states a prosecutor could proceed under a state bias crimes statute. In
addition, this bill includes a required interstate commerce connection to the crime.
However, in certain situations, a federal prosecution is particularly appropriate. For example, if
the perpetrator is a local official, a prominent person in the community, or close friends with law
enforcement officers, the state system may not adequately investigate or prosecute the incident. In
jurisdictions where there is a systemic failure to address domestic violence, an individual federal
prosecution can send a message that such a widespread violation of women's rights should not be
tolerated.
How Can I Help Support the HCPA?
Contact your member of Congress and urge them to co-sponsor this bill. In addition, thank Sen.
Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Rep. Henry Hyde (R-IL), Chair of the
House Judiciary Committee for holding hearings last session and ask for their support in getting the bill
passed this session. To add your organization's endorsement of the bill to the list, contact the Human
Rights Campaign, (202) 628-4160.
For further information, contact Juley Fulcher, Public Policy Director of the National Coalition Against
Domestic Violence at (202) 544-7358
Additional Resources
Margarite Angelari, Hate Crimes Statutes: A Promising Tool for Fighting Violence Against Women, 2 Amer. Univ. J. Gender
& the Law 63 (1994).
Center for Women Policy Studies, Violence Against Women as Bias Motivated Hate Crime: Defining the Issues (1991).
Northwest Women's Law Center, Gender Bias Crimes: A Legislative Resource Manual (1994).
Elizabeth A. Pendo, Recognizing Violence Against Women: Gender and the Hate Crimes Statistics Act, 17 Harv. Women's
L.J. 157 (1994).
Kristin Taylor, Treating Male Violence Against Women As A Bias Crime, 76 B.U. L. Rev. 575 (1996).
Steven Bennett Weisburd & Brian Levin, "On the Basis of Sex": Recognizing Gender-Based Bias Crimes, Stanford L. & Pol.
Rev. 21 (Spring 1994).
NATIONAL
COALITION
119 Constitution Avenue NE Washington, DC 20002
AGAINST
Phone 202-544-7358
Fax 202-544-7893
[email protected]
DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE
Every Home A Safe Home
NATIONAL
COALITION
AGAINST
Some Questions and Answers on Gender-Based Bias Crimes
DOMESTIC
For further information, contact Juley Fulcher, NCADV (202) 544-7358
VIOLENCE
or Julie Goldscheid, NOW LDEF (212) 925-6635
Every Home A Safe Home
Q: Why should gender be included in a bias crime statute?
A: Women, and in some cases men, are subjected to gender-based violent crimes that violate the
individual's civil rights, like bias crimes committed because of a person's race, national origin,
sexual orientation, religion or disability. These crimes reflect a larger pattern of discrimination
and send a message to all women that they are at risk. For women of color, or lesbians, bias
crimes may include anti-woman bias as well as bias based on race or sexual orientation. When
bias crime statutes leave out gender, they are covering up a very real form of discrimination.
Q: Isn't gender-based violence like rape and domestic violence different than other types
of bias crimes?
A: While gender-based violence may not be exactly like racist or homophobic violence, it shares
many important qualities with other types of bias crimes. For example, gender-based violent
crimes are motivated and encouraged by discriminatory attitudes against the group being
assaulted, and cause other members of the group to be fearful and even change their behavior to
avoid potential violence. Like other types of bias crimes, the acts may include epithets, severe
violence and other hallmarks of hate crimes.
Q: Is every act of rape or domestic violence a violation of the HPCA?
A: NO. While some may view all or virtually all acts of sexual assault and domestic violence as
gender-based, a limited number of incidents will be subject to prosecution under the Hate Crimes
Prevention Act (HCPA). To qualify for coverage, a gender-based bias crime must have
circumstantial evidence that shows the perpetrator was motivated by gender, and the evidence
must be sufficient to meet the high standard of proof in a criminal case. In addition, HCPA
prosecutions require evidence that the act had a connection with interstate commerce.
Q: How can you tell whether a particular incident can be prosecuted under the HCPA as a
gender-based crime?
A: A number of the factors listed in the FBI's existing training guide on evaluating evidence in
bias crimes undoubtedly will be useful in determining gender bias for purposes of applying the
HCPA -- these include biased comments or epithets, written statements, gestures, graffitti, etc.,
previous similar incidents happening at the same location (e.g. multiple rape incidents in a
particular fraternity house), the perception of the community about whether the incident was
bias-motivated, whether the individual participates in activities promoting women (e.g. works at
a feminist bookstore or domestic violence shelter), the perpetrator's history of previous similar
incidents, the lack of other explanations for the incident, and others. Cases brought under similar
civil rights actions, such as cases under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3), and others, also provide
guidance. Whatever one's position on the issue of whether rape, for example, is always gender-
motivated, there surely are rapes with very strong evidence of gender-based motivation.
Congress has already recognized all of these principles in passing the Violence Against Women
Act civil rights remedy, and the HCPA continues that commitment.
Q: Aren't bias crimes committed by strangers? How can someone who knows, or is
married to, or has dated a person, commit a hate crime against them?
Although some bias crimes are committed by strangers, others are committed by neighbors,
acquaintances, classmates, co-workers and other people known to the victim. An individual can
be involved in a personal relationship and still mistreat their partner because of gender-based
stereotypes, for example, that women who are not submissive deserve to be beaten, or that
women who dress a particular way are asking to be raped.
Q: Won't adding gender to the federal statute compromise existing federal enforcement of
hate crimes by taking away resources?
A: The addition of gender, or any other new category to § 245 will not "dilute" more traditional
race-based or religious-based protection, because it will not relieve us of the responsibility to
continue to take race-based violence, or religious-based violence seriously. Indeed, the HCPA
recognizes this by simultaneously strengthening federal enforcement of crimes based on race,
national origin or religion while expanding protection against crimes based on sexual orientation,
gender or disability, and by requesting additional personnel to carry out Congress' mandate.
NATIONAL
COALITION
119 Constitution Avenue NE Washington, DC 20002
AGAINST
Phone 202-544-7358
Fax 202-544-7893
[email protected]
DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE
Every Home A Safe Home
THE HATE CRIMES PREVENTION ACT
OF 1999
NOW LEGAL DEFENSE
AND EDUCATION FUND 119 CONSTITUTION AVENUE, N.E., WASHINGTON, D.C., 20002 (202) 544-4470 FAX (202) 546-8605
March 15, 1999
Dear advocate,
Early last year, our Congressional allies introduced legislation, the Hate Crimes Prevention Act, to improve
federal criminal law dealing with hate crimes. The bill amended 18 U.S.C. 245 which currently says that it
is a federal crime for private individuals to commit violence against persons when that violence is motivated
by the person's race, color, religion or national origin. The HCPA expanded the law so that federal
prosecutors can also pursue bias crimes based on gender, sexual orientation and disability. In just over 8
months, the Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 1998 gathered 169 House sponsors and 33 Senate sponsors,
which is a pretty impressive record. Advocates made a valiant attempt to bring the bill to the floor of both
Houses, but our efforts were stymied by partisan politics and lack of time. We are determined to pass the
bill THIS YEAR, with the Administration's support and with even MORE sponsors than last year.
The Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 1999 (HCPA '99) will be introduced on Monday, March 15, 1999. The
Senate's original sponsors include Senators Kennedy (D-MA), Specter (R-PA), Wyden (D-OR), Smith (R-
OR) and Schumer (D-NY). The House original sponsors include Representatives Conyers (D-MI), Morella
(R-MD), Gephardt (D-MO) and Forbes (R-NY).
Enclosed please find fact sheets and information on the Hate Crimes legislation and why it is needed. This
bill is not only a top priority for the women's movement, but is also at the top of the agenda for the
Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, a national coalition with 180+ organizational members who work
together to promote civil rights for ALL. To review the Hate Crimes Prevention Act itself and to get a list of
the current sponsors, please visit http:\\thomas.loc.gov. For more information on hate crime prevention
please visit the following web sites: www.adl.org; www.civilrights.org; www.multicultural.miningco.com
Also included in your packet is a list of Senators and Representatives who are sponsors of this year's bill,
along with those who were sponsors of last year's Hate Crimes Prevention Act. We have also included
VAWA '98 and '99 sponsors, since the hate crimes legislation is in both the House and Senate versions of
these bills as well. If your Senators and Representatives are sponsors, thank them and ask them to put every
effort to the bill's passage. If they are not original sponsors, encourage them to become supporters and co-
sponsors of the bill as soon as possible. Even if they are not among the likely supporters of the bill, a visit
and/or calls and letters from their constituents may persuade them to reconsider their position.
If you have any questions please contact me or Jackie Payne at NOW LDEF's DC Office, (202) 544-4470.
Sincerely, Reuss
Pat Reuss
NOW LDEF Senior Policy Analyst
Congress of the United States
Velashington. DC 20515
March 9, 1999
Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 1999
Deadline to Be An Original Cosponsor is March 11th at 5:00 p.m.
Dear Colleague:
We are writing to urge you to join us as an original co-sponsor of the Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 1999.
and we hope that you will agree to join us as an original sponsor. This bill would amend federal law to make it casico
for federal law enforcement officials to investigate and prosecute cases of racial and religious violence, and would
permit federal prosecution of violence motivated by prejudice against the victim's sexual orientation, gender, or
disability. Identical legislation will be introduced simultaneously in both Houses.
Hate crimes are uniquely destructive and divisive. They injure not only the immediate victim. but the whole
community and sometimes the entire nation. The brutal slayings last year of James Byrd, Jr. in Texas and Matthew
Shepard in Wyoming shocked the conscience of the country, and so has the recent murder of Billy Jack Gaither in
Alabama.
Current law does not permit federal involvement in cases involving crimes motivated by bias against the
victim's sexual orientation, gender, or disability. It also erects unduly rigid jurisdictional hurdles to federal
investigation and prosecution of racial, religious, and ethnic violence.
Our bill would remove these hurdles and add certain types of violence motivated by prejudice against the
victim's sexual orientation, gender or disability to the list of criminal acts which permit federal intervention. It would
also make it easier for federal authorities to prosecute racial, religious and ethnic violence in the same way that
the Church Arson Prevention Act of 1996 helped federal prosecutors combat church arsons by modifying the
current strict jurisdictional requirements under federal law for such prosecutions. With these changes to current law.
the federal government would no longer be constrained to wage the fight against hate crimes with one hand tied
behind its back.
State and local authorities currently prosecute the overwhelming majority of hate crimes and they will
continue to do so under this legislation. Strengthened federal jurisdiction is needed as a back up for state and local
law enforcement to ensure that justice is done. Federal jurisdiction allows the FBI to help local authorities investigate
and prosecute these crimes. In addition, the bill provides grants for state and local programs designed to combat have
crimes committed by juveniles.
The Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 1999 would not supplant the states' role as the primary prosecutors of
hate crimes. Our bill would result in only a modest increase in the number of federal prosecutions of hate crimes
Indeed, the Attorney General or other high ranking Justice Department officials must approve all federal hate crimes
prosecutions, thereby ensuring restraint at the federal level.
This bill enjoyed strong bipartisan support (over two hundred cosponsors) in the previous Congress and
continues to have the endorsement of the Administration and over 80 leading civil rights and law enforcement
organizations.
The Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 1999 is a constructive and measured response to a problem that continues
to plague our nation violence motivated by prejudice. If you have any questions or would like to co-sponsor thi.
bill, please contact Angela Williams (47878) with Senator Kennedy or Dawn Burton (56906) with Representative
Conyers.
Sincerely,
JolinCouph Reb. Conyers
Orlen
Rect
Sen. Edward M. Kennedy
Sen Arlen Specter
Ron Wyden
airhard a Hyhardr
Sen. Ron Wyden
Rep. Richard A. Gephardt
Sen. Gordon Smith
Connie Morella mike Likes
Sen. Charles E. Schumer
Rep. Constance A. Morella
Rep. Michael Forbes
The Hate Crimes Prevention Act is supported by President Clinton, the Department of Justice, twenty-two state
Attorneys General, and a broad range of national civil rights groups, state and local government associations, and law
enforcement organizations:
African-American Women's Clergy Association
NAACP Legal Defense Fund, Inc.
American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee
NA'AMAT USA
American Association of University Women
National Asian Pacific American Legal
American Citizens for Justice
Consortium
American Ethical Union, Washington Office
National Association of Commissions for Women
American Federation of Government Employees
National Alliance of Postal and Federal Committees
American Federation of State, County, and Municipal
National Association of Protection & Advocacy Systems
Employees, AFL-CIO
National Black Women's Health Project
American Foundation for the Blind
National Center for Victims of Crime
Americans for Democratic Action
National Coalition Against Domestic Violence
American Friends Service Committee
National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs
American Jewish Committee
NCCJ
American Jewish Congress
National Congress of American Indians
American Nurses Association
National Council of Churches of Christ in the USA
American Psychological Association
National Council of Jewish Women
Americans for Democratic Action
National Council of LaRaza
Americans Veterans Committee
National Education Association
And Justice For All
National Federation of Filipino American Associations
Anti-Defamation League
National Gay and Lesbian Task Force
Aplastic Anemia Foundation of America, Inc.
National Jewish Democratic Council
Asian American Legal Defense & Education Fund
National Mental Health Association
Asian Law Caucus
National Organization of Black Law Enforcement
Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance
Executives
Asian Pacific American Legal Center
National Parent Network on Disabilities
AYUDA
National Partnership for Women & Families
Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law
National Peurto Rican Coalition, Inc.
Bi-Net
National Respite Network
Business and Professional Women, USA
National Sheriff's Assocation
Catholics for Free Choice
National Spinal Cord Injury Association
Center for Democratic Renewal
National Urban League
Center for Women Policy Studies
National Women's Law Center
Chinese Americans Citizens Alliance
NOW - National Organization for Women
Church Women United
NOW Legal Defense & Education Fund
Coalition of Labor Union Women
Organization of Chinese Americans
Congress of National Black Churches
Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays
Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund
People For the American Way
Fair Employmen Council of greater Washington
Police Executive Research Forum
Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association
Police Foundation
Federally Employed Women
Presbyterian Church (USA), Washington Office
Gender Public Advocacy Coalition
Service Employees International Union, AFL-CIO
General Federation of Women's Clubs
Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues
Hadassah
Southeast Asia Resource Action Center
Hispanic National Law Enforcement Association
Union of American Hebrew Congregations
Human Rights Campaign
Union of Needletrades, Industrial & Textile
International Union of United Aerospace and Agricultural Implements
Employees (UNITE)
Japanese American Citizens League
Unitarian Universalist Association
Jewish Council for Public Affairs
United Church of Christ - Office of Church in Society
Jewish Labor Committee
United Methodist Church
Jewish War Veterans of the USA
The United States Conference of Mayors
Jewish Women International
United States Student Association
Labor Council for Latin American Advancement
The Woman Activist Fund, Inc.
Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law
Women of Reform Judiasm, Federation of Temple
Leadership Conference on Civil Rights
Sisterhoods
Learning Disabilities Association of America
MALDEF - Mexican American Legal Defense &
Women's Legal Defense Fund
Women Work!
Education Fund
MANA - A National Latina Organization
Women's Alliance for Theology, Ethics & Rituals
YWCA of the USA
NAACP
YO
LC
1629 "K" St., NW, Suite 1010
Leadership Conference
Washington, D.C. 20006
Phone: 202/466-3311
on Civil Rights
Fax: 202/466-3435
www.civilrights.org
HATE CRIMES PREVENTION ACT (HCPA)
BACKGROUND
The Hate Crimes Prevention Act would strengthen existing federal hate crime laws in two ways.
Under current law, 18 U.S.C. 245, the government must prove both that the crime occurred
because of a person's membership in a designated group and because (not simply while) the victim
was engaged in certain specified federally-protected activities - such as serving on a jury, voting,
or attending public school. The HCPA would eliminate these overly-restrictive obstacles to
federal involvement, which have prevented government from involvement in many cases in which
individuals kill or injure others because of racial or religious bias.
Second, the HCPA would authorize the Department of Justice to assist local prosecutions, and,
where appropriate, investigate and prosecute cases in which the bias violence occurs because of
the victim's sexual orientation, gender, or disability. Current federal law does not provide
authority for involvement in these cases at all.
FEDERAL RESPONSE TO BIAS CRIME
18 U.S.C. 245 was enacted in 1968 and is limited to crimes directed at individuals because of their
race, color, religion, or national origin. Federal bias crime laws enacted subsequently have
provided additional coverage. The Hate Crime Statistics Act, enacted in 1990, requires the
Justice Department to collect data from state law enforcement officials for crimes directed at
individuals on the basis of their race, religion, sexual orientation, disability, or ethnicity. The Fair
Housing Act's criminal provisions include violent crimes based on gender and disability. The
Hate Crimes Sentencing Enhancement Act, enacted as a section of the Violent Crime
Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, provides for enhanced penalties for crimes directed
at individuals because of their "actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity,
gender, disability or sexual orientation The Violence Against Women Act, also enacted as
part of the 1994 crime bill, provides criminal penalties for persons who commit violent acts if they
have traveled across state lines in connection with abusing a spouse or violating a protective
order.
ENHANCING FEDERAL AND STATE COORDINATION
State and local authorities investigate and prosecute the overwhelming majority of hate crime
cases and will continue to do so after the HCPA is enacted. Since 1991, for example, the FBI
has documented over 50,000 hate crimes. During that period, however, the Justice Department
brought only 37 cases under 18 U.S.C. 245. The HCPA would provide a necessary backstop to
state and local enforcement by permitting federal authorities to provide assistance in these
investigations and by allowing federal prosecutions when necessary to achieve a just result.
The HCPA would limit the federal government's jurisdiction to only the most serious violent
crimes directed at persons, not property crimes. Prosecutions under 18 U.S.C. 245 can only be
brought if a crime is certified in writing by the Attorney General or her designee that an individual
prosecution would be "in the public interest and necessary to secure substantial justice." As they
do now, federal authorities would consult with state and local authorities before deciding whether
assertion of federal jurisdiction is warranted.
There is currently no general federal criminal prohibition against violent crimes directed at
individuals because of their sexual orientation, gender, or disability. The federal government must
have jurisdiction to address those bias-motivated crimes in states in which the law is inadequate.
For example, including the District of Columbia, only 21 states now include sexual orientation-
based crimes in their hate crime statutes, 20 states include coverage of gender-based crimes, and
22 include coverage for disability-based crimes.
SUPPORT FOR THE HCPA
The HCPA attracted bipartisan support from 33 Senators and 169 Representatives in the last
Congress. The measure is supported by President Clinton and the Department of Justice, 22 State
Attorneys General, and over 100 national law enforcement agencies, civil rights groups, and local
government associations.
NOW.LEGAL DEFENSE
AND EDUCATION FUND 119 CONSTITUTION AVENUE, N.E., WASHINGTON, D.C., 20002 (202) 544-4470 FAX (202) 546-8605
March, 1999
The Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 1999
AMENDS 18 U.S.C. § 245 TO INCLUDE GENDER-BASED BIAS CRIMES
Gender-based crimes currently are not included in the federal "hate crimes" law. The federal
criminal civil rights law, 18 U.S.C. § 245, makes it a federal crime for private individuals to commit
bias-motivated violence against persons engaging in certain federally-protected activities who are
attacked on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin. The current law excludes sexual
orientation, disability and gender-based bias crimes. Current proposals to amend the law would permit
the Department of Justice to assist local prosecutors and, where appropriate, to investigate and
prosecute bias crimes based on gender, sexual orientation and disability.
Bias crimes, otherwise known as hate crimes, are crimes in which an offender intentionally
targets a victim based on the victim's real or perceived membership in a protected class. Bias
crimes hurt not only the intended victim, but also serve to intimidate and subjugate the entire group.
Laws against bias crimes have been enacted to address this anti-social element and to send a message
that such crimes against the community will not be tolerated. In addition, because crimes involving
serious bodily injury can be treated as relatively minor offenses such as simple assault, naming the
crime as a bias crime is essential to recognizing the true harm and ensuring that the crime will not go
unpunished.
Currently, 20 states have laws against gender-based bias crimes. In a few of these states, courts
have successfully identified and prosecuted gender-based bias crimes. These courts identified the
crimes as gender-based bias crimes by analyzing factors like those identified by the FBI for Hate Crime
Data Collection. In some cases, once a crime was identified as gender-based bias crime the state was
able to treat the underlying offense more seriously.
New Hampshire: Although convicted on five occasions for assaulting one woman, a batterer
never served time for the assaults. Upon his next misdemeanor assault conviction, a superior
court judge held that the batterer had a pattern of assaulting, terrorizing, and demeaning
women and that his actions were motivated by a hostility towards women. The judge then used
the state hate crime law to more than double the jail time the batterer must serve for his
misdemeanor assault conviction. As a result, the man will now serve two to five years in jail.
Maine: A serial batterer was found to have violated that state's civil bias crime law for his
bias crimes against women. Two former girlfriends and his ex-wife recounted his abuse,
including severe physical battering, death threats, assault on his wife while she was pregnant,
and constant slurs and profanities including calling the women "sluts," "bitches," and
"whores" and telling them that they made him sick. He was ordered to stay away from the
three women and to refrain from violence against other women.
Massachusetts: A Massachusetts state court found a serial batterer's abuse consituted bias
crimes against women under the state's bias crime law. Four women testified that his abuse
included severe physical battering, rape, death threats, unlawful restraint and constant verbal
abuse. He called the women "whores", "bitches", and "sluts", and made derogatory
comments that they and all women are weaker than men, and not as smart as men.
Unfortunately, the majority of states do not have legislation outlawing gender-based bias crimes.
And, of the states that have enacted these laws, many lack comprehensive penalties, procedures
and enforcement. This federal amendment will provide a backstop to local law enforcement. It will
authorize the federal government to assist local prosecutors and where appropriate to investigate and
prosecute gender bias crimes. Twenty Two Attorney's General support amending 18 U.S.C. § 245
to include gender-bias crimes.
Congress has already acknowledged the existence of gender-based bias crimes and the
connections among domestic violence, rape, and sexual assault and other hate crimes. In the
Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (VAWA I), Congress created a civil remedy for gender-based
violence. The 1993 Senate Report supporting the civil rights remedy of Violence Against Women Act
(VAWA) stated:
"Whether the attack is motivated by racial bias, ethnic bias, or gender bias, the results are
often the same. The victims of such violence are reduced to symbols of hatred; they are chosen
not because of who they are as individuals but because of their class status. The violence not
only wounds physically, it degrades and terrorizes, instilling fear and inhibiting the lives of all
those similarly situated."
As the first cases are being litigated under VAWA's civil remedy, federal judges join Congress in
recognizing the connection between gender-based bias crimes and other hate crimes.
Federal District Court: Raped, restrained, battered, disfigured, threatened with a loaded shot
gun, verbally threatened and harassed upon attempting to leave, a Washington woman sued her
ex-husband under the VAWA civil rights remedy. The court found allegations of rape and
sexual violence; gender-specific epithets; acts that perpetuated stereotypes of a woman's
submissive role, severe and excessive attacks, especially during pregnancy, and acts of violence
committed without provocation and at times when the plaintiff asserted her independence, were
sufficient to conclude that the violence was gender motivated.
The Federal Hate Crime Statistics Act, enacted by Congress in 1990, directs the Department of
Justice to collect data from state law enforcement officials for crimes directed at individuals on
the basis of their race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or disability. Because this Act
excludes gender, the FBI keeps no records of gender bias crimes. Although there are no national
surveys that track bias crimes against women, statistics gathered on the number of rapes and incidents
of domestic violence in the United States demonstrate the pervasive nature of violence against women.
In a some states studies have attempted to identify violent assaults against women that may be
motivated by bias. In Arkansas, a mostly rural state with a population of 2.3 million, 81 women were
murdered in 1990 in cases where robbery was not a motive, according to the Arkansas Women's
Project. Some were raped and killed, others were murdered with excessive cruelty and disfigurement.
For example:
Arkansas: Two days after her second wedding anniversary, a woman was found stabbed
approximately 130 times in the breasts, vagina, buttocks, eyes and forehead. Her husband has
been charged with the murder.
Clearly, there is a shocking and widespread rate of violence against women, which may include many
bias-motivated crimes. The lack of precise data only highlights the need for resources to study and
track the problem. Recognizing this, the Department of Justice supports amending 18 U.S.C. §
245 to include gender-bias crimes.
Concerns that adding gender-based bias crimes to the federal hate crime legislation may
overwhelm the system are misplaced. As with traditional bias crimes, gender bias crimes will only
be charged in those cases that meet the criteria for a bias crime. Just as every criminal attack against an
African-American is not now prosecuted as a racial hate crime, not every assault causing a woman
serious bodily injury will be prosecuted as a gender-based crime. The FBI guidelines for distinguishing
between crimes and bias crimes in hate crime data collection can successfully be applied to determine
if a crime is based on gender-bias. These factors can include a history of misogynistic behavior, a
pattern of assaulting women, sexual violence, bias language, epithets, extreme brutality, mutilation
and the seemingly motiveless cruelty that characterizes bias-related crimes. As the state cases cited
above demonstrate, it is possible to identify and prosecute cases of gender-based bias crimes.
For all of these reasons, 18 U.S.C. § 245 must be amended to include gender-based bias crimes
A more detailed memorandum further explaining why gender-based bias crimes should be recognized
and how they should be evaluated is available from NOW LDEF. For further information, contact
Julie Goldscheid, NOW LDEF (212) 925-6635 or Pat Reuss, NOW LDEF (202) 544-4470. Reference
Materials available upon request.
Understanding Gender-Based Bias Crimes
Like bias crimes against individuals based on race, color, religion, ethnicity, disability and sexual
orientation, bias crimes against women based on gender are a form of wrongful discrimination. In the
past, society has erroneously viewed sexual assault, domestic violence, and other forms of violence against
women as "private" or "family" matters outside the proper realm of law enforcement, or as the victim's own
fault. Over the years, society has begun to recognize that this violence against women is not personal, but is
targeted at women because of their gender, just as some violence is targeted at members of other groups
because of their race, color, religion, ethnicity, disability, or sexual orientation.
Acts of gender-motivated violence reflect men's efforts to dominate and control women, and are fed
by stereotypes of what women are and how women should act. These forms of violent domination and
control serve to enforce the imbalance of power between men and women in our society and to reinforce
women's traditionally subordinate and circumscribed roles. They are often intended to intimidate women
into staying in or returning to their "place" subservience to men at home, in the workplace, and throughout
society.
Like other forms of bias crime, gender-based bias crimes are attacks not only against the individual,
but against her entire community. Individual bias-motivated attacks instill fear in all women, threatening
and restricting women's lives. They limit where women work, live, study, and travel. As a noted report on
gender-based bias crimes by the Center for Women Policy Studies explains, "[women whether they are
white or women or color, heterosexual or lesbian, old or young -- know that they cannot go places men can
go without the fear of being attacked and violated."
Florida: USA Today reports on a murderer hunts his prey, claiming victim after victim. One by one, the
bodies of the murdered women are discovered, horribly mutilated. The media reports that the murderer "has a
taste for petite brunettes". Women in the community are frozen with fear. Some begin sleeping in groups with
guns. Women leave the town by the hundreds, many refusing to return. The murderer is eventually identified
when his DNA matches semen left at the crime scenes.
Because women are a part of every community, they may be more likely to be intimately connected
with the perpetrator of gender-based bias crimes. In other hate crimes, an attacker generally has to go at
least outside his own home, if not outside his neighborhood, to find a target for his bias-motivated violence.
For example, a white man may engage in violent acts against a family of color who moves into the
neighborhood. In so doing, he sends a message that they, and those like them, are not welcome. In addition
to attacks by strangers or relative strangers, women may also be victims of gender-based bias attacks by
those they know intimately. As women live in practically every home in every neighborhood, a man who
wishes to engage in gender-based bias violence will likely find a target for that violence at home. According
to the Department of Justice, intimate partners perpetrate over one million rapes and assaults each year.
Michigan: A young bride is severely and repeatedly beaten by her husband. Eventually she divorces him and
gets an order of protection. The police refuse to enforce the order. Her ex-husband stalks, harasses, threatens,
and assaults her. One day he abducts her in public at gun point. He batters her, rapes her repeatedly, and
attempts to take her across state lines. She escapes and her testimony gets him convicted. Four and one-half
years later he is released from prison. Two weeks after that, he is back stalking, threatening, harassing her.
The police admit "as soon as he has the opportunity he will kill her" and tell her that the law will not protect
her. She sleeps with a loaded gun. Perhaps realizing that the law does not protect her and those like her, the
commission grants her an unrestricted license to carry a concealed weapon.
Women of color, lesbians, and those who resist traditional roles experience bias crimes based on their
gender as well as their race, color, religion, sexial orientation, disability, national origin, language,
and immigration status. Violence targeted at these women may reflect intersecting forms of bias. Women
are part of every community traditionally protected by civil rights laws, but without protections against
gender-based attacks, their unique experience of intersecting forms of prejudice cannot be fully remedied.
House Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 1999
Chief Sponsors of
Levin (MI)
POTENTIAL HCPA
Rodriguez (TX)
HCPA '99:
Lewis (GA)
CO-SPONSORS:
Romero-Barcelo (PR)
Lofgren (CA)
Roybal-Allard (CA)
Conyers (MI)
Lowey (NY)
HCPA '98 SPONSORS
Scott (VA)
Morella (MD)
McCarthy, C. (NY)
Shays (CT)
Forbes (NY)
McNulty (NY)
Abercrombie (HI)
Thurman (FL)
Frank (MA)
Maloney, J. (CT)
Becerra (CA)
Tierney (MA)
Markey (MA)
Bentsen (TX)
Velazquez (NY)
Original Sponsors of
Matsui (CA)
Bonior (MI)
Vento (MN)
HCPA '99
Meehan (MA)
Boucher (VA)
Walsh (NY)
Ackerman (NY)
Meek (FL)
Brady, R (PA)
Waters (CA)
Allen (ME)
Menendez (NJ)
Brown, S (OH)
Andrews, R. (NJ)
Millender-McDonald (CA)
Cardin (MD)
Sponsors of VAWA '98 &
Baird (WA)
Miller (CA)
Clay (MO)
VAWA '99
Baldacci (ME)
Mink (HI)
Clement (TN)
Baldwin (WI)
Moakley (MA)
Clyburn (SC)
Barcia (MI)
Barrett (WI)
Moore (KS)
Cummings (MD)
Bishop (GA)
Berman (CA)
Nadler (NY)
DeFazio (OR)
Borski (PA)
Bilbray (CA)
Napolitano (CA)
DeGette (CO)
Costello (IL)
Blagojevich (IL)
Norton (DC)
DeLauro (CT)
Cramer (AL)
Blumenauer (OR)
Oberstar (MN)
Deutsch (FL)
Dicks (WA) (CA)
Crowley (NY)
Boehlert (NY)
Olver (MA)
Eshoo (CA)
Dooley (CA)
Boswell (IA)
Owens (NY)
Evans (IL)
Jones (OH)
Brown, C (FL)
Pallone (NJ)
Faleomavaega(AS)
Kaptur (OH)
Brown, G (CA)
Payne (NJ)
Fattah (PA)
LaFalce (NY)
Capps (CA)
Pelosi (CA)
Franks, B (NJ)
LaTourette (OH)
Capuano (MA)
Price (NC)
Frelinghuysen (NJ)
McCollum (FL)
Carson (IN)
Rahall (WV)
Foley (FL)
McKinney (GA)
Christian-Green (VI)
Reyes (TX)
Frost (TX)
Martinez (CA)
Clayton (NC)
Rothman (NJ)
Guiterrez (IL)
Mascara (PA)
Coyne (PA)
Rush (IL)
Hilliard (AL)
Pomeroy (ND)
Davis, D. (IL)
Sabo (MN)
Hinchey (NY)
Roukema (NJ)
Delahunt (MA)
Sanders (VT)
Hooley (OR)
Sanchez (CA)
Dixon (CA)
Sandlin (TX)
Jackson, J. (IL)
Stupak (MI)
Engel (NY)
Sawyer (OH)
Jefferson (LA)
Thompson, M (CA)
Farr (CA)
Schakowsky (IL)
Johnson, E. (TX)
Tubbs Jones (OH)
Filner (CA)
Sherman (CA)
Johnson, N (CT)
Visclosky (IN)
Ford, Jr. (TN)
Slaughter (NY)
Kelly (NY)
Wise (WV)
Gejdenson (CT)
Smith, A (WA)
Kind (WI)
Gephardt (MO)
Horn (CA)
Gilman (NY)
Stabenow (MI)
Republicans Underlined
Gonzalez (TX)
Stark (CA)
Lampson (TX)
Green (TX)
Tauscher (CA)
Lee (CA)
*as of: March 11, 1999
Greenwood (PA)
Thompson, B (MS)
Luther (MN)
Hastings (FL)
Towns (NY)
McCarthy, (MO)
Because VAWA '99 (H.R.
Hinojosa (TX)
Underwood (GA)
McDermott (WA)
357) contains the hate
Horn (CA)
McGovern (MA)
crimes bill in its Title III,
Waxman (CA)
Hoyer (MD)
Maloney, C. (NY)
Subtitle E, current
Weiner (NY)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Wexler (FL)
Moran (VA)
sponsors of House VAWA
'99 are already HCPA '99
Kennedy, P. (RI)
Weygand (RI)
Neal (MA)
sponsors in name.
Kildee (MI)
Woolsey (CA)
Pascrell (NJ)
Kilpatrick (MI)
Wynn (MD)
Pastor (AZ)
Kucinich (OH)
Pryce (OH)
Lantos (CA)
Quinn (NY)
Leach (IA)
Rangel (NY)
Rivers (MI)
Sponsors of the Senate Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 1999
Chief Sponsors of
POTENTIAL HCPA
HCPA 1999:
CO-SPONSORS:
Kennedy (MA)
Co-Sponsors of
Specter (PA)
HCPA 1998:
Wyden (OR)
Smith (OR)
Biden (DE)
Schumer (NY)
Dodd (CT)
Feinstein (CA)
Original Sponsors of
Inouye (HI)
HCPA 1999:
Landrieu (LA)
Moynihan (NY)
Akaka (HI)
Reed (RI)
Boxer (CA)
Reid (NV)
Bryan (NV)
Chafee (RI)
Daschle (SD)
Co-Sponsors of Violence
Durbin (IL)
Against Women Act of 1999
Harkin (IA)
(S.51):
Jeffords (VT)
Johnson (SD)
Bryan (NV)
Kerrey (NE)
Hollings (SC)
Kerry (MA)
Kohl (WI)
Lautenberg(NJ)
Lincoln (AR)
Leahy (VT)
Snowe (ME)
Levin (MI)
Lieberman (CT)
Mikulski (MD)
Murray (WA)
Robb (VA)
Republicans Underlined
Rockefeller (WV)
Sarbanes (MD)
*as of: March 11, 1999
Torricelli (NJ)
Wellstone (MN)
ORGANIZATIONS THAT HAVE ENDORSED THE WOMEN'S CONVENTION (Partial list)
CONVENTION ON THE ELIMINATION OF
Action for Development
Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc.
*American Association of Retired Persons
Lawyers Committee for Human Rights
ALL FORMS OF DISCRIMINATION
*American Association of University Women
Leadership Conference of Women Religious
*American Bar Association
*League of Women Voters of the United States
American College of Nurse-Midwives
Louisville Women-Church
AGAINST WOMEN
American Council for the United Nations University
Lutheran Office for Governmental Affairs
American Federation of Teachers
Maryknoll Mission Association of the Faithful
*American Friends Service Committee
Maryknoll Office of Global Concerns
obtaining Senate advice and consent to the ratification of CEDAW is a top Administration priority
*American Jewish Committee
Massachusetts Women-Church
Na'amat USA
during this [105th] session of Congress.
*American Nurses Association
National Association of Social Workers
President Bill Clinton
American Veterans Committee
Americans for Democratic Action, Inc.
National Association of Women Lawyers
From a letter to the Senate leadership, March 11, 1998
*Amnesty International USA
National Audubon Society
Association for Women in Development
National Coalition Against Domestic Violence
it is long past time for America to become party to the Convention on the Elimination of
Association for Women in Psychology
National Coalition of American Nuns
Discrimination Against Women.'
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright
Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith
*National Council of Negro Women
March 12, 1997
Bahá'is of the United States
National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA
Black Women's Agenda
National Council of Women of the USA
*B'nai B'rith International
*National Council of Women's Organizations
"Violence and discrimination against women don t just victimize individuals; they hold back whole
Bread for the World
*National Education Association
societies Guaranteeing human rights is a moral imperative with respect to both women and men. It is
*Business and Professional Women/USA
National Jewish Community Relations Advisory Council
also an investment in making whole nations stronger, fairer, and better.
BVM Network for Women's Issues
National Women's Conference Committee
From the official U.S. Government statement to the World
Catholics for A Free Choice
*NOW Legal Defense & Education Fund
Center for Advancement of Public Policy
NETWORK A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby
Conference on Human Rights, Vienna, Austria, 1993
Center for Policy Alternatives
Older Women's League
Center for Reproductive Law and Policy
Oxfam America
BACKGROUND
Center for Women's Global Leadership
Planned Parenthood Federation of America
Center of Concern
*Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). Washington Office
On December 18, 1979, the United Nations adopted the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Chicago Catholic Women
Psychologists for Social Responsibility
Discrimination Against Women (Women's Convention or CEDAW). The call for a Women's Convention
Chicago Women-Church
Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Center for Human Rights
emerged from the First World Conference on Women in Mexico City in 1975. Until 1979, when the General
Church of the Brethren. Washington Office
San Francisco Bay Area Women's Ordination Conference
Assembly adopted the Women's Convention, there was no convention that addressed comprehensively women's
*Church Women United
*Sierra Club
rights within political, cultural, economic, social, and family life. As of February 1999, 163 countries had ratified
Coalition on Religion & Ecology
Sisterhood is Global Institute
Sisters of St. Joseph of Peace
the Convention.
Coalition for Women in International Development
Columban Fathers' Justice & Peace Office
Soka Gakkai International USA
Commission on the Advancement of Women/InterAction
Society for International Development/Women in Development
CURRENT STATUS
D.C. Statehood Solidarity Committee
*Soroptimist International of the Americas
Earthcommunity Center
Union of American Hebrew Congregations
In June 1997 the Clinton Administration informed the Senate Foreign Relations Committee of its priorities
Eighth Day Center for Justice
*Unitarian Universalist Association, Washington Office
for ratification of international treaties in the 105ᵗʰ Congress. The Women's Convention is the only human
Episcopal Church
Unitarian Universalist Service Committee
rights treaty listed in Category 1: "Treaties for which there is an urgent need for Senate approval."
Evangelical Lutheran Church of America
United Church of Christ Office for Church and Society
Feminist Majority Foundation
*United Methodist Church
Francois Xavier Bagnoud Center for Health and Human Rights
*United Nations Association of the United States of America
The United States was active in drafting the Convention and signed it on July 17, 1980. It was transmitted to the
Friends of the U.N.
United States Committee for UNICEF
Senate Foreign Relations Committee in November 1980. In the summer of 1990, the Committee held hearings on
*Friends Committee on National Legislation
United States Committee for UNIFEM
the Convention. In the spring of 1993, sixty-eight senators signed a letter to President Clinton, asking him to take
*General Federation of Women's Clubs
Washington Office on Africa
the necessary steps to ratify the Women's Convention. In June 1993, Secretary of State Warren Christopher
Global Commission to Fund the UN
Winrock International
Gray Panthers
Woman's National Democratic Club
announced at the World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna that the Administration would move on the
Guatemala Human Rights Commission
Women Empowering Women of Indian Nations (WEWIN)
Women's Convention and other human rights treaties.
Hadassah
Women of Reform Judaism
Health & Development Policy Project
Women for International Peace and Arbitration
In September 1994, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee reported out favorably on the Convention, by a vote
Human Rights Advocates
Women for Meaningful Summits
of 13 to 5 (with one abstention). Unfortunately, this occurred in the last days of the Congressional session, when
Human Rights Watch/Women's Rights Division
Women Law and Development International
The Humane Society
*Women's Action for New Directions/Women Legislators Lobby
several senators put a hold on the Convention, thereby blocking it from the Senate floor during the 103rd
International Center for Research on Women
Women's Environment and Development Organization
Congress. When the new Senate convened in January 1995, the Convention reverted to the Senate Foreign
International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission
Women's Institute For Freedom of The Press
Relations Committee. The committee has taken no action since then.
International Human Rights Law Group
*Women's International League for Peace and Freedom
International Women's Health Coalition
Women's Legal Defense Fund
Women's Ordination Conference
FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, CONTACT
International Women's Human Rights Law Clinic
International Women Judges Foundation
World Citizen Foundation
THE CO-CHAIRS OF THE WORKING GROUP ON THE WOMEN'S HUMAN RIGHTS TREATY:
The J. Blaustein Institute for the Advancement of Human Rights
World Federalist Association
Pat Rengel, Amnesty International, U.S.A.
Jewish Council for Public Affairs
*YWCA of the U.S.A.
tel: (202) 675-8577, fax: (202) 546-7142, E-Mail: [email protected]
*Jewish Women International
*Active National Membership Organizations
Kit Cosby, Bahá'is of the U.S.
March 1999
tel: (202) 833-8990, fax: (202) 833-8988, E-Mail: [email protected]
Sixty-seven "yes" votes are required for the Senate to consent to ratification. Action by the House of
Article 7: mandates the States Parties to end discrimination against women in political and public life, and to
Representatives is not required for ratification of international treaties. To date seven states have endorsed U.S.
ensure women's equal rights to vote, be eligible for election, participate in the formulation of policy, hold office;
ratification in their state legislatures: California, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, South Dakota,
and participate in associations and non-governmental organizations in these spheres;
and Vermont. The Connecticut State Senate and the Illinois House of Representatives have also endorsed U.S.
ratification.
Article 8: requires action to allow women to represent their governments internationally on an equal basis with
men;
IMPORTANCE OF U.S. RATIFICATION
The Convention provides a universal definition of discrimination against women that provides a basis for every
Article 9: mandates that women will have equal rights with men to acquire, change, or retain their nationality and
government's domestic and foreign policy to combat discrimination.
that of their children;
As one of the few nations that has failed to ratify the Women's Convention, the United States compromises its
Article 10: obligates States Parties to end discrimination in education, including in professional and vocational
credibility as a leader for human rights. The United States made ratification of the Women's Convention by the
training, access to curricula and other means of receiving an equal education; as well as to eliminate stereotyped
year 2000 one of its public commitments at the UN Conference on Women in Beijing in September 1995. The
concepts of the roles of men and women;
United States must keep that commitment.
Article 11: mandates the end of discrimination in the field of employment, including the right to work, to
The Women's Convention is a tool that women around the world are using in their struggle against the effects of
employment opportunities, to equal remuneration, to free choice of profession and employment, to social security,
discrimination: violence against women, poverty, lack of legal status, no right to inherit or own property, access to
and to protection of health, including maternal health, and also in regard to discrimination on the grounds of
credit, etc. Women need the United States to speak loudly and clearly in support of the Women's Convention so
marriage or maternity;
that the Convention becomes a stronger instrument in support of their struggles. Without US ratification, other
governments can more easily ignore the Convention's mandate and their obligations under it.
Article 12: requires steps to eliminate discrimination from the field of health care, including access to services
such as family planning;
Violence against women seriously inhibits women's ability to enjoy rights and freedoms on a basis of equality with
men. But violence against women itself emerges from the phenomenon of discrimination against women which
Article 13: requires that women be ensured the same rights as men in all areas of social and economic life, such as
makes them a target of violence. To effectively combat the crime of violence against women, US policy must
family benefits, mortgages, bank loans, and participation in recreational activities and sports;
address this linkage of discrimination and violence. By ratifying the Women's Convention, the United States will
reinforce its commitment to eliminate discrimination and, therefore, move closer to effectively combating violence
Article 14: focuses on the particular problems faced by rural women, including the areas of women's participation
against women.
in development planning, access to adequate health care, credit, education, and adequate living conditions;
The Clinton Administration has developed a number of provisions that will be incorporated into US ratification of
Article 15: obligates States Parties to take steps to ensure equality before the law and the same legal capacity to
the Convention to ensure that there will be no inappropriate intrusion on states' rights or into the private domain.
act in such areas as contracts, administration of property, and choice of residence;
Ratification of the Women's Convention will entitle the United States to nominate a U.S. expert to be a member of
Article 16: requires steps to ensure equality in marriage and family relations, including equal rights with men
the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, which monitors reports of progress in the
freely to choose marriage, equal rights and responsibilities toward children, including the right to decide freely and
treatment of women from the countries that have ratified the Convention. In this capacity, the US expert could
responsibly on the number and spacing of children and the means to do so, and the same rights to property;
bring the benefit of US experience in combating discrimination against women to this international forum.
Article 17: calls for the establishment of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women
TREATY SUMMARY
(CEDAW) which will evaluate progress made in implementation of the Convention.
Article 1: defines discrimination against women as any "distinction, exclusion or restriction made on the basis of
sex which has the effect or purpose of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or exercise by women,
Article 18: establishes a schedule of reporting on progress by ratifying countries;
irrespective of marital status, on the basis of equality between men and women, of human rights or fundamental
freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil, or any other field."
Article 19: establishes the ability of CEDAW to adopt rules of procedure and sets a two-year term for its officers;
Article 2: mandates States Parties to condemn discrimination in all its forms and to ensure a legal framework,
including all laws, policies and practices that provide protection against discrimination and embody the principle
Article 20: Sets annual CEDAW meetings to review States Parties' reports;
of equality;
Article 3: requires that States Parties take action in all fields -- civil, political, economic, social and cultural to
Article 21: directs CEDAW to report annually to the General Assembly through ECOSOC, and to make
guarantee women's human rights;
suggestions and general recommendations based on the States Parties' reports;
Article 4: permits States Parties to take "temporary special measures" to accelerate equality;
Article 5: declares the need to take appropriate measures to modify cultural patterns of conduct as well as the need
Article 22: allows for representation of the specialized agencies of the UN and for CEDAW to invite reports from
for family education to recognize the social function of motherhood and the common responsibility for raising
them;
children;
Article 6: obligates States Parties to take measures to suppress traffic in women and the exploitation of
Articles 23-30: set forth elements of the operation of the treaty, including the manner by which the treaty comes into
prostitution of women;
operation, the limits on the scope of permissible reservations, and the way in which disputes between States Parties
can be settled.
106th Congress:
Assessment of Senate Support for US Ratification of CEDAW
March 1999
FOR:
FOR:
NEW SENATORS:
UNKNOWN:
AGAINST:
Akaka, D. (D-HI)°
Lieberman. J. (D-CT)°
Bayh, E. (D-IN)*
Abraham, S. (R-MI)
Ashcroft, J. (R-MO)+
Baucus, M. (D-MT)°
McCain, J. (R-AZ)°
Bunning, J. (R-KY)*
Allard, W. (R-CO)
Coverdell, P. (R-GA)+
Biden, J. (D-DE)°+
Mikulski, B. (D-MD)°
Crapo, M. (R-ID)*
Bennett, R. (R-UT)
Gramm, P. (R-TX)
Bingaman, J. (D-NM)
Moynihan, D. (D-NY)°
Edwards, J. (D-NC)*
Bond, C. (R-MO)
Gregg, J. (R-NH)
Boxer, B. (D-CA)°+
Murray, P. (D-WA)°
Fitzgerald, P. (R-IL)*
Brownback, S. (R-KS)+
Hagel, C. (R-NE)+
Breaux, J. (D-LA)°
Reed, J. (D-RI)
Lincoln, B. L. (D-AR)*
Burns, C. (R-MT)
Helms, J. (R-NC)+
Bryan, R. (D-NV)°
Reid, H. (D-NV)°
Schumer, C. (D-NY)*
Cochran, T. (R-MS)
Hutchison, K. (R-TX)
Byrd, R. (D-WV)°
Robb, C. (D-VA)°
Voinovich, J. (R-OH)*
Collins, S. (R-ME)
McConnell, M. (R-KY)
Campbell, B. (R-CO)°
Rockefeller, J. (D-WV)°
Craig, L. (R-ID)
Chafee, H. (R-RI)°
Sarbanes, P. (D-MD)°+
DeWine, M. (R-OH)
Cleland, Max (D-GA)
Snowe, Olympia (R-ME)
Domenici, P. (R-NM)
Conrad, K. (D-ND)°
Specter, A. (R-PA)°
Enzi, M. (R-WY)
Daschle, T. (D-SD)°
Thurmond, S. (R-SC)°
Frist, B. (R-TN)+
Dodd, C. (D-CT)°+
Torricelli, R. (D-NJ)+
Gorton, S. (R-WA)
Dorgan, B. (D-ND)°
Warner, J. (R-VA)°
Grams, R. (R-MN)+
Durbin, R. (D-IL)
Wellstone, P. (D-MN)°+
Grassley, C. (R-IA)
Feingold, R. (D-WI)°+
Wyden, R. (D-OR)
Hatch, O. (R-UT)
Feinstein, D. (D-CA)°
Hutchinson, T. (R-AR)
Graham, B. (D-FL)°
Inhofe, J. (R-OK)
Harkin, T. (D-1A)°
Kyl, J. (R-AZ)
Hollings, E.(D-SC)°
Lott, T. (R-MS)
Inouye, D. (D-HI)°
Lugar, R. (R-IN)+
Jeffords, J. (R-VT)°
Mack, C. (R-FL)
Johnson, T. (D-SD)
Murkowski, F. (R-AK)°
Kennedy, E. (D-MA)°
Nickles, D. (R-OK)
Kerrey, R. (D-NE)°
Roberts, P. (R-KS)
Kerry, J. (D-MA)°+
Roth, W. (R-DE)
Kohl, H. (D-WI)°
Santorum, R. (R-PA)
Landrieu, M. (D-LA)
Sessions, J. (R-AL)
Lautenberg, F. (D-NJ)
Shelby, R. (R-AL)°
Leahy, P. (D-VT)°
Smith, G. (R-OR)+
Levin, C. (D-MI)°
Smith, R. (R-NH)
Stevens, T. (R-AK)
Thomas, C. (R-WY)+
Thompson. F. (R-TN)
*Newly elected to 106ᵗʰ Congress
+Members of Foreign Relations Committee
°Signed the Sen. Simon "Dear Colleague" letter in the 103rd Congress
## Above list is also based on Senators' responses to constituent letters ##
Suggested Grassroots/NGO Action Items to Urge
Ratification of CEDAW: March 1999
NGO membership should contact members of the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee (SFRC) to encourage them to urge the SFRC's leadership, Jesse
Helms (R-NC) & Joseph Biden (D-DE), to move CEDAW out of the SFRC
and to the floor for a vote.
Write letters to all Senators encouraging them to urge the Republican (Trent
Lott/Jesse Helms) and Democratic (Tom Daschle/Joseph Biden) Senate
leadership to bring CEDAW to a vote on the floor.
Urge membership to organize events during Women's History month.
Send letters to Secretary Albright urging her to continue to use her office to
work with the Senate leadership in getting ratification of CEDAW on their
agenda.
Encourage Republican women to speak out in favor of ratification.
Work with local organizations/religious groups (i.e., Bahá'is, Methodists,
YWCA, Amnesty International, UNA-USA) to organize events.
Write thank you letters to Senator Boxer for asking a question on CEDAW to
Secretary Albright at the February 23 Senate Foreign Relations Committee
hearing.
Urge NGO membership to contact newly elected senators and ask them about
their position on CEDAW.
Write letters of support for the Interagency Working Group.
Target senators in the "unknown" column on the "Assessment of Senate
Support list."
There may be a "Dear Colleague" letter that will be circulating within the next
few weeks. If so, urge NGO membership to encourage your senator to sign the
letter.
1999 CEDAW RATIFICATION UPDATE
WHICH COUNTRIES
WHICH COUNTRIES
HAVE RATIFIED:
HAVE NOT RATIFIED:
163 countries have consented to be
bound by the provisions of the U.N.
Europe & North America:
Convention on the Elimination of All
Monaco
Forms of Discrimination Against Women:
San Marino
United States of America
Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua &
West Asia (Middle East):
Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria,
Bahrain
Azerbaijan, The Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados,
Iran
Belarus Republic. Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan,
Oman
Bolivia, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil,
Qatar
Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi.
Saudi Arabia
Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde. Central
Syrian Arab Republic
African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia,
United Arab Emirates
Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Croatia.
Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti,
Asia Pacific/Central Asia:
Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El
Afghanistan (S)
Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Estonia,
Brunei Darussalam
Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France.
Cook Islands
*
Gabon. Gambia, Georgia, Germany. Ghana, Greece,
Democratic People's Republic of Korea
Grenada, Guatemala. Guinea, Guinea-Bissau. Guyana.
Kiribati
*
Haiti. Honduras. Hungary. Iceland. India. Indonesia.
Marshall Islands
Iraq. Ireland, Israel. Italy. Jamaica. Japan, Jordan.
Micronesia
Kazakhstan. Kenya. Kuwait. Kyrgystan. Lao People's
Nauru
*
Democratic Republic. Latvia. Lebanon. Lesotho.
Palau
Liberia. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya. Liechtenstein.
Solomon Islands
Lithuania. Luxembourg.
Tonga
*
Tuvalu
*
Madagascar. Malawi, Malaysia. Maldives. Mali.
Malta. Maritius. Mexico, Mongolia. Morocco.
Mozambique. Myanmar, Namibia. Nepal.
Africa:
Netherlands. New Zealand, Nicaragua. Nigeria.
Mauritania
Norway. Pakistan. Panama, Papua New Guinea,
Niger
Paraguay. Peru. Philippines. Poland. Portugal.
Sao Tome & Principe (S)
Republic of Korea. Republic of Macedonia. Republic
Somalia
of Moldava. Romania, Russian Federation. Rwanda.
Sudan
Saint Kitts & Nevis. Saint Lucia. Saint Vincent & the
Swaziland
Grenadines. Samoa. Senegal. Seychelles. Sierra
Leone, Singapore. Slovakia, Slovenia. South Africa.
Latin America/Caribbean:
Spain. Sri Lanka. Surinam. Sweden. Switzerland,
All ratified
Tajikistan. Thailand. Togo. Trinidad & Tobago.
Tunisia, Turkmenistan. Turkey.
*
Uganda. Ukranian Republic, United Kingdom of
Non-member state of the United Nations
Great Britain & Northern Ireland. United Republic of
(S) Signed, not ratified or acceded
Tanzania. Uruguay, Uzbekistan. Vanuatu. Venezuela,
Vietnam. Yemen, Yugoslavia. Zaire. Zambia.
March 1999
Zimbabwe.
SOME EXAMPLES OF CEDAW AT WORK IN OTHER
COUNTRIES
NEPAL:
CEDAW is being used as a tool to promote rights for women in Nepal. The Nepali Women's Movement
is strongly pressuring for passage of a crucial bill concerning the right of women to inherit property as
well as issues such as raising the minimum age for marriage and requiring stiffer penalties for rape. The
basis for these efforts is Nepal's Constitution that provides for equal rights for all citizens and the various
treaties Nepal has acceded to including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)
and CEDAW. In addition, at the Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing in 1995, the
government of Nepal publicly undertook to revise its property laws that do not meet standards set by
CEDAW and deny women equal property rights.
JAPAN:
Japan ratified CEDAW over ten years ago and enacted an extremely limited employment discrimination
law in 1986 to comply with the Convention. Though the language encouraging employers to "endeavor
to give women equal treatment" has been strengthened, the law's effectiveness is still limited by its
remedy a woman may seek mediation by prefecture authorities but-this will only occur if the employer
gives consent.
Encouraged by the CEDAW committee review stating that the relative status of women in Japan is far
lower than the country's relative economic status in the world, 21 women risked retaliation at work and
ostracism within their community and sued four companies of Sumitomo and the Government of Japan
claiming wage discrimination and failure to promote. They also claim that the separate employment
tracks, with jobs held primarily by women classified in lower level tracks with minimal opportunity for
advancement or for changing tracks, violates the terms of CEDAW. CEDAW provided a tool for these
women to improve their lives.
TANZANIA:
The Tanzanian High Court cited CEDAW in a decision invalidating a customary law that prevented
women from inheriting clan land from their fathers. The Court found the law violated Tanzania's own
Bill of Rights as well as CEDAW and other international human rights treaties to which Tanzania has
acceded. The Court explained: "The principles enunciated in the above named documents are a standard
below which any civilized nation will be ashamed to fall."
BOTSWANA:
Unity Dow, an attorney, who was married to a foreigner and had three children, challenged the 1984
Citizenship Act under which children of a woman married to a foreigner were not entitled to
citizenship while children of a male married to a foreigner were entitled to citizenship. Significant
benefits accrued to individuals deemed citizens; serious liabilities attached to the lack of citizenship.
Dow claimed that the Citizenship Act violated both constitutional and international law, including
CEDAW to which Botswana has acceded. The Appeals Court cited CEDAW in its opinion
invalidating the law as unconstitutional. After losing two major court decisions and facing the
unwanted publicity of human rights groups, the Government granted citizenship to Dow's children
and others similarly situated. The Dow case is an example of how CEDAW can be used to
challenge laws that continue to relegate women to second class citizens.
October 1997
NARAL Promoting Reproductive Choice
TITLE X:
THE NATION'S CORNERSTONE FEDERAL FAMILY PLANNING PROGRAM
Enacted in 1970 with broad bipartisan support, Title X of the Public Health
Service Act is the only federal program exclusively dedicated to family planning and
reproductive health services. Title X has been the nation's cornerstone family
planning program for more than 25 years, providing millions of women with services
ranging from contraception to pap smears and breast cancer screening.¹ For many
women, Title X clinics provide the only basic health care that they receive. Publicly
funded family planning services have helped reduce the rates of unintended
pregnancies, unintended births and abortions. In addition, they have been responsible
for improving the quality of women's health and lives. Yet, despite the importance of
federally funded family planning services to American women and the nation as a
whole, anti-choice lawmakers have attacked the program consistently. Since gaining
a Congressional majority in the 1994 elections, anti-choice lawmakers in Congress
have repeatedly attempted to defund the program and restrict minors' access.²
Moreover, Congress has failed to provide adequate funding levels for Title X. Title
X funding must be increased without restrictions upon confidentiality in order to
enhance women's access to contraceptive and family planning services and to
give women real choices over their reproductive lives.
I.
TITLE X FAMILY PLANNING FUNDS PROVIDE WOMEN WITH ESSENTIAL
SERVICES.
The Title X program funds medical services crucial to women's health,
especially for women who have no other access to such care. For many women, Title
National Abortion
and Reproductive Rights
X clinics may be their first point of entry into the health care system, thereby serving
Action League
as a bridge to other services.
1156 15th Street. NW
Suite 700
A.
Title X Assists Millions of Women.
Washington, DC 20005
Phone (202) 973-3000
Fax (202) 973-3096
Title X funds provide millions of women -- regardless of age, income or
10536 Culver Boulevard
marital status -- with family planning services each year. In 1994, Title X provided
Suite B
some funding for 60 percent of all family planning agencies.³ As a result, over four
Culver City. CA 90232
Phone (310) 559-9334
million women in one year alone obtained services in more than 4,000 clinics
Fax (310) 204-6942
http://www.naral.org
E-Mail: [email protected]
1969 - 30 Years Of Making A Difference - 1999
receiving Title X funds.4
Most of the women obtaining Title X services are young and poor and have
never given birth. Approximately 80 percent of all clients served by publicly funded
providers are under age 30 and 57 percent have family income levels under the
federal poverty level. For over eight in 10 women receiving family planning services,
a Title X clinic is their sole source of services.⁵
Title X is particularly important in providing family planning services to low-
income women who fail to qualify for Medicaid. Whereas Medicaid generally limits
eligibility to very poor women who are single, have a child (or are pregnant) and meet
other stringent requirements,6 Title X provides more women with access to services.
Under Title X, women with incomes not exceeding 100 percent of the poverty level
must receive entirely subsidized services; women with incomes 101-250 percent of
poverty must be charged on a sliding scale; and women with incomes over 250
percent of poverty must be charged full fees.⁷
B.
Title X Provides Essential Services.
The Title X statutes and corresponding regulations prescribe a minimum
standard of care for reproductive health care. The statutes define qualifying family
planning projects broadly, as including "a broad range of acceptable and effective
family planning methods and services (including natural family planning methods,
infertility services, and services for adolescents),"⁸ The regulations further explain
that these family planning projects "shall consist of the educational, comprehensive
medical, and social services necessary to aid individuals to determine freely the
number and spacing of their children." The law prohibits Title X funds to be used
for abortion. 10 Furthermore, Title X funds support practitioner training programs
and research designed to enhance the quality of the family planning services
provided. 11 Finally, the law mandates that acceptance of services must be voluntary
and not coerced. 12
Title X guidelines promote women's health as well. Under the guidelines,
Title X clinics must provide the following services: (1) pelvic exams and pap smear
tests; (2) breast exams and education regarding self-examination; (3) screening and
treatment for sexually transmitted diseases (STDs); (4) infertility screening; and (5)
referrals to specialists. In addition, the guidelines recommend that Title X-funded
agencies should offer other health promotion/disease prevention services such as
screening, immunization, nutrition services, and general health education and
counseling.¹
13
Title X clinics also provide teens with educational services, giving teens the
tools they need to make responsible choices about their sexual and reproductive lives.
NATIONAL ABORTION AND REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS ACTION LEAGUE
PAGE 2
At Title X clinics, teens receive counseling and information concerning both
abstinence and contraceptive methods. 14
C.
Title X Ensures Confidential Services.
Under Title X, all patients -- regardless of age -- must be ensured
confidentiality.¹⁵ Although the law requires entities receiving Title X funds to
encourage family participation in teens' reproductive health decisions, 16 family
involvement may not be mandated. Citing legislative intent and the clear statutory
language encouraging -- not mandating -- parental involvement, two federal courts of
appeal in 1983 prohibited enforcement of a regulatory attempt -- dubbed the "squeal
rule" -- to require Title X clinics to notify parents when they prescribed
contraceptives to minors. 17
Title X clinics have therefore served as an invaluable source of confidential
services for teens. In fact, three in ten individuals receiving contraceptive services
from publicly funded family planning providers are under 20 years old. 18
A bedrock principle of medical ethics, confidentiality is crucial to ensuring
women's reproductive health. Empirical studies confirm that when parental consent
and notice is mandated by law, thus breaching confidentiality, adolescents are likely
to delay or avoid seeking needed care, particularly in the area of family planning. For
example, one study of adolescents found that if confidential treatment for sexually
transmitted diseases was available, 50 percent of the adolescents would seek care.
Only 15 percent reported that they would seek medical treatment if parental consent
or notice was required.¹⁹
Recognizing this link between confidential services and receipt of
reproductive health care, courts have acknowledged the importance of confidential
services for teenagers. In Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California V. Van De
Kamp, the California Court of Appeals found that if "minors are unable to obtain
reproductive health care on a confidential basis, without their sexual conduct being
reported to law enforcement for investigation, they will be deterred from seeking such
care." Additionally, the court noted that "[i]t is nearly impossible to establish a
professional, therapeutic relationship without a promise of confidentiality which the
professional can keep." A United States District Court, in Planned Parenthood
Association of Utah V. Matheson, prohibited a "blanket parental notification
requirement" for minors seeking contraceptives. In doing so, the court recognized
that "minors seek contraceptives after becoming sexually active, not before [and]
that a significant percentage of sexually active minors would not cease their sexual
activity if access to contraceptives is conditioned on parental notification. Instead,
those minors would terminate their use of contraceptives. Thus,
[the law] would
expose sexually active minors to the health risks of early pregnancy and venereal
NATIONAL ABORTION AND REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS ACTION LEAGUE
PAGE 3
disease. "21
Organized medicine in the United States has reached a remarkable consensus
that contraceptive services should be available to adolescents on a confidential basis.
In July 1997, the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP), the American
Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), the American College of Obstetricians and
Gynecologists (ACOG), the American Medical Women's Association (AMWA),
the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM), and the Society for
Adolescent Medicine wrote a joint letter to members of Congress opposing attempts
to require parental notification or consent for adolescents to receive contraceptive
services in clinics funded by Title X. The letter states "[w]hile we applaud the efforts
of the Committee to ensure that parents are involved in [a] minor's health care
decisions,
[f]orced parental involvement, in our view, will have a negative impact
on the physician-patient relationship, as well as have the unintended consequence of
deterring adolescents from seeking important health care services. ,,22
Moreover, virtually every state in the U.S. has enacted legislation to permit
minors to obtain care for sexually transmitted diseases without parental consent and
many have legal provisions ensuring confidential access to contraceptives. As of
September 1997, 49 states and the District of Columbia authorize minors to consent
to the diagnosis and treatment of sexually transmitted diseases, and legislatures in 23
states and the District of Columbia have given minors the authority to consent to
contraceptive services.²³ Any attempt to eradicate Title X's guarantee of
confidentiality would therefore trammel upon these individual state confidentiality
protections.
III.
PUBLICLY FUNDED FAMILY PLANNING SERVICES IMPROVE WOMEN'S
LIVES.
A.
Access to Contraceptive Services Enhances the Quality of Life for
Women and their Families.
Access to contraceptive services is central to improving women's overall
health and reducing unintended pregnancy. The ability to determine whether and
when to have children is a key measure of women's autonomy. 24 Moreover, as the
U.S. Supreme Court recognized in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania
V. Casey, "[t]he ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life
of the Nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives. "25
Reducing the rate of unintended pregnancy and enhancing reproductive health and
rights therefore are essential to promoting women's self-determination and ability to
participate fully in society.
NATIONAL ABORTION AND REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS ACTION LEAGUE
PAGE 4
Currently, nearly 50 percent of all pregnancies in the U.S. are unintended. 26
An estimated 31 million women, or one-half of all women in the U.S. of reproductive
age, are at risk for unintended pregnancy. By decreasing the unintended pregnancy
rate, access to contraceptive services also improves the quality of life for both parents
and their children. 27
Negative health outcomes are strongly associated with unintended
pregnancy. These outcomes include: delayed or inadequate prenatal
care; increased fetal exposure to tobacco and alcohol; increased
likelihood of low birth weight and death in the first year of life; and
higher risk of abuse and failure to receive sufficient resources for
healthy development.²⁸
Unintended pregnancy is also linked to negative social outcomes for
parents and families, such as increased risk of the mother being
physically abused, the dissolution of the parents' relationship,
economic hardship and a reduced likelihood that parents will achieve
their educational and career goals.²⁹
B.
Publicly Funded Family Planning Services Are Effective.
Publicly funded family planning services dramatically reduce unintended
pregnancy, unintended births and abortions. By providing women with access to
family planning services, Title X thereby gives women real choices over their
reproductive lives, assisting women to limit their family size and their number of
pregnancies. As such, Title X provides a realistic and effective mechanism to reduce
unintended pregnancy and make abortion less necessary.
Publicly funded contraceptive services annually prevent 1.3 million
unintended pregnancies, which would result in 533,800 births and
632,300 abortions. Without such services, the number of abortions
performed each year in the U.S. therefore would be approximately 40
percent higher than the current rate.³⁰
Publicly funded contraceptive services have a particularly profound
impact on adolescents. Without such publicly funded services,
385,800 additional teens would become pregnant annually. The result
would be 154,700 more births and 183,300 more abortions, increasing
the yearly total of teen births by about 25 percent and the number of
abortions by about 58 percent. 31
Publicly funded contraceptive services are cost-effective.
NATIONAL ABORTION AND REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS ACTION LEAGUE
PAGE 5
Of the approximately 534,000 additional women who would give birth
in the absence of publicly funded services, approximately 338,000
additional women would be eligible for pregnancy-related Medicaid
coverage. About 80 percent of these women would be eligible solely
because of their pregnancy. Through state and federal expenditures,
the nation would spend an additional $1.2 billion for Medicaid each
year. Every government dollar spent on contraceptive services thus
saves the public approximately $3.00 in funds that otherwise would
have been spent on pregnancy-related and newborn care through
Medicaid.
32
Compared to no contraceptive use, use of contraceptives is extremely
cost-effective. Annually, 100 women having sexual intercourse
without contraception will have 85 pregnancies.³³ A single
uncomplicated vaginal delivery costs $6,430, while a single
uncomplicated cesarean section delivery costs $11,000.34 Meanwhile,
a year's supply of birth control pills only costs approximately $273.35
Participation in publicly funded family planning services also positively
affects women's lives and helps ensure healthier babies.
A national study found that family planning funds for 1982-1988 were
linked to 20,000 fewer low birth weight births, 6,500 fewer infant
deaths and 5,500 fewer neonatal deaths. 36
Receipt of publicly funded family planning services increases the
likelihood that a woman will receive adequate prenatal care if she does
become pregnant. In one study, family planning funding from 1982 -
1988 was associated with 106,900 fewer births with no or late prenatal
care. Meanwhile, a North Carolina study found that women were
more likely to initiate prenatal care early, to receive sufficient care
throughout pregnancy, and to participate in a food supplement
program and other maternity-care services if they had used family
planning services in the first two years prior to becoming pregnant.³⁷
Title X funds are also vital to STD screening and treatment. Each year
12 million Americans -- including three million teenagers -- are
infected with a STD. 38 In 1990, 40 percent of all visits to an individual
Title X grantee involved STD screening or treatment -- as compared to
10 percent of visits in 1980. 39
NATIONAL ABORTION AND REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS ACTION LEAGUE
PAGE 6
IV.
THE CURRENT FUNDING LEVELS FOR TITLE X ARE INADEQUATE.
Between 1980 and 1994, Title X funding for contraceptive services in constant
dollars decreased by 65 percent. 40 During the same period, however, the costs of
providing certain services rose, as did the number of patients needing certain
services.⁴¹ In fact, while the level of public funding for family planning clinics
declined, the number of patients they served rose -- overburdening the system 42 Less
than 30 percent of all women eligible for services in 1994 were served by Title X
clinics.⁴³
If Title X funding had increased at the rate of inflation from its FY 1980
funding level of $162 million, Title X presently would be funded at $515.16 million.
Yet, its funding level for FY 1998 is less than half that amount -- $203.452 million. 44
In an attempt to increase the funding level and adequately fund Title X,
members of Congress introduced an omnibus piece of legislation, entitled the "Family
Planning and Choice Protection Act of 1997." Introduced in 1997 in both the House
and the Senate, this legislation authorizes $275.00 million for fiscal year 1999 and
such sums as necessary for fiscal years 2000 through 2003 to be appropriated for Title
X.⁴⁵
Recognizing the importance of increased funding for Title X, President
Clinton's FY 1999 budget proposal requests $15 million for Title X over the current
level. 46 As Vice President Gore explained at NARAL's 25th anniversary of Roe V.
Wade luncheon, "The single most effective way to reduce abortion is to prevent
unintended pregnancies in the first place
That must be our mission here in the
United States, and that's one area in which we need a strong national role. That is
why I am delighted to announce today that President Clinton and I will propose a
dramatic increase in family planning, tripling
last year's increase and add[ing] $15
million to make abortion less necessary all across America."⁴⁷
V.
CONCLUSION.
Title X funding for family planning services has assisted millions of women in
obtaining essential care. Research has proven Title X's effectiveness in reducing the
rates of unintended pregnancy, unintended births and abortions. Only through
adequate levels of funding, without restrictions on minors' access to confidential
services, can Title X's benefits to women's lives and health continue and expand.
July 6, 1998
NATIONAL ABORTION AND REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS ACTION LEAGUE
PAGE 7
NOTES:
1.
42 U.S.C. §§ 300 to 300a-8 (West 1991 & Supp. 1998); Lisa Kaeser, Rachel Benson Gold and Cory L.
Richards, Title X at 25: Balancing National Family Planning Needs with State Flexibility (New York and
Washington, D.C.: The Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI), 1996), 6-9.
2.
The NARAL Foundation/NARAL, Who Decides? A State-by-State Review of Abortion and Reproductive
Rights, 5th edition (Washington, D.C.: The NARAL Foundation/NARAL, 1995), I; See amendments to
FY 1996, FY 1997 and FY 1998 Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education & Related Agencies
Appropriations bills.
3.
Jennifer Frost and Michele Bolzan, "The Provision of Public-Sector Services By Family Planning Agencies
in 1995," Family Planning Perspectives, vol. 29, no. I (Jan./Feb. 1997): 12.
4.
Jennifer Frost, "Family Planning Clinic Services in the United States, 1994," Family Planning
Perspectives, vol. 28, no. 3 (May/June 1996): 99, 94: AGI, "Title X and the U.S. Family Planning Effort,"
Issues in Brief (Feb. 1997): 4.
5.
Kaeser, Gold and Richards, Title X at 25, 7; Frost and Bolzan, "The Provision of Public-Sector Services,"
8; AGI, "Title X and the U.S. Family Planning Effort," 2.
6.
Kaeser, Gold and Richards, Title X at 25, 8.
7.
AGI, "Title X and the U.S. Family Planning Effort," 2, 4; 42 U.S.C. § 300a-4 (West 1991); Fed. Reg. vol.
45, no. 108 (1980) (codified at 42 C.F.R. $ 59.5(7), (8), § 59.2).
8.
42 U.S.C. § 300(a) (West 1991).
9.
Fed. Reg. vol. 45, no. 108 (1980) (codified at 42 C.F.R. $ 59.1).
10.
42 U.S.C. $ 300a-6 (West 1991).
11.
42 U.S.C. § 300a-1 to -2 (West 1991).
12.
42 U.S.C. § 300a-5 (West 1991).
13.
Bureau of Community Health Services (BCHS), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS),
"Program Guidelines for Project Grants for Family Planning Services," 9-15 (1981).
14.
Stanley K. Henshaw and Aida Torres, "Family Planning Agencies: Services, Policies and Funding," Family
Planning Perspectives, vol. 26, no. 2 (Mar./Apr. 1994): 56.
15.
Fed. Reg. vol. 45, no. 108 (1980) (codified at 42 C.F.R. § 59.11).
16.
42 U.S.C. § 300 (West 1991).
17.
Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. V. Heckler, 712 F.2d 650 (D.C. Cir. 1983); State of New
York V. Heckler, 719 F.2d 1191 (2d Cir. 1983); AGI, "Title X and the U.S. Family Planning Effort," 5;
Kaeser, Gold and Richards, Title X at 25, 9.
NATIONAL ABORTION AND REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS ACTION LEAGUE
PAGE 8
18.
Frost and Bolzan, "The Provision of Public-Sector Services," 8; AGI, "Title X and the U.S. Family
Planning Effort," 2.
19.
Andrea Marks et al., "Assessment of Health Needs and Willingness to Utilize Health Care Resources of
Adolescents in a Suburban Population," The Journal of Pediatrics, vol. 102, no. 3 (Mar. 1983): 459.
20.
Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California V. Van De Kamp, 181 Cal. App. 3d 245, 268-69 (Ct. App.
1986).
21.
Planned Parenthood Association of Utah V. Matheson, 582 F. Supp. 1001, 1009 (D. Utah 1983).
22.
Letter from American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP), American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP),
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), American Medical Women's Association
(AMWA), American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM), and Society for Adolescent Medicine to
The Honorable Robert L. Livingston, U.S. House of Representatives (July 21, 1997) (on file with
NARAL).
23.
AGI, "Teenagers' Right to Consent To Reproductive Health Care," Issues in Brief (Oct. 1997): 3.
24.
Committee on Unintended Pregnancy, Institute of Medicine, The Best Intentions: Unintended Pregnancy
and the Well-Being of Children and Families, Sarah S. Brown and Leon Eisenberg, eds. (Washington,
D C.: National Academy Press, 1995), 11.
25.
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania V. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 856 (1992).
26.
Stanley K. Henshaw, "Unintended Pregnancy in the United States," Family Planning Perspectives, vol. 30,
no. 1 (Jan./Feb. 1998): 26.
27.
Committee on Unintended Pregnancy, Best Intentions, 28, 81, 259-62.
28.
Committee on Unintended Pregnancy, Best Intentions, 81.
29.
Committee on Unintended Pregnancy, Best Intentions, 81.
30.
Jacqueline Darroch Forrest and Renee Samara, "Impact of Publicly Funded Contraceptive Services On
Unintended Pregnancies and Implications For Medicaid Expenditures," Family Planning Perspectives, vol.
28, no. 5 (Sept./Oct. 1996): 192-93; AGI, "Title X and the U.S. Family Planning Effort," 3.
31.
Forrest and Samara, "Impact of Publicly Funded Contraceptive Services," 193; AGI, "Title X and the U.S.
Family Planning Effort," 3.
32.
Forrest and Samara, "Impact of Publicly Funded Contraceptive Services," 193-94; AGI, "Title X and the
U.S. Family Planning Effort," 3.
33.
"Editorial: Failing to Prevent Unintended Pregnancy is Costly," American Journal of Public Health, vol.
85, no. 4 (Apr. 1995): 479.
34.
Health Insurance Association of America (HIAA), Source Book of Health Insurance Data, 1997-1998
(Washington, D.C.: HIAA, 1998), 112.
35.
The total cumulative cost for the first year of birth control pill use is $422. This includes the costs of
unintended pregnancy, side effects, and obtaining and using the contraceptives. James Trussell et al., "The
NATIONAL ABORTION AND REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS ACTION LEAGUE
PAGE 9
Economic Value of Contraception: A Comparison of 15 Methods," American Journal of Public Health,
vol. 85, no. 4 (Apr. 1995): 496, 498-499.
36.
Kenneth Meier and Deborah McFarlane, "State Family Planning and Abortion Expenditures: Their Effect
on Public Health," American Journal of Public Health, vol. 84, no. 9 (Sept. 1994): 1468, 1471; AGI,
"Title X and the U.S. Family Planning Effort," 3.
37.
Meier and McFarlane, "State Family Planning," 1468, 1471; Denise Jamieson and Paul Buescher, "The
Effect of Family Planning Participation on Prenatal Care Use and Low Birth Weight," Family Planning
Perspectives, vol 24, no. 5 (Sept./Oct. 1992): 214, 216; AGI, "Title X and the U.S. Family Planning
Effort," 3.
38.
Centers for Disease Control (CDC), HHS, Division of STD/HIV Prevention Annual Report, 1992, 29.
39.
AGI, "Title X and the U.S. Family Planning Effort," 5.
40.
Terry Sollom, Rachel Benson Gold and Rebekah Saul, "Public Funding for Contraceptive, Sterilization
And Abortion Services, 1994," Family Planning Perspectives, vol. 28, no. 4 (July/Aug. 1996): 170; AGI
"Title X and the U.S. Family Planning Effort," 5.
41.
AGI, "Title X and the U.S. Family Planning Effort," 5.
42.
Committee on Unintended Pregnancy, Best Intentions, 142-43.
43.
Frost, "Family Planning Clinic Services," 98.
44.
National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association (NFPRHA), "Facts About the National
Family Planning Program: Title X (ten) of the Public Health Service Act," 3, 1998 (factsheet); FY 1998
Dep'ts of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education & Related Agencies Appropriations Act, Pub.
L. No. 105-78, Tit. II.
45.
"Family Planning and Choice Protection Act of 1997," S. 1208, 105th Cong. tit. I, § 101 (1997); "Family
Planning and Choice Protection Act of 1997," H.R. 2525, 105th Cong. tit. 1, § 101 (1997).
46.
Health Resources and Services Administration, Federal Funds, Budget of the U.S., FY 1999 Online via
GPO Access, Appendix, 397 <http://www.access.gpo.gov> (6/23/98).
47.
Vice President Al Gore, Remarks at NARAL's 25th Anniversary of Roe V. Wade Luncheon (Jan. 22, 1998)
(transcript available in the Federal News Service).
NATIONAL ABORTION AND REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS ACTION LEAGUE
PAGE 10
Planned Parenthood®
Federation of America, Inc.
TITLE X: AMERICA'S FAMILY PLANNING PROGRAM
The Title X Family Planning Program is America's front line of defense in the fight to prevent
unintended pregnancy. It provides contraceptive and other reproductive health care services for low-
income women through a network of more than 4,000 health centers. In 1997, the Title X Family Planning
Program served 4.4 million women.
Signed into law by President Nixon in 1970, the Title X Family Planning Program has been lauded by
leaders from both parties, from George Bush to Edward Kennedy. Public family planning programs, of
which Title X is the core, have built a record of success -- helping millions of women each year avoid
unintended pregnancy, prevent disease, and take charge of their health.
Title X
All public family planning programs, of which Title X is the core, provide
Prevents
counseling and contraception that avert an estimated 1.3 million
unintended pregnancies and 632,000 abortions each year.
Unintended
In 1994, nearly one million unintended pregnancies were averted among
Pregnancy
women who attended Title X-funded clinics.
and the Need
Studies have found that public family planning prevents approximately
800,000 unintended pregnancies to unmarried women, thereby avoiding an
for Abortion
estimated 340,000 out-of-wedlock births.
Publicly funded family planning prevents 386,000 unintended pregnancies
to teenagers annually, avoiding 155,000 teenage births and 183,000
abortions.
In the absence of publicly funded family planning programs, the number of
abortions performed in the U.S. would be 40% higher than it is currently.
Title X
Title X health centers provide services that can give early warning of
Saves
disease -- including clinical breast exams, pelvic exams, and Pap tests.
Many of the low-income women Title X serves would otherwise go without
Women's
these potentially lifesaving exams.
Lives
Title X funds counseling on safer-sex practices to prevent the spread of
HIV/AIDS, a leading killer of women.
Title X
Title X health centers provide confidential screening and treatment for
Improves
sexually transmitted infections (STIs), including chlamydia (a common STI
that can cause sterility if untreated) and HIV/AIDS.
Public Health
Title X increases the likelihood that pregnant women will obtain adequate
prenatal care, which can help new mothers give birth to stronger, healthier
babies. A national study found that publicly funded family planning
services provided in 1982-1988 prevented 20,000 low-birth-weight babies.
A 1990 study by the National Commission to Prevent Infant Mortality
stated, "Infant mortality could be reduced by an estimated 10% if all women
not desiring pregnancy used contraception."
1120 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 461, Washington, DC 20036 (202) 785-3351 FAX (202) 293-4349
Title X
Health professionals at Title X health centers know how to reach young
Encourages
people with messages about prevention and protection.
Innovative programs funded by Title X provide counseling, education, and
Personal
outreach to young people, helping them to delay the initiation of sexual
Responsibility
activity, avoid pregnancy, and assume responsibility for their own lives.
Confidentiality -- for teens as well as adults -- is a major part of Title X's
value and success. While an estimated one in four American teens will
contract an STI, a Journal of Pediatrics study found that only 15 percent of
teens would seek care for an STI if parental consent or notification were
required. Untreated STIs are often communicable and can lead to sterility
and other serious health problems.
Title X
Each tax dollar spent on family planning saves an estimated $3.00 that
Saves
would otherwise go toward pregnancy-related medical services and
newborn care.
Taxpayers
Publicly subsidized family planning programs also help 281,000 women on
Money
welfare to avoid becoming pregnant each year; these efforts prevent
123,000 current welfare recipients from having an additional birth.
In addition, these programs prevent 80,000 pregnancies to women who are
not currently enrolled in welfare but who would become eligible for welfare
if they gave birth.
At the current level of funding, the Title X program costs each U.S. citizen
only about 80 cents a year.
Title X: America's Family Planning Program.
Our Nation's Front Line of Defense in the Fight
to Prevent Unintended Pregnancy.
(Rev. 12/98)
R
Planned Parenthood
Federation of America, Inc.
CONFIDENTIALITY AND TEEN ACCESS TO FAMILY PLANNING
Since the inception of Title X in 1970, confidentiality has been a major component of its
services.
Confidentiality for family planning is good medicine. The nation's leading medical and
health groups - including the American Medical Association, the American Academy of
Pediatrics, the American Public Health Association, and the American Academy of Family
Physicians - all oppose mandatory parental consent or notification. They agree that
contraceptive services, prenatal care, and HIV testing should be available to teens on a
confidential basis.
Denying teens confidential access to family planning would prevent adolescents from
seeking those critical services. Recent surveys demonstrate that confidentiality is important
to teens seeking health care. 1 Studies conducted in the 1980s, when the government tried to
require federally funded family planning clinics to notify parents, found that the policy would
lead adolescents to forego these services. Half of the teens who didn't already consult their
parents said that they would not seek care if they were required to tell their parents. 2 Fully 50
percent of adolescents said that they wouldn't get treatment for sexually transmitted infections
3
(STIs).
Forcing teens to get consent for contraception doesn't mean they won't have sex. Only
one in fifty teens said that they would stop engaging in sexual relations if their parents would
be told that they were seeking family planning services.⁴
Eliminating privacy in the provision of family planning services would mean more
unintended pregnancies, more abortions, and more cases of sexually transmitted
infections. Publicly funded family planning programs, including Title X, prevent 386,000
unintended pregnancies to teenagers annually, avoiding 155,000 births, 183,000 abortions,
and 50,000 miscarriages. 5
1
TL Cheng et al., "Confidentiality in Health Care: A Survey of Knowledge, Perceptions, and Attitudes Among High
School Students," Journal of the American Medical Association, 269:1404-1407, 1993.
2
AM Kenney et al., "Storm over Washington: The Parental Notification Proposal," Family Planning Perspectives,
14:185-197, 1982.
3
A. Marks et al., "Assessment of health needs and willingness to utilize health care resources of adolescents in a
suburban population," Journal of Pediatrics, 102:456-460, 1983.
4
AM Kenney et al., "Storm over Washington. The Parental Notification Proposal," Family Planning Perspectives,
14 185-197, 1982
5 Alan Guttmacher Institute, "Issues in Brief: Title X and the U.S. Family Planning Effort," February 1997.
Updated by the PPFA Government Relations Department, 8/98.
1120 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 461, Washington, DC 20036 (202) 785-3351 FAX (202) 293-4349
NATIONAL
FAMILY
PLANNING &
REPRODUCTIVE
HEALTH
COSPONSOR THE EQUITY IN PRESCRIPTION INSURANCE AND
ASSOCIATION
CONTRACEPTIVE CONVERAGE ACT (EPICC)
Stop Health Care Discrimination Against Women
Family planning is basic preventive health care that can improve maternal and child health,
reduce infant mortality, increases the likelihood that the estimated 15 million Americans who
contract a sexually transmitted disease each year will be diagnosed and treated, and reduce
the incidence of unintended pregnancy and abortion. Despite the myriad health, social and
economic benefits associated with family planning and the fact that the vast majority of
American women use contraception for more than three-fourths of their reproductive years,
many private insurance policies either exclude coverage for contraceptive drugs, devices and
related services or single out these services for limited coverage. At the same time, virtually all
private insurance plans offer coverage for prescription drugs and devices.
In October of 1998, the United States Congress took a historic first step toward ensuring that all
Americans have access to coverage of contraception through their insurance plans by
approving a provision as part of the FY 1999 Omnibus spending bill (P.L. 105-277) to require all
insurance plans participating in the Federal Employee Health Benefits (FEHB) Program that
cover prescription drugs, to include contraceptive drugs and devices and related services as
part of that coverage. (The federal government is the largest employer in the world.) The FEHB
provision was modeled after "The Equity in Prescription Insurance and Contraceptive Coverage
Act," introduced in 1997 to help remedy this fundamental inequity in health care coverage and
to create a level playing field for American women and their families. The Senate bill (S. 766)
was sponsored by Senators Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and Harry Reid (D-NV) and the House bill
(H.R. 2174) was sponsored by Representatives Jim Greenwood (R-PA) and Nita Lowey (D-
NY). EPICC would require insurance plans which offer prescription drug coverage to also cover
prescription contraceptive drugs and devices. Similarly, the measure requires that health plans
which offer coverage for outpatient medical services to also provide coverage for outpatient
contraceptive services. The bill defines contraception as "consultations, examinations,
procedures and medical services provided on an outpatient basis and related to the use of
contraceptive methods (including natural family planning) to prevent an unintended pregnancy."
EPICC will be reintroduced early in the 106th Congress to ensure that the three-quarters of
American women who rely on private, employer-related plans for their health coverage have
access to these basic preventive health services.
Contraception is key to reducing unintended pregnancy
Each year in the United States, approximately half of the more than six million pregnancies
that occur in the U.S. each year are unintended. Nearly half of those end in abortion-
many of which could be avoided with greater access to contraceptives. 1
Each year, out of 100 typical women of reproductive age who engage in sex without using
contraception, 85 will experience pregnancies.²
The 10 percent of sexually active American women of reproductive age who do not use
contraception account for 53 percent of all unintended pregnancies.³
NFPRHA 1627 K Street, NW
12th Floor
Washington, DC 20006-1702
TEL: 202-293-3114
FAX: 202-293-1990
E-MAIL. [email protected]
Contraception is not optional health care coverage for most women
Contraception is basic health care for women and their families. The typical American
woman spends more than three-quarters of her reproductive life seeking to avoid
pregnancy. If a woman is sexually active between 20 and 45 and wants two children, she
will need to use contraceptives for 20.5 years, on average.⁴
Timing and spacing births is critical in improving women's and children's health and avoiding
unintended pregnancies. Pregnancies which are unintended, spaced too closely together,
or occur very early or very late in a woman's reproductive years often have adverse health,
social, or economic consequences for both women and children, including lower levels of
educational and job attainment as well as a greater risk for these families of living in poverty.
The National Commission to Prevent Infant Mortality estimates that infant deaths could be
reduced by 10 percent and the incidence of low birth weight babies could be reduced by 12
percent if all pregnancies were planned.⁵
Women who lack adequate coverage for contraception are often forced to make the
financial choice of a less expensive, and sometimes less effective contraceptive method,
putting them at greater risk of unintended pregnancy. Some of the most effective and long-
lasting contraceptives, such as the IUD (averaging about $500) and Norplant (averaging
about $700), have high up-front costs, but are cost-effective over time.
Contraception is the only prescription drug benefit that is regularly excluded by
insurers. Many insurance plans offer no coverage for contraception.
Today, three quarters of women of childbearing age rely on private, employer-sponsored
plans for their health coverage. Yet, almost half of all indemnity plans and preferred
provider organizations (PPOs), 20 percent of Point-of-Service plans (POS), and seven
percent of Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) do not offer any coverage for
reversible contraception.⁶
Less than 20 percent of indemnity plans or PPOs and less than 40 percent of POS
networks and HMOs routinely cover the five major methods-oral contraceptives,
diaphragm, IUD, Norplant, and Depo Provera.⁷
While 97 percent of tradition indemnity insurance plans offer coverage for prescription
drugs, only 33 percent of those offer coverage of the most widely used prescription
contraceptive-oral contraceptives.⁸
Making contraception more available will save money
Contraceptives cost less than the services related to pregnancy. According to the Health
Insurance Association of America, the cost of an uncomplicated vaginal delivery in the
United States (including physician's fees and hospital charges) in 1995 was $6,368, and the
comparable cost of a delivery through caesarian section was $10,638.9
2
A cost estimate prepared by the Health Insurance Association of America for California
legislation similar to EPICC confirms the low cost of adding coverage of contraceptive
services-only $16.20 per enrollee, per year-a little more than $1.35 a month. A 1998 cost
analysis done by the Alan Guttmacher Institute found that the added cost to provide
coverage of the full range of reversible contraceptives costs approximately $17.12 for
employers and $4.28 for employees per year ($1.43 per month per employee). 10 The cost
is significantly lower for health plans that currently cover at least some contraceptives.
Medical groups favor improved insurance coverage of contraception
Groups that endorsed the Equity in Prescription Insurance and Contraceptive Coverage Act
in 1998 included the American Medical Association, the American College of Obstetricians
and Gynecologists, The American Public Health Association, The American Medical
Women's Association, the American Nurses Association, the American Academy of
Pediatrics, and the American Academy of Family Physicians.
Americans support contraceptive equity
A 1998 nationwide survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that 73 percent of
Americans said they support requiring insurers to provide contraceptive coverage as part of
prescription coverage even if it would mean that individual premiums could increase by as
much as $1-5 per month. According to Kaiser, eight out of ten privately insured Americans
support requiring insurers to provide contraceptive coverage as part of prescription
coverage. More than four out of five women of reproductive age favor such a policy. 11
I Henshaw SK, Unintended Pregnancy in the United States, Family Planning Perspectives, 1998: 30(1): 24-29.
2 Trussell J et al., The Economic Value of Contraception: A Comparison of 15 Methods, American Journal of
Public Health, April 1995, 85(4).
3 Brown SS and Eisenberg L, The Best Intentions: Unintended Pregnancy and the Well-Being of Children and
Families, Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1995.
4 The Alan Guttmacher Institute, Hopes and Realities: Closing the Gap Between Women's Aspirations and Their
Reproductive Experiences, The Alan Guttmacher Institute, New York, 1995.
5 Brown and Eisenberg, The Best Intentions, 1995.
6 The Alan Guttmacher Institute, Uneven and Unequal: Insurance Coverage and Reproductive Health Services, The
Alan Guttmacher Institute, New York, 1994.
7 Ibid.
8 Ibid.
9 Source Book of Health Insurance Data. Health Insurance Association of America, 1996.
10 Darroch J, Cost to Employer Health Plans of Covering Contraceptives, Summary, Methodology, and Background,
New York: Alan Guttmacher Institute, June 1998, 2.
11 Kaiser Family Foundation, Kaiser Family Foundation National Survey on Insurance Coverage of Contraceptives,
Questionnaire and Topline, Menlo Park: Kaiser Family Foundation, June 19, 1998.
3
NATIONAL
FAMILY
Facts About the National
PLANNING &
REPRODUCTIVE
Family Planning Program
Title X (ten) of the Public Health Service Act
HEALTH
ASSOCIATION
Overview
The national family planning program, Title X (ten) of the Public Health Service Act, was established in
1970 with broad bi-partisan support. The original measure was introduced by then Representatives
James Scheuer (D-NY) and George Bush (R-TX), and Senators Joseph Tydings (D-MD) and Charles
Percy (R-IL). The program provides federal funds for project grants to public and private nonprofit
organizations for the provision of family planning information and services - services which:
improve maternal and infant health;
lower the incidence of unintended pregnancy;
reduce the incidence of abortion; and
lower rates of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs).
The program's FY 1999 appropriation of $215 million (a $12 million increase over the FY 1998 funding
level) will enable approximately 4.5 million Americans to receive services at the over 4,400 Title X-
funded clinics nationwide.
What services does Title X provide? Services supported by Title X include contraceptive information
and the provision of all contraceptive services, as well as gynecological examinations, basic lab tests,
and other screening services for STDs and HIV, high blood pressure, anemia, and breast and cervical
cancer. Also provided are pregnancy testing, sterilization services, natural family planning, and
community education and outreach. Title X prohibits the use of federal funds to pay for abortions.
Where do people receive services? Title X clinic sites include state and local health departments,
hospitals, university health centers, Planned Parenthood affiliates, independent clinics, and other public
and non-profit agencies. Although we refer to these providers as a network, it is not one uniform
system, but represents adaptation to the unique health care delivery systems and needs of different
states and localities across the country. Thus, Title X clinics are community-based providers. Title X-
funded clinics are located in every state, three-quarters of U.S. counties, and virtually every
congressional district in the nation. They serve as the entry point to the health care system - and the
only source of service - for millions of Americans.
Who receives services through Title X? Title X clinics primarily serve low-income Americans.
Eighty-three percent of Title X clients had incomes below 150 percent of the federal poverty level in
1997. The vast majority of Title X clients are uninsured and do not qualify for Medicaid. Title X clinics
provide services free of charge to clients whose incomes do not exceed 100 percent of the federal
poverty level and services are offered on a sliding fee scale for clients with incomes up to 250 percent of
the federal poverty level.
Why America Needs a National Family Planning Program
Family planning works! Recent data show that the U.S. teen pregnancy rate has dropped to its
lowest level since 1973. (U.S. Teenage Pregnancy Statistics, The Alan Guttmacher Institute
(AGI), 1998) Between 1987 and 1994, the unintended pregnancy rate in the U.S. fell from 57
percent to 49 percent. This decline is in part attributable to higher contraceptive prevalence and
the use of more effective methods of contraception. (Stanley Henshaw, "Unintended Pregnancy in
the United States," Family Planning Perspectives, AGI, Volume 30, No. 1, 1998)
This is a step in the right direction, but we still have a long way to go. Title X is a critical
component of a strategy to ensure that unintended pregnancy rates continue to decline.
NFPRHA 122 C Street, NW
Suite 380
Washington, DC 20001-2109
TEL: 202-628-3535
FAX: 202-737-2690
E-MAIL: [email protected]
Approximately one million unintended pregnancies were averted among women who received
services at Title X-funded clinics in 1994. (Title X and the U.S. Family Planning Effort, AGI,
1997)
As unintended pregnancies have declined and contraceptive use has improved, the number of
abortions in our country has dropped. According to data from the Centers for Disease Control,
the 1995 abortion rate in the U.S. declined five percent since 1994, and 15 percent since 1990.
Title X family planning services help reduce the need for abortion. Federal law specifies that
"None of the funds appropriated under this title shall be used in programs where abortion is a
method of family planning." (P.L. 91-572, Family Planning Services and Population Research Act)
Family planning is a basic preventive health service which is a key contributor to healthy families
and healthy babies. Infant deaths could be reduced by 10 percent, and the incidence of low
birthweight babies could be reduced by 12 percent, if all pregnancies were planned. (National
Commission to Prevent Infant Mortality, Troubling Trends: the Health of America's Next
Generation, 1990)
Publicly funded family planning services provided between 1982 and 1988 prevented 20,000 low-
birth weight deliveries, 6,500 infant deaths, and 5,500 neonatal deaths. (American Journal of
Public Health, Vol. 84, pp. 1468-1472, 1994)
Title X provides services to women and adolescents before they become pregnant - unlike
Medicaid, which generally provides family planning services only after a pregnancy has occurred.
Title X family planning clinics provide confidential screening and treatment for STDs, which affect
15.3 million Americans annually. (American Social Health Association, 1998) One quarter of new
cases occur in teens 15-19 years old, and two-thirds of cases occur in people ages 15-24. (AGI,
1993)
Visits to Title X clinics involving testing and treatment for STDs rose by 30 percent between 1980
and 1990. (Title X and the U.S. Family Planning Effort, AGI, 1997)
Americans support federally funded family planning. In a poll conducted by the firm of Hickman-
Brown in October of 1995, 64 percent of the survey participants said they would be more likely to
vote for a candidate who would support "continued funding for federal family planning programs."
Over three-fourths of Americans favor funding for "birth control for unmarried women on welfare."
(CBS/New York Times poll, April 1995)
Family Planning is Cost-Effective
Each public dollar spent to provide family planning services saves an average of $3 in
Medicaid costs for pregnancy-related and newborn care alone. (Title X and the U.S. Family
Planning Effort, AGI, 1997)
Because pregnancy is so costly, all available contraceptive methods are extremely cost-
effective when compared with no contraception. Each year, out of 100 typical women who
engage in sex without using contraception, 85 will get pregnant. (American Journal of Public
Health, April 1995)
The cost of an uncomplicated vaginal delivery is $6,378 and the cost of delivery through
caesarian section is $10,638. (Source Book of Health Insurance Data, Health Insurance
Association of America, 1996)
2
Title X Framework
The Title X program provides the framework for family planning service delivery
throughout the United States through a national network of clinics and its uniform federal
regulations and guidelines. These uniform regulations and guidelines guarantee women access
to contraceptive counseling, a range of contraceptive options, confidentiality of services, and
referral for other health and social services when necessary. The federal regulations and
guidelines often serve as the blueprint for state family planning programs.
Title X funds comprise approximately one-third of the budget for clinics providing federally
subsidized family planning services. These funds are critical in maintaining the family planning
service delivery infrastructure in the United States.
Title X allows states and communities flexibility in tailoring family planning services to
meet local needs and priorities while promoting quality of care and access. Title X ensures that
family planning services are delivered at the local level by a diverse array of providers, including
state health departments, hospitals, community-based non-profit organizations, and Planned
Parenthood affiliates.
Title X Funding
Current Title X funding is inadequate to meet the needs of all eligible Americans. The Title
X program serves less than half of those currently eligible for services.
In constant dollars, funding for the Title X program declined by over 65 percent between
1980 and 1994. In 1980, the Title X program was funded at $162 million. Had the program's
funding increased at the rate of inflation as determined by the medical care services index, Title X
would currently be funded at more than $500 million - more than twice its current funding level of
$215 million.
As funding for Title X declined in the 1980s, health care costs soared, the number of
eligible patients increased, and the cost of contraceptive supplies rose dramatically.
Some clinics have been forced to curtail services. The decline in funding (in constant dollars)
and the rise in health care costs and patient loads has forced some family planning clinics to
curtail hours of operation and place patients on waiting lists for the most effective and longest
lasting family planning methods, such as the IUD, Depo-Provera and Norplant.
Congressional Support for Title X Remains High
Recent legislative proposals to impose restrictions on access to Title X services have not
become law. For the first time, the House, on October 8, 1998 approved a proposal to condition
teens' access to confidential family planning services on written parental consent or advance
parental notification by a vote of 224-200. This provision was not approved by the Senate and
was not included in the final version of the Labor/HHS spending bill for FY 1999.
In August, 1995, the House voted 224-204 to reverse a decision made by the House
Appropriations Committee to eliminate Title X funding. Similar shows of support for access to
family planning services took place in July, 1996, and September, 1997, when the House of
Representatives voted 232-198 and 220-201, respectively, to support amendments requiring Title
X clinics to encourage family participation in a teen's decision to seek family planning services.
Family Planning Funding is Essential
Key Reproductive Health Indicators
The need for continued and increased federal funding for family planning services is clear when key
reproductive health indicators are examined. Title X provides services that are critical in helping to
combat unintended pregnancy, teen pregnancy, and the high rates of STDs in our country.
3
Unintended pregnancy
In the United States, almost half of all pregnancies are unintended. Half of unintended
pregnancies end in abortion. (AGI, 1998)
The 10 percent of American women at risk of unintended pregnancy (those who do not want to be
pregnant but are sexually active and fertile) who do not practice contraception account for 53
percent of all unintended pregnancies. (Institute of Medicine, 1995)
By the age of 45, American women, on average, will have had 1.42 unintended pregnancies.
("Unintended Pregnancy in the United States," Family Planning Perspectives, AGI, 1998)
Women spend more than 75 percent of their reproductive lives trying to avoid pregnancy. (Hopes
and Realities: Closing the Gap Between Women's Aspirations and Their Reproductive
Experiences, AGI, 1995)
Teen pregnancy
Each year, 1 in 8 women aged 15 to 19 in the United States becomes pregnant, resulting in
over half a million births. Two-thirds of these births are unintended. (Contraceptive
Technology, Robert Hatcher et al., 1998, p. 701-702)
The teenage pregnancy rate in the United States is much higher than in many other developed
countries - twice as high as in England and Wales, France and Canada; and nine times as high
as in the Netherlands or Japan. (Teenage Reproductive Health in the United States, AGI, 1994)
Without publicly funded family planning services, an additional 386,000 teens would become
pregnant each year resulting in 155,000 more teen births and 183,000 more teen abortions. (Title
X and the U.S. Family Planning Effort, AGI, 1997)
Over three-quarters of teen pregnancies are unintended. (AGI, 1998)
Sexually transmitted diseases
Family planning clinics can play a critical role in addressing our national STD epidemic.
Women bear a disproportionate burden of STD-associated complications, including infertility,
ectopic pregnancy, and chronic pelvic pain. Women are particularly vulnerable to STDs because
they are biologically more susceptible to certain STD infections than men and are more likely to
have asymptomatic infections that commonly result in delayed diagnosis and treatment.
A conservative estimate of the public and private costs of STD treatment each year in the United
States is at least $8.4 billion. (STDs in America: How Many and At What Cost?, Kaiser Family
Foundation and ASHA, 1998)
Half of the ten most frequently reported infections to the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC) are STDs, including the most common, chlamydia. (CDC, 1998) The
prevalence of chlamydia among teenagers often exceeds 10 percent among girls and 5
percent among boys. (Mertz, CDC, 1998)
STD infections increase susceptibility to HIV by three to five times. (ASHA, 1998)
However, a third of Americans (36 percent) are not aware that having an STD increases a
person's risk of HIV infection. (Kaiser Family Foundation/Glamour magazine survey, 1998)
At least one in three sexually active people are estimated to have contracted an STD by
the age of 24. (STDs in America: How Many Cases and At What Cost?, Kaiser Family
Foundation and ASHA, 1998)
Over one in five Americans over the age of 12 has a herpes infection. The number of
people living with herpes, one of the most common incurable STDs, has risen 30 percent
since the late 1970s. (New England Journal of Medicine, October 16, 1997)
4
Title X Appropriations, FY 1980-1999
(actual and constant 1980 dollars, in millions)
250
200
150
100
50
0
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
Actual dollars
Constant dollars
The Alan Guttmacher Institute
Prepared for Planned Parenthood Federation of America
Revised January 1999
Public Health Appropriations, Selected Programs, FY 1980-1999
(actual dollars, in millions)
1000
900
Consolidated Health Centers
800
MCHIBG
700
600
500
400
300
200
Title X
Sexually Transmitted Diseases
100
Healthy Start*
0
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
Title X
Consolidated Health Centers
Healthy Start
MCH Block Grant
Sexually Transmitted Diseases
*Program began in FY 1991
The Alan Gultmacher Institute
Prepared for Planned Parenthood Federation of America
Revised Dec ember 1998
Women's Equality Summit and
Congressional Action Day
SCHEDULE OF EVENTS
Monday, March 15
1:00 to 1:30 Registration: National Education Association, 1201 16th Street, NW
All sessions Monday will be in the NEA Auditorium on the lower level, except for
the reception, which will be in the Atrium. Late registrants will be able to observe
the program on TV monitors in the press room on the Atrium level.
1:30 to 1:40
Opening session
Susan Bianchi-Sand, Executive Director, National Committee on Pay Equity and Chair of
NCWO
Ellie Smeal, President, The Feminist Majority and Co-Chair of Women's Equality Summit
Pat Reuss, Senior Policy Analyst, NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund and Co-Chair
of Women's Equality Summit
1:40 to 3:00
Issue briefings
1:40
Supporting Fair Pay legislation
2:05 Ending hate violence against all citizens, supporting the Hate Crimes Prevention Act
2:30
Protecting Social Security and improving Social Security for women
3:00 to 4:15 Panel on Women's Economic Empowerment and Social Security Reform
First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton
Donna Shalala, Secretary, Health and Human Services
Alexis Herman, Secretary, Department of Labor
Barbara Kennelly, Counsel to the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration
4:15 to 4:30
Break hosted by AFSCME
4:30 to 5:55
Issue briefings
4:30 Improving access to health care by increasing funding for family planning and requiring
private insurance coverage for contraceptives
4:55 Supporting the ratification of the United Nation's Convention for the Elimination of All
Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) by the Senate and measures to oppose
gender apartheid in Afghanistan
5:20 Securing affordable, quality child care as a national priority for all who need it
5:55 to 7:00 Screening of the Lifetime TV film on Child Care prepared for April premiere
Comments by:
Kathryn Rodgers, Executive Director of NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund, and
NCWO Steering Committee member
Meredith Wagner, Senior VP for Public Affairs, Lifetime TV
7:00 to 8:00 Reception hosted by Lifetime TV and NEA
Tuesday, March 16
7:45 to 9:00 Breakfast in the Senate Caucus Room, Russell 325, hosted by AFSCME. The Russell
building is located at Constitution Avenue and 1st Street, NE. Speakers include
Congresswomen and Senators
9:30
Press conference at the "Senate Swamp" with leaders of the National Council of Women's
Organizations
9:00 to 6:00
Capitol Hill visits
Briefing information for those who could not attend Monday sessions will be
available after 10:00 am and throughout the day at 122 Maryland Avenue, NE (This is
between the US Senate and the Supreme Court.) Hill visit report forms can be turned in at
this location.
Lunch on own: A map and restaurant suggestions are in the conference packet.
Capitol Hill visits continue
6:00 to 8:00 Reception with Gloria Steinem and Ms. Magazine. Hyatt Regency Hotel,
400 New Jersey Ave., NW.
THE NATIONAL COUNCIL OF
WOMEN'S ORGANIZATIONS
Wants to thank the following
for their generous support of the
WOMEN'S EQUALITY SUMMIT AND
CONGRESSIONAL ACTION DAY
AFSCME
American Physical Therapy Association
Erica Henri
Feminist Majority
HADASSAH
Lifetime TV
Ms. Foundation for Women
National Education Association
NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund
Stewart Mott and Associates
Windom Fund
Women Leaders Online
Women's Institute for Freedom of the Press
Wider Opportunities for Women
NC
National Council
of Women's Organizations
NATIONAL COUNCIL OF WOMEN'S ORGANIZATIONS
Organizational Description
The National Council of Women's Organization is a bipartisan network comprised of
the leaders of over 100 women's organizations, which together represent more than 6
million women. Organizational members focus primarily on promoting public policy
and legislative strategies affecting women.
Membership in the Council is diverse and includes organizations working on a broad
spectrum of issues including equal employment opportunity, economic equity and
development, education and job training, reproductive health, as well as the specific
concerns of mid-life and older women, girls and young women, women of color,
religious women, business and professional women, homemakers and retired women.
Organizational members include grassroots, research, service and legal advocacy
groups.
Membership is not allowed to "for-profit" groups or those whose purpose is to elect
candidates from a single party.
The Council brings together like minded organizations to advocate change in specific
arenas through its various task forces. Existing task forces include:
Workplace and Economic Issues
***
Affirmative Action
Welfare Reform
Income Inequality
Women's Vote Project
Social Security Task Force
***
Youth Capacity Building
The leadership of the Council consists of the Chair and eight Steering Committee
Members.
A bipartisan network
of over 100 organizations
Susan Bianchi-Sand
Chair, National Council of Women's Organizations
representing more than
six million women.
Executive Director
National Committee on Pay Equity
1126 16th Street. N.W.
Suite 411
Washington, D.C. 20036
202 331.7343
Fax: 202 331 7406
9
4477-3400
NC
National Council
of Women's Organizations
Member Organizations
Women's Equality Summit and Congressional Action Day
*Participating Organizations
*9 to 5: National Association of Working Women
*Institute for Women's Policy Research
* African-American Women's Clergy Association
International Black Women's Wages for Housework
* Alexandria Commission for Women
Campaign
* American Association of University Women
International Wages for Housework Campaign
* American Medical Women's Association
Jewish Women International
American Nurses Association
* Jewish Women's Coalition
* American Physical Therapy Association
League of Women Voters
* American Women in Radio & TV
MANA, A National Latina Organization
* Association for Women in Science
Ms. Foundation for Women
Betty Friedan
*McAuley Institute/Women & Housing Task Force
* Black Women United for Action
Na' Amat USA
* Black Women's Agenda
* National Abortion Federation
Business and Professional Women of the USA
National Alliance for Caregiving
Catholics for a Free Choice
National Association for Female Executives
* Center for the Advancement of Public Policy
*National Association of Commissions for Women
Center for the Early Childcare Work Force
*National Center on Women and Aging
* Center for Policy Alternatives
'National Committee on Pay Equity
Center for Women Policy Studies
National Council of Jewish Women
Child Care Action Campaign
*National Council of Negro Women
* Choice USA
National Council of Women of the U.S.
* Church Women United
National Hispana Leadership Institute
*Clearinghouse on Women's Issues
*National Hook-up of Black Women, Inc.
* Coalition of Labor Union Women
National Museum of Women's History, Inc.
Cornell University/Institute for Women & Work
*National Organization for Women
* Dialogue on Diversity Inc.
National Partnership for Women & Families
Economists' Policy Group on Women's Issues
National Political Congress of Black Women
* ERA Summit
*National Woman's Party
*Federally Employed Women
*National Women's Conference
* Feminist Majority
National Women's Hall of Fame
Financial Women International
National Women's Health Network
* General Federation of Women's Clubs
National Women's Health Resource Center
Girls Incorporated
National Women's History Project
*HADASSAH
*National Women's Law Center
Institute for Health & Aging/University of California
National Women's Political Caucus
*NAWE: Advancing Women in Higher Education
*NCA Union Retirees
NETWORK
New Ways to Work
*NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund
*Older Women's League
Organization of Chinese-American Women
Pamela Moffat
*Planned Parenthood Federation of America
*Public Leadership Education Network
*Radcliffe Public Policy Institute
*Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice
Soroptimist International of the Americas
The National Association of Women Business Owners
*The National Foundation for Women Legislators
The White House Project
*The Woman Activist Fund, Inc.
*U.S. Committee for UNIFEM
*Washington Women's Television Network
*Wider Opportunities for Women
*Woman's National Democratic Club
Women Employed
Women Executives in State Government
*Women Leaders Online
Women of the West Museum
Women Work!
Women's Action Alliance, Inc.
*Women's Action for New Directions
*Women's Business Development Center
*Women's Campaign Fund
Women's Center for Ethics in Action
Women's Division, United Methodist Church
*Women's EDGE
Women's Environmental & Developmental Organization
Women's Foreign Policy Group
*Women's Institute for Freedom of the Press
Women's Institute for a Secure Retirement
*Women's International League for Peace and Freedom
Women's International Public Health Network
*Women's Policy, Inc.
*Women's Research and Education Institute
*YWCA of the USA
Women's Equality Summit and Congressional Action Day
~Presenters~
March 15, 1999
Hate Crimes
Juley Fulcher
National Coalition Against Domestic Violence
Sammie Moshenberg
National Council of Jewish Women
Jan Erickson
National Organization for Women
Pam Coukos
National Task Force on Violence Against Women
Family Planning
Marilyn Keefe
National Family Planning and Reproductive Health
Association
Terri McCullough
National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action
League
Jackie Lendsey
Planned Parenthood Federation of America
Child Care
Roslyn Powell
NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund
Judy Applebaum/
Christina Farvida
National Women's Law Center
Claudia Wayne
Center for the Child Care Workforce
Faith Wohl
Child Care Action Campaign
CEDAW and Women in Afghanistan
Ellie Smeal
The Feminist Majority
Pat Rengel
Amnesty International
Kit Cosby/Dwight Bashir
Baha'i
Pay Equity
Susan Bianchi-Sand
National Committee on Pay Equity
Martha Burk
Center for the Advancement of Public Policy
Christopher Turman
Business and Professional Women of the USA
Social Security
Heidi Hartmann
Institute for Women's Policy Research
Joan Entmacher
National Women's Law Center
Deb Briceland-Betts
Older Women's League
Nancy Zirkin
American Association of University Women
Cindy Hounsel
Women's Institute for Freedom of the Press
KRC RESEARCH
Protecting Social Security
78% support President Clinton's proposal to transfer more than sixty percent of the budget surplus to
the Social Security system over the next fifteen years (Los Angeles Times, January 1999)
71% say taking steps to secure the financial soundness of Social Security should be a top priority (Pew
Research Center, January 1999)
Securing Affordable Child Care
89% believe that it is difficult for "most American families today to find affordable, high quality child
care," and 57% believe this is extremely or very difficult (Louis Harris, January 1998)
79% support tax incentives that encourage businesses to provide child care (Center for Policy
Alternatives, August 1996)
Improving Access to Health Care
79% agree that "too many Americans lack adequate health care coverage" (NBC/Wall Street Journal,
June 1998)
92% favor making sure that all working families have health insurance, including 77% who strongly
favor this (Louis Harris, March 1997)
50% believe the role of the government in shouldering health care costs should increase, compared to
22% who believe it should decrease (Wirthlin Worldwide, April 1998)
Supporting Fair Pay
94% of working women say that equal pay for equal work is a very important issue to them (AFL-
CIO/Working Women's Department, August 1997)
82% of women and 70% of men believe that women get paid less than men who do the same kind of
work (Center for Policy Alternatives, August 1996)
87% support "a law which requires that men and women be paid the same for the same work,"
including 61% who would strongly support such a law (National Committee on Pay Equity, 1992)
Ending Hate Violence
70% favor harsher penalties for hate-motivated crimes (Gallup, February 1999)
76% favor a federal law that would mandate increased penalties for hate crimes against homosexuals
(Yankelovich Partners, October 1998)
Supporting U.N. Convention for the Elimination of All Forms of
Discrimination Against Women
83% believe that "promoting and defending human rights in other countries" should be a priority for
the United States, including one in four who believe this should be top priority (Pew Research Center,
September 1997)
59% agree that the United States should cooperate fully with the United Nations, compared to 30%
who disagree (Pew Research Center, September 1997)
A Division of BSMG WORLDWIDE
640 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10019-6102 212-445-8300 Fax 212-445-8304
1501 M Street NW. Suite 600 Washington, DC 20005-1710 202-739-0200 Fax 202-659-8287
Prepared by Jennifer Sosin, Managing Director, KRC Research
NATIONAL COUNCIL OF
WOMEN'S ORGANIZATIONS
C/O National Committee on Pay Equity
1126 16th Street, N.W.
Suite 411
Washington, D.C.
20036
(202) 331-7343
FAX (202) 331-7406
CAPITOL HILL VISIT REPORT FORM
Member of Congress:
Issue(s) discussed:
Met with:
What is the Member's position on the issues?
What are the Member's main concerns about the issue?
What is the Member of Congress hearing from constituents on the issue?
Suggestions and comments:
Report form submitted by:
Phone:
fax:
During the day, please bring this form to 122 Maryland Ave., NE (between the US Senate and the
Supreme Court), or bring it with you to the Gloria Steinem reception at the Hyatt Hotel, 400 New Jersey
Avenue, NW. If you cannot deliver your report, please mail it to Mulhauser and Associates, 1730 Rhode
Island Avenue, NW, Suite 712, Washington, DC 20036, or fax to 202-463-0182.
NATIONAL COUNCIL OF
WOMEN'S ORGANIZATIONS
C/O National Committee on Pay Equity
1126 16th Street, N.W.
Suite 411
Washington, D.C.
20036
(202) 331-7343
FAX (202) 331-7406
CAPITOL HILL VISIT REPORT FORM
Member of Congress:
Issue(s) discussed:
Met with:
What is the Member's position on the issues?
What are the Member's main concerns about the issue?
What is the Member of Congress hearing from constituents on the issue?
Suggestions and comments:
Report form submitted by:
Phone:
fax:
During the day, please bring this form to 122 Maryland Ave., NE (between the US Senate and the
Supreme Court), or bring it with you to the Gloria Steinem reception at the Hyatt Hotel, 400 New Jersey
Avenue, NW. If you cannot deliver your report, please mail it to Mulhauser and Associates, 1730 Rhode
Island Avenue, NW, Suite 712, Washington, DC 20036, or fax to 202-463-0182.
NATIONAL COUNCIL OF
WOMEN'S ORGANIZATIONS
C/O National Committee on Pay Equity
1126 16th Street, N.W.
Suite 411
Washington, D.C.
20036
(202) 331-7343
FAX (202) 331-7406
CAPITOL HILL VISIT REPORT FORM
Member of Congress:
Issue(s) discussed:
Met with:
What is the Member's position on the issues?
What are the Member's main concerns about the issue?
What is the Member of Congress hearing from constituents on the issue?
Suggestions and comments:
Report form submitted by:
Phone:
fax:
During the day, please bring this form to 122 Maryland Ave., NE (between the US Senate and the
Supreme Court), or bring it with you to the Gloria Steinem reception at the Hyatt Hotel, 400 New Jersey
Avenue, NW. If you cannot deliver your report, please mail it to Mulhauser and Associates, 1730 Rhode
Island Avenue, NW, Suite 712, Washington, DC 20036, or fax to 202-463-0182.
Lunch Suggestions on Capitol Hill
All the Senate and House Office Buildings have cafeterias. The Capitol Hill area has
lots of restaurants to choose from and here are a few suggestions.
If you are on the Northeast side of the Capitol near the Senate buildings:
Union Station has several restaurants to offer, ranging from a quick sandwich to fine
dining. Union Station also has a food court located on the lower level.
Armand's Pizza
226 Massachusetts Avenue, NE
(between Second and Third Streets)
Capitol City Brewing Company
2 Massachusetts Ave., NE
(next to Union Station)
Red River Grill
201 Massachusetts Avenue, NE
(near the intersection of Massachusetts Avenue and Second Street)
If you are on the South side of the Capitol near the House buildings:
The 200 and 300 blocks of Pennsylvania Avenue, SE (between Second and Fourth
Streets) have several restaurants.
Bullfeathers
410 First Street, SE
(near the intersection of First and D Streets)
Il Raddicchio
223 Pennsylvania Avenue, SE
(between Second and Third Streets)
Tortilla Coast
400 First Street, SE
(near the intersection of First and D Streets)
GALLERY
LAWY
UFFICE
G
MUSEUM
INN
PLACE
H
M
600 70
2nd
Pid
2
Acker PI
M
G
M
st
F
F
PHOENIX
UNION
PARK
8 th
7 th
th
th
4 th
th
3 rd
2 nd
H
M
STATION
Lexington
MARYLAND AV
WASHINGTON
500
PI
5
E
4
COURT
H
COLUMBUS
E
200 300 400 500
E
700 800 900 10001100 1200
TARIFF JUDICIARY SQ
M
QUALITY INN
Duncan
HYATT
CIRCLE
COMMISSION
D
REGENCY
H
D
D
PI
INDIANA
1st
INICIPAL
V
C
ENTER
MARSHA
LABOR DEPT LOUISIANA INDIANA AV AV ON 01
12 th
74
DIRKSEN
C
S
C
Justice
CAPITOL HILL
M
INDIANA
BLDG.
JOHN
US
ES
PLZ.
M
RUSSELL
MARYLAND BLDG. HART Ct AV
OSPITAL
Park
COUR
12th PI
PARK
CONSTITUTION AV
BLDG.
Terrace
F Douglas
SUPREME
Ct
A
COURT
Ct
NW
NE
EAST CAPITOL
7 th
8th
9 th
10th
11th
LIBRARY FOLGER
th
SW
SE
OF
LIBRARY
5 th
6 th
A
CONGRESS
ADAMS
RD
BLDG.
Library
Ct
NONNY
MARYLAND
RAYBURN
BLDG.
2nd
N.CAROLINA.AV
INDEPE NDENCI E
Gessford Walter
BLDG.
MADISON
rd
Ct
C
WOLDNIHOWN
CAPITOL
BUILDING
3
SQUARE
ENFANT PLZ
500 400 300 200
Ivy NEW JERSEY
SEWARD C
EASTERN
CAPITOL
MARKET
MHOLIDAY INN
2 2nd
S CAROLINA AV
M M
FEDERAL
SOUTH
D
M
M
M
M
CENTER SW
M M
School
7f
M M
D
6th
VIRGINIA
FOL
E
SQU
E
E
Duddington
PENNSYLVANIA
13th
AV
W'S
SOUTHWEST FRWY.
FANT PLZ
SOUTH
PI
PARK
395
VIRG
ELD
RK
G
KANA
NATIONAL WOMEN'S LAW CENTER
A
EXPANDING
WOMEN'S STAKE IN IMPROVING THE AVAILABILITY,
THE
POSSIBILITIES
AFFORDABILITY, AND QUALITY OF CHILD CARE
AND EARLY EDUCATION
The child care needs of American women and their families have
increased dramatically in recent years, as women with children have entered the
paid workforce in unprecedented numbers. Seven out of ten American women
with children under the age of 18 -- and nearly three out of four women with
school-age children -- work in the paid labor force today, representing a major
societal change since the 1940's when fewer than one in five women with children
worked outside the home. Working parents know that providing their children
with a safe and nurturing child care environment can make an important
contribution to their children's healthy development. Yet high-quality child care
is too often unaffordable or simply not available; recent studies have shown that
most child care and early education in the United States fails to provide
developmentally appropriate activities, and in the most egregious cases, fails to
maintain basic safety and sanitary standards. Women and their families thus have
a tremendous stake in public policies that will help make high-quality child care
available and affordable to those who need it.
Women have another interest in effective child care policies as well: as
child care providers. The vast majority of child care providers in this country --
some 98% are women. These women are working in a demanding occupation,
charged with providing loving care and a healthy learning environment for the
children entrusted to them. Yet the compensation these teachers and care-givers
receive -- between $10,500 and $14,800 per year, on average, often with no
benefits -- shortchanges not only the workers but also the children in their care,
because the lack of decent wages and career advancement opportunities in child
care make it difficult to attract and retain trained, qualified care-givers.
Women thus have a profound and dual interest in the enactment of
effective child care policies. As parents, they need access to high-quality child
care that will help their children learn and grow. As providers of child care
services, they need compensation, training and advancement opportunities that
will reflect the value of their important work while enhancing their skills and the
quality of the care they provide to our nation's children.
It is not surprising, then, that child care is high on the list of working
women's concerns.¹
With the law on your side, great things are possible
11 Dupont Circle, NW
Suite 800
Washington, DC 20036
(202) 588-5180
FAX (202) 588-5185
I. WORKING FAMILIES AND THE NEED FOR CHILD CARE
It is an undeniable fact of American life today that a large and steadily growing majority
of women with children -- married and single, with children of all ages from pre-school to
teens -- must look to child care to provide a safe and nurturing environment for their
children during working hours. In addition, an increasing number of women with
children are seeking a college education, and these women, too, need affordable, high-
quality child care if they are to have access to the enhanced job prospects and increased
earning power that a college degree can bring them.
The Reality of the Workforce
A large majority of American women with children work outside the home.
Nearly 72% of American women with children under age 18, and 74% with children
between the ages of 6 and 17, are in the paid labor force.²
65% of women with children under age 6 are in the paid labor force, and 58% of
mothers with infants (under age 1) are either in the paid labor force or looking for
paid employment.³
73% of all employed women with children under age 18, almost 70% of these women
with children under age 6, and over 65% of these women with children under age 3
are working full time.⁴
Labor force participation rates for women reflect a steady and dramatic increase
over the last 50 years.
LABOR FORCE PARTICIPATION RATES OF WOMEN WITH CHILDREN
SELECTED YEARS 1947-1997
80
70
60
50
*Percentage
40
30
20
10
0
1947
1960
1980
1990
1997
Women With Children Under 18
Women With Children Ages 6-17
Women With Children Under 6
Women With Children Under 3
Sources: 1. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Population Survey, 1997.
2. U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Ways and Means 1996 Green Book, Table10-1.
National Women's Law Center, Washington, DC, February 1999
2
In 1947, at the end of World War II, only 19% of women with children under age 18
were in the paid labor force. By 1960, that number had jumped to nearly one-third,
by 1980 it was over half, and by 1990 it was over two-thirds.
Similarly, in 1947, only 12% of women with children under age 6 were in the paid
labor force; by 1960 that number had climbed to over 20%, by 1980 it was over 46%,
and by 1990 it was over 58%. 6
As women have moved into the labor force in greater numbers, they have increasingly
taken jobs that are both full time and year round, partly due to economic necessity and
partly due to their movement into traditionally male-dominated occupations that
require full-time, year-round work.⁷
Mothers working outside the home today include married women as well as
women who are sole heads of their households.
In nearly 70% of married couples with children under age 18, the mother is in the
paid labor force, and 70% of these women are working full time.⁸
Over 70% of mothers who are sole heads of households with children under age 18
are in the paid labor force, and 80% of these women are working full time.⁹
Today, only 23% of married-couple families with children under age 18, and only
25% of married couples with children under age 6, fit the traditional model of
husband as sole breadwinner. 10
Most women who work outside the home do so as a result of economic necessity.
Some 10 million households with children -- almost 30% of all U.S. households with
children -- are headed by women alone (women who are divorced, separated,
widowed or never married). 11 These women must earn a living in order to feed,
clothe, house and otherwise sustain themselves and their children.
Child support alone does not enable these women to provide for their children,
because so few child support orders are established or enforced, and when they are,
the amount collected is generally insufficient to contribute significantly to meeting
the demands of raising a child. 12
In a 1997 survey of working women, more than half of the married women
respondents (52%) reported that they contribute half or more of their household
income.
13
National Women's Law Center, Washington, DC, February 1999
3
A mother's income can often mean the difference to a family between living below
the poverty line and living above it. A mother's income can also protect her against
total economic dependency.
One in five married women with children who do not work outside the home live in
poverty, while only one in one hundred married women with children who work full-
time live in poverty. 14
Some married women work in order to protect against complete financial
dependence on a spouse and being left with no job skills and inadequate means of
support in the event of divorce -- a concern that is well-founded, in light of the
inadequacy of child support awards, as noted above.
Many Families Need Help Paying for Child Care
Working parents who rely on child care often have a hard time paying for it.
For families with children between the ages of three and five, at all income levels,
child care and early education is the third greatest expense after housing and food. 15
Nationally, child care consumes between 6% and 25% of a family's income. 16
However, one study of child care prices in six cities found that, for a minimum-wage
worker, the average cost of care for an infant in a child care center would be at least
50% of the family's annual income. 17
The cost of child care today can range from $4,000 to $10,000 annually. 18 Yet about
half of families with young children earn less than $40,000 a year, 19 and single
mothers with children earn even less -- in 1997, the median income of families with
children headed by a woman was $17,256, 40% less than the median income of
families with children headed by a man ($28,668) and more than two-thirds less than
the median income of married couples with children ($54,395). 20
The following are average annual child care costs for one 4-year old child in a child
care center in selected cities:
Atlanta: $4,990
Columbus: $4,940
Kansas City: $5,200
Raleigh: $5,070
Boston: $7,900
Denver: $4,580
Los Angeles: $4,630
Seattle: $6,140²¹
National Women's Law Center, Washington, DC, February 1999
4
Many low-income families who are eligible for child care and early education
assistance never receive it.
The Head Start Program (a comprehensive child development program designed to
help low-income children enter school ready to learn and succeed) currently serves
more than 800,000 low-income children and their families. 22 However, due to
limited funding, the program still serves only 40% of all eligible children. 23
The Child Care and Development Block Grant allows states to help pay for child
care for families with incomes up to 85% of state median income. However, all
but four states disqualify families for help before they reach this federally authorized
level.
24
In some states, the income eligibility cutoffs are so low that only the poorest of the
working poor can qualify. For example, in West Virginia, the cut-off is at $15,000
per year for a family of three (barely above the 1997 federal poverty level of
$13,330), while Iowa and South Carolina cut off eligibility at $16,700.25
As of January 1998, about half the states had to turn away eligible low-income
working families or put them on a waiting list due to inadequate funds. In California,
over 200,000 families - mostly non-welfare, low-income workers - are on the child
care subsidy waiting list. 26
A 1998 Children's Defense Fund study confirms that inadequate federal and state
funding prevents at least nine out of ten eligible children in low-income working
families from getting the child care assistance they need.²⁷
Child care subsidies are often too low to meet the needs of working families.
In some cases, the amount the state will pay for care is so low that parents cannot
find qualified providers who can afford to serve their children. 28 Delaware, for
example, pays a maximum child care subsidy for a four-year-old in a child care
center that is $200 per month less than the amount needed to allow parents to access
care from three-quarters of Delaware providers.²⁹
In other cases parents have to pay so much in parent fees or co-payments that
child care expenses remain a staggering financial burden. 30 In South Dakota, for
example, a parent earning $1,670 per month must contribute $500 per month (30%
of the family's income) in order to get a child care subsidy.³¹
National Women's Law Center, Washington, DC, February 1999
5
Families are required to pay the lion's share of the cost of child care and early
education, with very little help from the government, in contrast to government
support for higher education.
Families pay roughly 60% of total annual estimated expenditures for child care
and early education, while families pay only about 23% of the cost of a public
higher education. 32 The total government resources for higher education far
exceed those for child care and early education, amounting to about $4,552 for
every postsecondary student compared to $1,395 for every child under age six in
child care.³³ This disparity in government support is compounded by the fact that
families are usually better off financially by the time their children enter college
than they are when their children are younger and in need of child care.³⁴
Just as there is ample evidence that a college education results in economic and
other benefits to graduates, researchers have found that seven dollars in public
expenditures is saved for every dollar spent for quality child care and early
childhood education. 35
High-Quality Child Care and After-School
Programs are Often Unavailable
Working parents need access not just to affordable child care, but to a child care
setting that is safe and nurturing and will contribute to their children's healthy
development and education.
Research on early brain development and school readiness demonstrates that the
experiences children have and the attachments they form in the first three years of
life have a decisive, long-lasting impact on their later development and learning.³⁶
Recent breakthroughs in neuroscience show that early interactions directly affect the
way the brain is "wired".37 Brain development is non-linear: there are prime times
for acquiring different kinds of knowledge and skills. 38 By age two, a child's brain
contains twice as many synapses and consumes twice as much energy as the brain of
an adult.³⁹
The quality of child care has a lasting impact on children's emotional well-being,
social skills and ability to learn.⁴⁰ Children in poor-quality child care have been
found to be delayed in language and reading skills, and display more aggression
toward other children and adults.⁴¹
National Women's Law Center, Washington, DC, February 1999
6
Children in higher-quality preschool classrooms display greater receptive language
ability and pre-math skills, view their child care and themselves more positively,
have warmer relationships with their teachers, and have more advanced social skills
than those in lower-quality classrooms.⁴² In addition, higher-quality programs can
lead to children's long-term success, including better school achievement, higher
earnings as adults, and decreased involvement with the criminal justice system.⁴³
Many young children are being cared for in settings in which books and toys
required for physical and intellectual growth are missing; warm, supportive
relationships with adults are lacking; and in some cases, basic sanitary conditions are
not met and safety problems are endangering infants.⁴⁴
Constructive activities school-age children and youth are critical to their
development and to help keep them out of trouble.
It is estimated that nearly five million children are left unsupervised after school
each week, and many children are in settings that do not help them grow and learn
because there are no constructive activities to promote their physical and intellectual
development.⁴⁵ The problem is most acute in low-income communities, where
fewer before- and after-school programs are offered.⁴⁶
Studies have indicated that school-age children who are left alone after school are at
greater risk of truancy, risk-taking behavior, substance abuse, poor grades, and
stress.⁴⁷ FBI data show that violent juvenile crime triples in the hour after the
school bell rings with nearly half occurring between 2 p.m. and 8 p.m. 48
In a recent survey, 92% of police chiefs nationwide identified an increased
government investment in programs like child care and after-school programs as the
most effective anti-crime weapon by a four-to-one margin over trying more juveniles
as adults or even hiring additional police officers.⁴
II. THE EARLY CHILDHOOD WORKFORCE:
WOMEN As CHILD CARE PROVIDERS
The vast majority of child care providers in this country are women.
The child care workforce is 98% female, and one-third women of color. 50
These women -- approximately 2.3 million early childhood teachers and teachers'
assistants, family child care providers, and in-home providers⁵¹ -- carry the
responsibility of providing a safe, nurturing, and stimulating setting for the children
National Women's Law Center, Washington, DC, February 1999
7
entrusted to them each day. The services these women provide can have a critical
impact on the successful development of the children in their care.
In light of their tremendous responsibility, child care workers are
shockingly under-compensated.
The U.S. Department of Labor reports that, in 1997, the median weekly salary for a
family child care provider was $202 per week, which is $10,504 annually, based on
52 weeks of wages. 52 This is below the poverty threshold for a household that
includes one parent and one child. 53
For an early childhood teaching assistant, the median weekly salary was $239 per
week, or $12,428 annually, and for a worker in a child care center it was $285 per
week, or $14,820 annually.⁵
Child care workers thus earn far less than the median earnings for all workers
($26,156 in 1997), and less than the median earnings for bus drivers ($21,060),
janitors ($16,276), or bartenders ($16,024). 55
Many child care workers receive little if anything in benefits from their employers.
Even among child care centers, the availability of health care coverage for staff
workers remains woefully inadequate.⁵
Many child care workers cannot afford to stay in the system.
In order to support themselves, many child care workers are forced to hold second
jobs, live with their parents, rely on a second income, or forgo health insurance and
medical care.
As a result, many do not stay long in child care: 31% of all teaching staff leave their
child care centers each year.⁵⁷
This system is shortchanging not only the providers, but the children as well.
The compensation of child care staff is clearly linked to the quality of care and
education children receive. According to one study, "teachers' wages, their
education and specialized training were the most important characteristics that
distinguish poor, mediocre, and good-quality centers."5
Another study identified staff wages as the most important predictor of the quality of
care children receive: better quality centers paid higher wages, hired teachers with
more education and training, and experienced lower staff turnover.⁵⁹
Reducing turnover is critical, because the stability of the relationship between the
child and the care-giver is important to the child's social development.60 For
National Women's Law Center, Washington, DC, February 1999
8
example, the U.S. Department of Defense, in its Military Child Development
System, ties wages and advancement for its child care workers to training and
education, and in so doing has significantly reduced turnover and thereby improved
the morale and motivation of care givers and the quality of care.
III. SOLUTIONS: CRITICAL COMPONENTS
OF AN EFFECTIVE CHILD CARE POLICY
An effective child care initiative must ensure that all families have access to
affordable, high-quality child care for infants and toddlers as well as school-age
children. It must include the following components.
(1) Help Working Families Pay for Child Care
Without assistance, the cost of decent child care is beyond the reach of many low-
and moderate-income families. To help these families with their child care
expenses:
The Child Care and Development Block Grant should be substantially expanded to
enable states to better serve eligible families; and
The Dependent Care Tax Credit should be improved to better meet the needs of
families, by making the credit refundable, adjusting the sliding scale of percentages
of eligible expenses that can be claimed, and raising the limits on eligible expenses.
(2) Protect the Health and Safety of Children by
Improving the Quality of their Care and Education
A stronger child care infrastructure must be created, through funds to states for:
Improved licensing standards and enforcement, including sufficient staff to
adequately monitor and inspect programs to reduce the risk of harm;
Increased reimbursement for programs meeting high-quality standards;
Policies to improve staff compensation and benefits in order to attract qualified staff
and reduce staff turnover;
Scholarships for care-givers pursuing a degree in early childhood education;
National Women's Law Center, Washington, DC, February 1999
9
Statewide staff development systems and policies that help to improve training for
staff;
Targeted funding to enable child care and early education programs to offer
comprehensive services through linkages and support from health, social services,
and mental health systems;
Improved consumer education efforts, including the expansion of local resource and
referral programs; and
Support to child care and early educations programs to use technology, such as long-
distance learning, more effectively.
(3) Expand Good Care for Infants and Toddlers
Substantial funding should be made available for states to strengthen and enrich
programs serving very young children, as well as increase support to parents of
young children and other care-givers. Specifically, funds should be available for
activities such as:
Operating family child care networks that serve infants and toddlers;
Expanding the supply of infant and toddler care, especially for care that is in short
supply;
Supporting initiatives to increase the compensation of care-givers caring for very
young children;
Providing specialized training for care-givers working with infants and toddlers;
Expanding resource and referral programs;
Assisting programs serving young children in becoming accredited;
Helping child care programs serving young children to link with other essential
services in the community;
Providing parenting education and support programs;
In addition, the Family and Medical Leave Act should be expanded to cover more
workplaces and employees, and to provide leave for a broader range of family needs.
Strong family leave policies are critical, as they enable working parents to stay home
during the critical early months of a child's life or when a child is seriously ill, and
to play an active role in their children's early development.
National Women's Law Center, Washington, DC, February 1999
10
(4) Keep Children and Youth Safe and Productive
through Better Use of Out-of-School Time (School-Age Care)
Sufficient funds must be made available to local communities to support before- and
after-school, summer, and weekend activities for more children and youth. These
activities should be available in a range of settings, including schools, child care
settings, homes, and community and youth centers. Resources should be used to
start, operate, and expand programs; support staff training and professional
development, accreditation, and program assessment and improvement; and facilitate
coordination that can make the most of public and private resources.
(5) Continue Support for Head Start
and the Child and Adult Care Food Program
Head Start is an essential component of any initiative to strengthen families' access
to strong early learning experiences. The Head Start program should continue on its
path toward serving all eligible children. It should also recognize the growing need
to reach younger children by expanding funds available for Early Head Start.
The Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) should allow for-profit child care
centers serving low-income children to participate in CACFP, and restore the option
of a fourth meal or snack for children spending extended hours in child care centers
and family child care homes.
The National Women's Law Center is a non-profit organization that has been working since 1972 to advance and protect
women's legal rights. The Center focuses on major policy areas of importance to women and their families including child
and adult care, child support, employment, education, reproductive rights and health, public assistance, tax reform, and
social security- with special attention given to the concerns of low-income women.
National Women's Law Center, Washington, DC, February 1999
11
REFERENCES
1. See, e.g., Ask a Working Woman, a report on the national survey for the Working Women's
Department, AFL-CIO (1997); Women: the New Providers, Whirlpool Foundation study by
Families and Work Institute (May 1995).
2. Tabulations based on Department of Labor, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment
Characteristics of Families, Current Population Survey, 1997, Summary and Table 3. These
percentages understate how many women raising children are in the paid labor force because
they reflect only women raising their own children, and do not include the many women who are
raising grandchildren, nieces and nephews, or other related children.
3. Id.
4. Id, Tables 5 and 6. Of all mothers of children under age 18, 50% work full time; of all
mothers of children under age 6, 42% work full time; and of all mothers of children under age 3,
37% work full time. Id.
5. U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Ways and Means, 1996 Green Book, Table 10-1.
6. Id.
7. U.S. Department of Labor, Women's Bureau, "Facts on Working Women: 20 Facts on
Women Workers," Sept. 1996.
8. Tabulations based on data from Department of Labor, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Marital
and Family Characteristics of the Labor Force, Current Population Survey, 1996, Tables 5 and 6.
The number of mothers in the paid labor force includes mothers who are working outside the
home as well as mothers who are seeking work outside the home.
9. Id.
10. Tabulation based on data from U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census,
Money Income in the United States: 1997, Current Population Reports, Consumer Income, No.
P60-200 (September 1998), Table 6.
11. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Household & Family Characteristics:
March 1997, Current Population Reports, (April 1998), p. 6.
12. In 1991, the most recent year for which these data are available, only 38% of custodial
mothers actually received any child support payments, and the payments received on average
were approximately only $148 per month per child. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of
the Census, Child Support for Custodial Mothers and Fathers: 1991, Current Population Reports,
Consumer Income, Series P-60, No. 187.
13. Ask A Working Woman, p. 8.
National Women's Law Center, Washington, DC, February 1999
12
14. U.S. Department Of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Poverty in the United States: 1997,
Current Population Reports, Consumer Income, No. P60-201, Table 3.
15. U.S. Department Of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract: 1998, Table 732
(1998).
16. What Does it Cost to Mind Our Preschoolers?, Table 3.
17. Clark and Long, Child Care Prices: A Profile of Six Communities -- Final Report (The
Urban Institute 1995).
18. Child Care Information Exchange, July 1996.
19. Bureau of Census, U.S. Dep't of Commerce, Current Population Reports, P60-197, Money
and Income in the United States: 1997 (1998).
20. Bureau of Census, U.S. Dep't of Commerce, Historical Income Tables-Families, Table F-10
(1998).
21. Child Care Challenges. (1998). Washington, DC:CDF. Also data from The California
Child Care Portfolio. (1997). San Francisco: California Child Care Resource and Referral
Network. Data collected from resource and referral agencies in each city.
22. Testimony of Sarah M. Greene, Chief Executive Officer, National Head Start Association,
Hearing on Head Start before the U.S. Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources,
March 26, 1998.
23. Opening Statement of Senator Christopher J. Dodd, Hearing on Head Start, March 26, 1998.
24. Locked Doors: States Struggling to Meet the Child Care Needs of Low-Income Working
Families. (1998). Washington, DC:CDF.
25. Id.
26. General Accounting Office, Welfare Reform: States' Efforts to Expand Child Care
Programs, GAO/HEHS-98-27, (Washington, DC: General Accounting Office, January 1998).
27. Locked Doors: States Struggling to Meet the Child Care Needs of Low-Income Working
Families. (1998). Washington, DC:CDF
28. Id.
29. Id.
30. Id.
31. Id.
National Women's Law Center, Washington, DC, February 1999
13
32. "Financing Child Care in the United States: An Illustrative Catalog of Current Strategies",
The Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation & The Pew Charitable Trusts, 1997, p. 2.
33. Teresa Vast, The Postsecondary Financial Aid System: Potential Strategies for Early Care
and Education, Robert R. McCormick Tribune Foundation and the National Association for the
Education of Young Children, September 1997.
34. "Financing Child Care in the United States: An Illustrative Catalog of Current Strategies",
The Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation & the Pew Charitable Trusts, 1997, p. 3.
35. Teresa Vast, The Postsecondary Financial Aid System: Potential Strategies for Early Care
and Education, Robert R. McCormick Tribune Foundation and the National Association for the
Education of Young Children, September 1997.
36. Shore, Rima. Rethinking the Brain: New Insights into Early Development, Families and
Work Institute, NY, 1997, p. 64.
37. Id. at p. 18.
38. Id.
39. J. Madeleine Nash, Fertile Minds, Time Magazine, February 3, 1997, Vol. 149, No. 5.
40. Starting Points: Meeting the Needs of Our Youngest Children. (1994, Aug.). New York:
Carnegie Corporation.
41. Facts about Child Care in America (1998). Washington, DC:CDF.
42. Helburn et al., Cost, Quality, and Child Outcomes Study, Economics Department, University
of Colorado at Denver, January (1995).
43. See, e.g., The Future of Children: Long-Term Outcomes of Early Childhood Programs,
Center for the Future of Children and David and Lucile Packard Foundation, Vol. 5, No. 3
(Winter 1995).
44. Helburn et al., supra. Indeed, one study of four states found fully 40 percent of the rooms
serving infants in child care centers to be of such poor quality as to jeopardize children's health,
safety, or development. Studies of family child care produced equally troubling results. The
term family child care is used to refer to the care of unrelated children in the home of the
provider.
45. School-Age Child Care Project, Fact sheet on school-age children, Center for Research on
Women, Wellesley College, October 1997.
46. U.S. Department of Education, The Condition of Education: 1993, National Center for
Education Statistics 1993.
National Women's Law Center, Washington, DC, February 1999
14
47. Dwyer et al. Characteristics of Eighth-Grade Students Who Initiate Self-Care in Elementary
and Junior High School, Pediatrics, 86.
48. Sickmund, M., Snyder, H.N., Poe-Yamagata, E., "Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 1997
Update on Violence," National Center for Juvenile Justice (Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention); Fox, J.A. and Newman, S.A., "After-School Programs or
After-School Crime" (Washington, DC: Fight Crime: Invest in Kids, September 1997), p. 1.
49. "Police Chiefs Say More Government Investments in Kids are Key to Fighting Crime."
(Washington, DC: Fight Crime: Invest In Kids, 1996), p. 1.
50. Making Work Pay in the Child Care Industry, National Center for the Early Childhood Work
Force (1997).
51. U.S. Department of Labor, Women's Bureau, "Facts on Working Women: Child Care
Workers", November 1997.
52. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Population Survey 1997,
Household Data, Annual Averages, Table 39.
53. U.S. Department Of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Poverty in the United States: 1997,
Current Population Reports, Consumer Income, No. P60-201, Table 1.
54. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Population Survey 1997;
Household Data, Table 39.
55. Id.
56. Center for the Child Care Workforce, Worthy Work, Unlivable Wages (Washington D.C.,
1998), p. 20.
57. Worthy Work, Unlivable Wages, supra, p. 19. The turnover rate is nearly 40% for lower-
paid teaching assistants in child care centers. Id.
58. Helburn et al., supra.
59. Whitebook, M., et al., Who Cares? Child Care Teachers and the Quality of Care in America,
Final Report, National Child Care Staffing Study, Child Care Employee Project, 1990.
60. Whitebook et al., supra.
National Women's Law Center, Washington, DC, February 1999
15
Clinton Presidential Records
Digital Records Marker
This is not a presidential record. This is used as an administrative
marker by the William J. Clinton Presidential Library Staff.
This marker identifies the place of a publication.
Publications have not been scanned in their entirety for the purpose
of digitization. To see the full publication please search online or
visit the Clinton Presidential Library's Research Room.
Current Data
on Child Care
Salaries and
Center for the
Benefits in the
Child Care Workforce
United States
March 1998
In This Report
Introduction 1
Child Care Salaries
T
his report presents the most recent
impossible to study variations among such
Compared To Other
salary and benefits data available for the
sectors of the child care field as for-profit and
Occupations 3
U.S. child care workforce. Although such
nonprofit centers, infant and school-age pro-
data are not collected comprehensively or
grams, or licensed and unlicensed family
State By State Wage
consistently across the country, certain types
child care. This compendium, therefore, rep-
Comparisons 4
of occupational information are collected by
resents the best information available at the
the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS),
present time, but also points to the need for
Appendix 1, Other
and a number of independent child care
more consistent, reliable and comprehensive
1995-1998 Data 6
salary and benefits studies have been con-
data collection about the child care work-
ducted in recent years at the regional, state
force.
Appendix 2, Pre-1995
and local levels.
Much additional data have also been
Reports 17
Center-based child care staff are
collected by the Center for the Child Care
described by the BLS's Occupational
Workforce (CCW) and other organizations in
About CCW 20
Employment Statistics Survey either as
a variety of states and communities, and
preschool teachers or as child care workers. 1
these studies are referenced in the
1 The BLS collects ild
A "preschool teacher" is defined in this survey
Appendices to this report. A number of these
care workforce data
as a person who instructs children (normally
studies do compile data on the variations
through numerous sur-
up to five years of age), in a preschool pro-
noted above among workers and sectors in
veys in addition to the
gram, day care center or other child develop-
the field. Appendix 1 presents compensation
OES survey and uses
ment facility, in activities designed to promote
and turnover data collected in various states
such occupational titles
during or after 1995, and Appendix 2 contains
for child care center
social, physical and intellectual growth in
preparation for elementary school. A "child
a resource list of studies conducted prior to
employees as aides, child
care worker," on the other hand, is defined as
1995 in those states which have not updated
care assistants, day care
assistants, teacher assis-
a person who performs such duties as dress-
their data more recently. Less information is
tants, child care atten-
ing, feeding, bathing and overseeing play.
available, unfortunately, about family child
dants, day care atten-
Unfortunately, these categories create a mis-
care providers than about child care center
dants, and early childhood
leading division of the child care workforce,
employees. Only four states have document-
teacher assistants. The
when in fact most teaching staff, regardless
ed family child care provider earnings.
OES definitions and data
of title, take part both in promoting intellectu-
Appendix 1 describes the average
are used in this report
al growth and in the caretaking duties
wages of "teachers" and "assistant teachers"
instead of other surveys
described above.
(called assistants here), as documented in
because these other titles
recent studies. Teachers are defined as those
are not mutually exclusive
The BLS also aggregates child care data
and are not used consis-
across program types and regions, making it
who have primary responsibility for a class-
tently across states.
room or group of children, and who are often
Clinton Presidential Records
Digital Records Marker
This is not a presidential record. This is used as an administrative
marker by the William J. Clinton Presidential Library Staff.
This marker identifies the place of a publication.
Publications have not been scanned in their entirety for the purpose
of digitization. To see the full publication please search online or
visit the Clinton Presidential Library's Research Room.
VOL. 3, NO. I
WINTER 1999
RIGHTS NEWS LD ANDARE ISSUES FOR THE
CENTER FOR THE
CHILD CARE WORKFORCE
In This Issue
Policy
CCW Launches 21st
Anniversary I
In Defense of "Child
Care" 3
CCW Launches 21st Anniversary,
A Letter from CCW
Co-Director Claudia
in a Year of Highs and Lows for the
Wayne 3
Raising Reimbursement
Child Care Workforce
Rates to Build Child
Care Quality 4
Rhode Island Expands
n the past year, compensation and other child
ference in Toronto, we launched our 21st anniver-
Child Care Worker
care workforce issues seem to have "come of
sary year with a party hosted in our honor by col-
Health Benefits 5
age" as a mainstream social policy concern,
leagues, board members, contributors and friends
Compensation Guide-
lines for California 7
with far more discussion taking place in
in the child care community. And after twenty
Taking On Turnover:
Washington, in state and local governments, and in
years of persistent effort since we began in 1978 as
CCW's Latest
the child care advocacy community. For the Center
the Child Care Employee Project, it is gratifying to
Publication 9
for the Child Care Workforce, 1998 was also a
know that our message is being heard and
Worthy Work, Unlivable
"coming of age" year of celebration, reflection and
embraced much more widely, and our guiding
Wages II
renewal of commitment. At the recent NAEYC con-
issues are "on the table."
New Workforce
Resources from the
But 1998 was also a year of political
U.S. and Canada 12
uncertainty and fluctuating hopes. When
Special thanks from all of us at the Center for the Child
the year began, hopes were quite high: an
Worthy Wages
Care Wor cforce to Diane Trister Dodge, Larry Bram, and all
energized White House was ready to
Teachers and Providers
the staff of Teaching Strategies; Inc., for hosting a wonderful
move on a major child care policy pro-
"Take the Lead" in
celebration, launching CCW's 21.st "coming of age" anniver-
Five Communities 6
posal, and CCW staff, as participants in
sary year, at the NAEYC conference in Toronto in November.
the White House Conference on Child
New Resources from
We were very touched by their warmth and generosity, and
Local Worthy Wage
Care and on Treasury Secretary Rubin's
Campaigns 7
we: were proud to be sharing the event with Teaching
Working Group on Child Care, played
Child Care Union Drives
Strategies' own Oth anniversary and with honoring child care
central roles in the discussion. As new
in Philadelphia and
advocate Joan Lombardi- first "Washington liaison
money was infused into the states' child
Seattle 8
staff member in *years past:
care systems, largely through welfare
Our thanks also to the following anniversary event spon
Mentoring
reform, compensation issues became cen-
Profiles of Two Men-
sors, whose contributions will support teacher/provider
tral to policy discussions. The discussion
toring Programs 13
scholarships for CCW's new annual Leadership Institute:
was also strengthened by the April release
Maddie Axelrod, Chicago Metro AEYC Accreditation
of new data from our National Child Care
News and Views
Project, Child Care Information Exchange Gryphon House,
Staffing Study (see page 11), showing that
On the Job: Seniors in
Inc., I.L. Hammett Co., Judy R. Jablon, Kaplan. Companies
Child Care 14
child care wages have stayed stagnant
LEGO Dacta, Redleaf Press Scholastic, Inc.-Early
Become a CCW
over the past decade, and turnover unac-
Childhood, School- Age NOTES, and Tucker, Flyer & Lewis.
Member! 15
ceptably high-despite a major invest-
CCW Resources 16
CONTINUED ON PAGE 10
Center
for the
Child Care
CARES Bill
Workforce
Compensation and Recognition Enhances Stability
The CARES bill would establish the Child Development Corps, a pilot program in a
limited number of sites, to build and reward a skilled and stable child care workforce.
Members of the Child Development Corps will receive, in addition to their salaries,
monetary rewards ranging from $500 to $6,000 per year, depending on their education
and experience. The program shall be funded in the amount of $350,000,000.
Child Development Corps
Center-based child care staff, licensed family child care providers and license-exempt
child care can join the Corps and be eligible for a stipend if they have:
Achieved certain educational levels as stipulated below;
Completed a minimum of 20 hours of on-going professional development training
during each calendar year;
Participated in two Child Development Corps meetings annually; and
Worked in a child care program on a full-time basis as defined by the program in the
preceding year.
Stipends range from $500 to $6,000 a year depending on the Level for which a member is
eligible. In addition to the general Corps requirements:
Level One shall be paid an annual stipend of $500.
To qualify for this stipend a member of the Child Development Corps must have
met their state's pre-service and on-going educational requirements for the
position which they hold.
Level Two shall be paid an annual stipend of $1,500.
To qualify for this stipend a member of the Child Development Corps must have
acquired a CDA or, if a family child care provider, their program has been
accredited by a nationally recognized accrediting body.
Level Three shall be paid an annual stipend of $2,000 or $2,500.
To qualify for a $2,000 stipend a member of the Child Development Corps must
have acquired an Associate of Arts degree. The Child Development Corps
member will qualify for a $2,500 stipend if the Associate of Arts degree is in
Early Child Development or a related field.
Level Four shall be paid an annual stipend of $5,000 or $6,000.
To qualify for a $5,000 stipend a member of the Child Development Corps must
have acquired a Bachelor of Arts degree. The Child Development Corps member
will qualify for a $6,000 stipend if the Bachelor of Arts degree is in Early Child
Development or a related field.
Stipends can be paid either directly as a salary supplement or as a contribution to a
retirement fund.
A version of this bill is expected to be introduced by Senator Kennedy in the near future.
733 15th Street, NW Suite 1037 Washington, DC 20005-2112
202/737-7700 202/737-0370 FAX
e-mail: [email protected]
December 1998
NOW LEGAL DEFENSE
AND EDUCATION FUND 395 HUDSON STREET. NEW YORK. NY 10014-3684 (212) 925-6635 FAX: (212) 226-1066
CHILD CARE: TALKING POINTS FOR WELFARE REFORM
The Personal Responsibility and Work Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRA) has created a
tremendous demand for child care by requiring parents receiving public assistance to work
outside the home. Under the PRA, Congress mandated that states impose work requirements
on single parent families with young children who receive cash assistance through the
Temporary Assistance to Needy Families program, the program that replaced Aid to Families
with Dependent Children (AFDC). At the same time, Congress eliminated provisions that
guaranteed child care for parents who needed it to participate in work activities. Thus, as a
result of welfare reform, thousands of parents are now required to work, but have no
assurances that they will be able to pay for or will even have access to child care. Adequate
child care is obviously essential for any parent to work, and poor single parents must have
access to this necessity in order to work outside the home either to support their families or
in exchange for public assistance.
Child care obligations and a lack of available child care are a major obstacle to poor
women's participation in the labor force.
The presence of young children is the most important factor in reducing the likelihood
of a low-income single mother's employment.¹
Sixty percent of single mothers surveyed cite "unavailability of affordable child care
as a barrier to work. "2 A study of Latina mothers in Southern California found that
over 60 percent had lost a job or could not work because they were unable to find
child care.³
Estimates suggest that between 10 to 20 percent of nonemployed mothers of young
children do not seek employment due to child care availability and cost issues.⁴
Additionally, about 20 to 25 percent of employed mothers would work more hours if
child care were not an issue.⁵ In one study of welfare recipients, 60 percent reported
that unavailability of child care kept them from participating in work programs.⁶
The Illinois Department of Public Aid found that while half of single parents in
AFDC families held jobs that required some evening and weekend work, only 8
percent of surveyed child care facilities offered evening care and only 3 percent
offered weekend care.⁷
1
The federal government is not adequately addressing these problems, and indeed may be
making them worse under welfare reform.
Prior to welfare reform there were three federally funded child care entitlement
programs. These programs served families on welfare, those transitioning off welfare
and families at risk of receiving welfare. Under welfare reform, the entitlement to
child care has been eliminated, and states have been given greater discretion in
allocating child care funds, all of which have been moved into the Child Care and
Development Fund. 8
Of the 1.5 million children in federally subsidized care in the United States, about
two-thirds are from working poor families and one-third are from families on
welfare. 9 But under the PRA, states have a financial incentive to make welfare
recipients the first priority for child care assistance. 10 As a result child care assistance
to working poor families may be diminished or may completely disappear. 11
The PRA allocates 16 billion dollars over five years for child care. The
Congressional Budget Office recognizes this amount is inadequate to cover the cost of
child care services needed if states are to meet their goals of moving welfare
recipients to work. 12
Past experience with federal subsidies for child care for welfare recipients moving to
work shows that recipients are often not notified of such benefits. 13 A 1995 study
found that in the Georgia counties studied only about one-third of eligible families
used the subsidies, largely due to lapses in the way the system was being
administered. 14
States are experiencing a host of problems in providing child care services.
Wisconsin's welfare to work program has experienced major problems providing child
care. 15 For example, in Milwaukee County upward of 60 percent of cases in the first
six months of the program experienced significant problems related to child care.
Many problems were caused by bureaucratic glitches that left many child care
providers unpaid, which in turn caused children to lose their placements and parents'
their ability to work. 16
Every day a welfare recipient is unable to work brings her closer to exhausting her
lifetime limit. In Pennsylvania, almost 20 months after work requirements took
effect, many parents are losing ground as shortcomings in the provision of child care
prevent them from obtaining and keeping work. 17 The child care reform necessary to
meet the needs of poor families in Pennsylvania as a result of welfare to work is so
behind schedule that the state's Auditor General announced that a performance audit
would be conducted. 18
In California's Los Angeles County, a host of problems plague the system that is
supposed to deliver child care services to recipients of public assistance. Problems
include uninformed and misinformed caseworkers, poor communication between
government agencies and child care providers, and delays in many aspects of
implementing the system, including securing child care when a parent gets a job and
reimbursing child care providers. 19
2
In New York City, regulated child care facilities are able to provide for less than
seven percent of infants and toddlers needing care. 20 Waiting lists for subsidized care
are in the thousands, and women on welfare often are not told of their child care
options or that child care subsidies exist. 21
What Can Advocates Do?
Since access to child care is crucial if parents receiving public assistance are to make
a successful transition from welfare to work, it is critical that advocates work to ensure that
poor families have access to child care. For example, advocates should inform parents about
the child care protections still available to them and make sure that these protections are
enforced, and encourage states to institute policies that adequately address the child care
needs of poor families.
Specifically, advocates should take steps to:
Provide public education so that parents on welfare know that under the law many of
them cannot be forced to participate in work activities if they do not have access to
appropriate child care.
Encourage states to: (a) take full advantage of federal law by making families earning
up to 85% of the State Median Income eligible for child care assistance; (b) conduct
market surveys as required by federal law; and (c) limit co-payment requirements
especially for very low-income families.
Ensure that states fulfill their obligation of informing eligible families of the
availability of child care subsidies and of the nature and extent of available child care
assistance.
Advocates should also support policies that:
Increase the availability of child care for all children who need it, particularly infant
care, care for children with special needs and off-hours care for women working at
night and on weekends.
Ensure that each state has sufficient funds to provide child care subsidies to families
receiving welfare, families transitioning from welfare to work and families at risk of
needing public assistance.
Provide child care subsidies that are high enough to provide quality care for all
children.
For more information contact Sherry Leiwant or Roslyn Powell at NOW Legal Defense and
Education Fund at (212) 925-6635.
3
1. Institute for Women's Policy Research, Child Care and Welfare Reform, IWPR Welfare
Reform Network News, at 2 (May 30, 1997).
2. Ellen L. Bassuk, et. al., Single Mothers and Welfare, Scientific American 66 (Oct. 1996).
3. Carla Rivera, Latino Study Lists Barriers to Child Care, L.A. TIMES, Sept. 3, 1998, at B1.
4. Harriet B. Presser & Amy G. Cox, The Work Schedules of Low-educated American Women
and Welfare Reform, MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, Apr. 1997, at 26.
5. Id.
6. Id.
7. Institute for Women's Policy Research, Child Care and Welfare Reform, IWPR Welfare
Reform Network News, at 4 (May 30, 1997).
8.42 U.S.C. §9858 et seq.
9. Institute for Women's Policy Research, Child Care and Welfare Reform, IWPR Welfare
Reform Network News, at 8 (May 30, 1997).
10. Urban Institute, Child Care Assistance Under Welfare Reform: Early Responses by the
States, at 7.
11.Id. at 8
12. Sonya Michel, Child care and Welfare (In)Justice, 24 Feminist Studies 1, 50 (Spring
1998).
13.See generally Child Care Action Campaign, Informing Parents about Child Care Subsidies
(1997).
14.Id. at 4.
15. Jason DeParle, Wisconsin Welfare Experiment: Easy to Say, Not So Easy to Do, N.Y.
TIMES, Oct. 18, 1998, at A1.
16. Id. at A24.
17. Sally Kalson, Getting on Right Track More Than a Challenge, PITTSBURGH POST-
GAZETTE, Nov. 2, 1998, at A8
18.Sally Kalson, Child-care Subsidies to be Audited, PITTSBURGH POST-GAZETTE, Sept. 29,
1998, at B1.
19. Carla Rivera, Falling Through the Cracks in New Child-Care System, L.A. TIMES, Sept.
7, 1998, at B1.
20. Child Care Action Campaign, Child Care For Infants and Toddlers and during Non-
traditional Hours, at 3 (1997).
21. See generally Mark Green, Public Advocate for the City of New York, Welfare and Child
Care: What About the Children? (1997).
4
NATIONAL WORK NG GROU
ON
CHILD CARE AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
c/o NOW Legal Defense & Education Fund 395 Hudson Street. New York, NY 10014 (212) 925-6635 Fax (212) 226-1066
WHAT CHILD CARE PROVIDERS NEED
TO KNOW ABOUT DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
In recent years, there has been growing recognition of the pervasiveness of domestic violence in American society.
A recent Justice Department study found that each year from 1992 to 1996 an average of approximately 960,000
women experienced violent crime (including murder, rape, robbery and assault) at the hands of a current or former
spouse or intimate partner.¹ An even larger number of women do not report physical abuse or other forms of
domestic violence such as psychological abuse, verbal attacks or intimidating patterns of power and control. In
addition, the children of abused women, whether or not they are actually targets of abuse, are also adversely affected
by domestic violence. Consider these findings:
Slightly more than half of female victims of domestic violence live in households with children under the age
of 12.²
Studies have found that child abuse occurs in 25% to 70% of families that experience domestic violence.³
Reports by battered mothers indicate that 87% of their children witness domestic violence.⁴
Given the prevalence of domestic violence in our society, there is a good chance that many young children in child
care or in need of child care are survivors of domestic violence. These survivors, like their mothers, require
assistance from a host of resources, including child care providers, if they are to succeed in escaping or ending the
violence. Access to safe, affordable and quality child care will not only allow women to achieve economic self-
sufficiency and escape the violence, but also provide their children with the support they need in a stable, non-violent
atmosphere.
What Are the Special Child Care Needs of
Child and Adult Survivors of Domestic Violence?
For a child, living in a household with domestic violence is a very frightening and stressful experience.
Exposure to domestic violence often interferes with a child's emotional, psychological, academic and physical
development. It is critical for child care providers to be able to recognize the signs of domestic violence in
children, and to learn how to address their needs. The following are some of the common emotional, cognitive
and behavioral problems experienced by children who live with domestic violence:
Preschoolers: excessive crying, loss of bladder/bowel control, fear of strangers, confusion, irritability,
developmental difficulties, panic, nightmares and age-inappropriate attachment.
Grade School-age children: guilt, depression, anxiety, poor school performance, psychosomatic
complaints, aggression and social withdrawal.
Adolescents: headaches, aggressive behavior, poor academic performance, anti-social behavior, truancy,
involvement in violent dating relationships, isolation, guilt, low-self esteem and anxiety.
Like their children, many women victimized by domestic violence have complex emotional and psychological
manifestations of the abuse, such as depression. anxiety and low self-esteem. In addition, the lives of women
1
trying to escape from abusive relationships can be chaotic. They often must deal with the family and criminal
court systems, secure emergency housing and maneuver within the maze of social services agencies to meet their
needs and the needs of their children. Because self-sufficiency is often essential to end abuse, many women
escaping domestic violence also must struggle to gain or maintain financial independence. However, their efforts
are often thwarted by batterers who interfere with their victims' work lives or disrupt child care environments
causing children to lose their placements.
It is important that child care providers are sensitive and responsive to the circumstances of domestic violence
victims. Education and awareness about the signs of domestic violence in children will allow child care
providers to work effectively with the children in their care, be as flexible as possible, understand the source
of disruptions in normal activities such as arrival. and departure times, and not allow the deliberate actions of
a batterer to be the basis for denying child care.
Supportive Child Care Services Targeted to
Domestic Violence Survivors Are Needed Throughout the U.S.
The families whose lives are scarred by violence face a scarcity of safe, appropriate child care in virtually every
community. Child care providers can help by learning more about domestic violence and creating a supportive
environment for children and adults exposed to domestic violence by:
Attending classes or training sessions on domestic violence.
Making information about local domestic violence resources available to clients at child care centers.
Establishing linkages with local domestic violence service providers.
Maintaining confidentiality if a parent discloses that she is a victim of domestic violence.
Developing security measures to ensure the safety of all children and staff at child care centers.
For a list of resources on child care and domestic violence, contact Roslyn Powell at NOW Legal Defense and
Education Fund, 99 Hudson Street, New York, NY 10013, (212) 925-6635.
For general information, training materials and publications on either domestic violence or child care, contact:
The National Resource Center
The National Coalition Against
National Association of Child Care
on Domestic Violence
Domestic Violence
Resource and Referral Agencies
6400 Flank Drive - Suite 1300
P.O. Box 18749 Denver, CO 80218
1319 F Street NW - Suite 810
Harrisburg, PA 17112
Denver, CO 80218
Washington, DC 20004
(800) 537-2238/(717) 545-6400
(303) 839-1852
(202) 393-5501
For emergency domestic violence assistance,
call the National Domestic Violence Hotline at (800) 799-SAFE (7233).
Endnotes are available upon request.
September 1998
This information was prepared by NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund and Victim Services, in conjunction with Sanctuary for
Families.
2
WORKING FAMILIES NEED ACCESS TO
AFFORDABLE, QUALITY CHILD CARE RIGHT NOW!
The need for quality full-time child care and after-school programs is a daily concern for millions of
American working parents. Quality child care and constructive after-school programs are too often
unaffordable or simply not available. Congress and the Clinton Administration must join together this
year to pass legislation to ensure that all working families have access to affordable quality care.
The child care needs of American women and their families have increased dramatically now that
the majority of women with children are in the paid labor force. According to the Department of
Labor, over 70% of all women with children under 18 work outside the home. Every day 13 million
preschoolers -- including 6 million infants and toddlers -- are in child care, and millions more school-age
children are in after-school programs and summer activities. Because the majority of working women
need to work in order to support their families, access to affordable child care is essential. Without it,
women risk unplanned disruptions in their employment which can affect job performance, restrict
opportunities for their advancement in the workforce and result in lower wages or even job loss.
Working families with children are faced with high child care costs that consume a significant
portion of their household budgets. For families with children between the ages of 3 and 5 at all
income levels, child care is the third greatest expense after housing and food. Full-day child care easily
costs $4,000 to $10,000 per year -- at least as much as college tuition at a public university. Even
though subsidies are available for low-income families, funds are severely limited. Currently, no state
can afford to serve all families eligible under federal guidelines. Indeed, only 1 in 10 eligible children
who need help are getting assistance, and often the subsidies available are not enough to pay for quality
care.
Many working parents in the United States are forced to rely on low quality child care
arrangements. Although recent studies reveal that the early years of a child's life are critical to
intellectual development and academic success, high quality care is in short supply. The quality of child
care has a lasting impact on children's well-being and ability to learn. Children in poor quality care have
been found to be delayed in language and reading skills, and display more aggression toward other
children and adults. A recent study has found that about half of the child care provided for the youngest
children in the United States can be considered only fair in quality.
Supporting child care workers is key to providing quality child care. Quality child care is hard to
find in a marketplace where child care workers (98% of whom are female, and one third of whom are
women of color) earn exceptionally low wages. Child care workers earn an average of only $11,780 per
year, and preschool teachers have an average annual salary of just $15,580. Due in part to low wages
and the lack of benefits, there is a high turnover rate among child care workers. This high turnover rate
can undermine the strength of relationships between children and their providers, resulting in unreliable,
low-quality care.
Although there are many problems with child care in the United States, they are not
insurmountable. They can be overcome once Congress and the Clinton Administration make the
enactment of significant child care legislation a national priority. Only then will American families have
a chance at having access to affordable, quality child care.
This information was prepared by NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund, 395 Hudson Street, 5th
Floor, New York, NY 10014 and the National Women's Law Center, 11 Dupont Circle NW, Suite 800,
Washington, D.C. 20036. in conjunction with the Children's Defense Fund, 25 E Street NW, Washington,
D.C. 20001.
WHAT CONGRESS MUST DO TO MAKE AFFORDABLE, QUALITY CHILD CARE
AVAILABLE FOR ALL AMERICAN FAMILIES
This nation can and must do more to ensure that all families have access to safe, affordable child care and constructive
programs for school-age children. At a time when the overwhelming majority of women with children work outside
the home, Congress must make a major investment in improving the availability, quality and affordability of child care.
IN 1999, MEMBERS OF CONGRESS WHO ARE SERIOUS ABOUT THIS ISSUE MUST
MAKE A COMMITMENT TO THE FOLLOWING:
A SIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN THE CHILD CARE AND DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT. The block
grant provides states with funds to help working families pay for child care and improve child care quality. Currently,
the block grant serves only one of 10 eligible children. A $20 billion increase over 5 years would double the number
of families receiving help. Additional funds should also be used to improve the quality of child care programs,
particularly for infant and toddlers and enhance the compensation and training of child care providers.
INVESTMENTS IN EARLY LEARNING. Early learning is vital to ensuring that children enter school ready to
learn and succeed. Congress should support $3 billion over five years for an Early Learning program focused on
preschool children.
IMPROVEMENTS IN THE DEPENDENT CARE TAX CREDIT. The DCTC reduces taxes for employment-
related dependent care expenses. To make the DCTC a more effective mechanism for helping families pay for child
care, Congress should increase the amounts of the credits for lower and moderate income families and make it
refundable so that families with no or low federal income tax liability can benefit from it.
INCREASED FUNDING FOR THE 21ST CENTURY LEARNING CENTERS. Nearly five million school-age
children are home alone after school. A $400 million increase in funding for this program in FY 2000 will allow
communities to provide constructive before and after-school programs for school-age children which can help reduce
truancy, substance abuse and other risk taking behavior.
LOAN FORGIVENESS FOR THE CHILD CARE WORKFORCE. Promoting the retention of good child care
workers requires providing them with financial assistance. Congress can help by appropriating at least $10 million to
support loan forgiveness for individuals who earn a degree in early childhood education and work as child care
providers.
CAMPUS-BASED CHILD CARE. On-site child care is very important in helping parents complete their education.
Congress should support an increase to $10 million for campus-based child care centers.
EXPANSION OF THE HEAD START PROGRAM. To ensure that more low income preschool children have
access to this early education program, an additional $607 million is needed to improve and expand Head Start.
EXPANSION OF THE FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE ACT. The FMLA guarantees up to 12 weeks of unpaid
leave to employees with a new child or a serious illness in the family, but it currently applies only to employers with
50 or more workers. By expanding the FMLA to employers with 25 or more employees and encouraging employers
to give employees paid leave, more parents will be able to stay at home with their children during the critical early
months of a child's life. This expansion would also alleviate problems in finding infant care which is in short supply.
ENCOURAGING PRIVATE SECTOR INVOLVEMENT. To encourage the private sector's role in the development
of child care facilities and the provision of child care services, Congress should establish a capital financing program
to provide capital assistance for the construction and renovation of child care facilities.
CO-SPONSORSHIP OF COMPREHENSIVE CHILD CARE AND EARLY EDUCATION LEGISLATION AND
OTHER BILLS ADDRESSING ISSUES SUCH AS SUPPORT FOR THE CHILD CARE WORKFORCE.
Several comprehensive child care bills have been or will be introduced. including the Child Development Act by Sen.
Wellstone and the "ACCESS Act" sponsored by Sen. Dodd and others. Other bills that will focus on building and
rewarding a skilled child care workforce, enhancing school readiness, and other issues, should also be supported.
Table 2b,
The Causes for the Changing Wage Gap, 1979-96
Decreasing Female-Male Gap in Median Annual Earnings
% Change
Research-in-Brief
% Change
% Point
in Gap Due
in Gap Due
Change in
% Change in
% Change in
to Rising
to Falling
Female/Male
Women's
Men's Real
Women's
Men's
Year
Wage Ratio
Real Wages
Wages
Real Wages
Real Wages
1979-1989
-9.0%
10.3%
-4.1%
59.9%
40.1%
Stall in Women's Real Wage Growth
1989-1996
-5.1%
-0.2%
-7.1%
-1.6%
101.6%
1979-1996
-14.1%
10.2%
-10.9%
35.8%
64.3%
Slows Progress in Closing the Wage Gap
Source: Institute for Women's Policy Research calculations based on Census, March Current Population Survey, Bureau of the Census, 1980-1997.
Since 1979, the wage gap between women and men has narrowed significantly, falling by more than 10
the 1990s due to women's real wage
There is still plenty of room for
have the right to join unions without
percentage points overall. At first glance, this seems like great news for women. However, it is misleading
growth. In the latter period, all of the
further declines in sex segregation in
intimidation and enforce the rights of
to interpret this statistic as proof of a continuing and robust improvement in wages for today's working
closing of the gap in this series was the
the labor market. However, such
workers to engage in collective bargain-
women. First, the closing of the wage gap has slowed down considerably in the 1990s. Second, women's
result of men's falling real wages.
declines may have to occur more in
ing. Finally, continued efforts to
real wages (wages adjusted for inflation¹) have stagnated in recent years.
Further research is needed to
blue collar occupations, where progress
increase the wage floor by raising the
has been slower, than in white collar
minimum wage will benefit both
understand why women's and men's
In the 1990s, the remarkable success story of
occupations. Further wage growth will
women's and men's real wage growth.
women's rising real wages seen during the 1980s
Figure 1a. Full-Time Men and Women's
wages have behaved so differently
have to come from women's wages
Real Median Weekly Earnings, 1979-1997
throughout this period and why
ended. Instead, stagnating real wages for women
catching up to men's wages within
(1997 Dollars)
women's real wage growth seems to
Notes:
has been the norm since the beginning of the
occupations in addition to the continued
$650
have stalled after a long period of
All earnings and wages are converted into 1997
1990s. Women's wage growth during the 1980s
movement of women into higher
dollars by using the Consumer Price Index XI
differed dramatically from men's experience in
$600
steady growth. Some of the underlying
paying men's occupations. Therefore,
series.
trends that have led to increases in
:
Earnings are compared at the median because the
the labor market (see Figure la, showing real
$550
stronger enforcement of the Equal
women's real wages - increased
median worker is considered the most typical
median weekly earnings from 1979 to 1997 for
$500
Employment Opportunity laws and
worker. The median worker is the worker in the
education and increased labor market
regulations by the federal government
precise middle of the earnings distribution-just as
women and men who work full-time²) While
$450
experience - are likely to continue.
many workers earn more as earn less than the
is necessary for continued improve-
men's real wages fell overall, women's real
But some may have come to an end.
median worker. The BLS weekly earnings data
$400
ment in women's wages. In addition,
consistently show a higher ratio of women's to
wages increased substantially. Men who worked
$350
Much of the growth in women's real
pay equity or comparable-worth-type
men's earnings (and therefore a smaller earnings
full-time lost $25 in weekly earnings (adjusted
Men
Women
wages was fueled by the movement of
gap) than the Census Bureau annual earnings data.
wage increases in women's occupa-
for inflation) between 1979 and 1989 while
$300
3
women into higher earning occupa-
Both the weekly and the annual data come from
1979
1981
1983
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
tions (for example, many clerical
the same data collection vehicle. the Current
women gained $30 during the same period.
Year
tions, such as management and the
occupations) would clearly help to
Population Survey, a survey of nearly 60,000
These losses can be clearly seen in Figure la
Source: Institute for Women's Policy Research calculations based on the Merged Earnings Files,
professions. Overall, in these two large
households conducted monthly by the US Bureau
close the wage gap between women
of the Census. Respondents are asked about their
which compares the 1979 wage levels (marked
Current Population Survey, Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, 1979-1997
occupational groups, women's repre-
and men.
weekly earnings each month, while annual
by straight lines extending from the 1979
sentation is now equal to their represen-
earnings for the previous year are asked of
earnings points across the graph) to the 1989
Figure 1b. Full-Time Men and Women's
respondents only in March of each year. The
tation in the labor market as a whole.
Education and training policies can
Bureau of Labor Statistics reports on weekly
earnings points.
Real Median Annual Earnings, 1979-1996
Unfortunately, women still earn less
help women and men earn higher
earnings and provides the annual average of the
(1997 Dollars)
than men within these occupational
wages through increased productivity.
weekly data for the previous year in late January of
Between 1989 and 1997 women gained only
$40,000
each year. The weekly data, called the Merged
groups; there are many differences in
Labor legislation also has a place in
Earnings Files. are more reliable. both because
$6 in real weekly earnings while men's earnings
the distribution of women and men
assuring that workers receive fair
there is likely to be less recall error on the part of
$35,000
respondents and because the number of respon-
continued to decline (men lost $27; see Table la).
across the finer occupational break-
compensation for their productivity
dents is much larger. However, the weekly data do
These losses for men can be clearly seen in
$30,000
downs within these broad categories.
gains. These laws ensure that workers
not include self-employed workers' earnings. The
Census Bureau reports the annual earnings for the
Figure la by comparing the 1989 wage level,
previous year in early fall of each year.
marked by solid lines from the 1989 points
$25,000
extending across the graph, to the 1997 earnings
$20,000
The Institute for Women's Policy Research (IWPR) is an independent, non-profit research institute dedicated to
point. In fact, the highest ratio of women's median
Men
Women
conducting and disseminating research that informs public policy debates affecting women. The Institute also works
weekly earnings to men's earnings was in 1993
$15,000
in partnership with the graduate programs in public policy and women's studies at the George Washington
(76.9%). The wage gap has actually increased
1979
1981
1983
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
University. Members of the Institute receive regular mailings including fact sheets such as this one. Individual and
Year
since that time, so that women in 1997 only earned
organizational memberships are available. For more information, contact the Institute at (202) 785-5100 or visit
Source: Institute for Women's Policy Research calculations based on the March Current
our web page at http://www.iwpr.org. This Briefing Paper was written by Heidi Hartmann and Julie Whittaker and
74.4% of men's median weekly earnings.
Population Survey, U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1980-1997
formatted by Jill Braunstein and Anna Rockett in February 1998.
INSTITUTE FOR WOMEN'S POLICY RESEARCH
1400 20TH STREET N.W.
SUITE 104
WASHINGTON, D.C.
20036
(202) 785-5100
INSTITUTE FOR WOMEN'S POLICY RESEARCH
1400 20TH STREET N.W.
SUITE 104
WASHINGTON, D.C.
20036
(202) 785-5100
Table 1a.
While both women's and men's real
the 1980s (Figure 1b). The ratio of
Full-Time Men and Women's Real Median Weekly Earnings, 1979-1997
women's to men's annual earnings is
Figure 2a.
earnings (in the weekly data series) are
(1997 Dollars)
showing signs of recent growth, the
shown in Figure 2b. In contrast with
The Wage Ratio: Full-time Men and Women's
Median Weekly Earnings, 1979-97
increases are quite small.
steady growth in the 1980s, this trend
Men's Median
Women's
% of Women's
line is fairly flat in the 1990s, with
Weekly
Median
Wage
to Men's
The weekly earnings series (Table
80%
Year
Earnings
Weekly Earnings
peaks in 1990 and 1996.
Gap
Weekly Earnings
la) show that the gap between
75%
women's and men's earnings was
Tables 2a and 2b analyze how
1979
$631
$395
$236
62.5%
70%
1980
$608
$392
$216
smallest in 1993 ($132), and grew
64.4%
much of the closing of the gap was
1981
$604
$390
thereafter (to $148 in 1997). As Figure
65%
$214
64.6%
due to the growth in women's real
1982
$611
$400
$212
65.4%
la shows, the trend lines for women's
wages and how much to the fall in
60%
1983
$609
$406
$203
66.7%
and men's earnings began to diverge in
men's real wages. Notice that the
1984
$604
$409
$195
67.8%
1993 after converging for the previous
55%
gap fell substantially over the nearly
1985
$606
$413
$192
68.2%
15 years. The gap had been $236 per
20-year period, by 12 percentage
50%
1986
$614
$425
$189
69.2%
week in 1979. In Figure 2a, which
1979
1981
1983
1985
1987
1989
1991
points in the weekly series or 14
1993
1995
1997
1987
$612
$428
$184
70.0%
shows the ratio of women's to men's
Year
1988
$609
$427
$182
70.2%
percentage points in the annual
$606
median weekly earnings, the highest
1989
$425
$181
70.1%
series. However, in the weekly
Source: Institute for Women's Policy Research calculations based on Merged Earnings Files, Current
1990
$596
$427
71.8%
point is in 1993, and the growth in the
Population Survey, Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, 1979-1997.
$168
series, 41 percent (about two-fifths)
1991
$586
$434
$152
74.0%
ratio is clearly much greater in the
of the closing of the gap is due to the
1992
$578
$436
$142
75.5%
1980s than in the 1990s.
increase in women s real wages,
1993
$571
$439
$132
76.9%
Figure 2b.
$133
The annual earnings series (Table
while 59 percent. or three-fifihs. is
1994
$565
$432
76.4%
The Wage Ratio: Full-time Men and Women's
1995
$567
$428
$139
75.5%
lb) shows the gap at its smallest in
due to the fall in men 's real wages.
Real Median Annual Earnings, 1979-96
1996
$570
$428
$142
75.0%
1996 ($8,628 annually compared
Likewise, the effect of the slowdown
1997
$579
$431
$148
74.4%
with $14,885 in 1979), but also
in real wage growth for women in the
80%
Source: Institute for Women's Policy Research calculations based on the Merged Earnings Files, Current
shows a marked slowdown in
1990s is clearly shown in the vastly
Population Survey, Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, 1979-1997
progress in the 1990s compared with
decreased proportion of the closing
75%
of the gap that is due to women s real
70%
The end of women's wage
Table 1b.
wage growth-only 19 percent in the
growth raises the question of whether
65%
Full-Time Men and Women's Real Median Annual Earnings, 1979-1996
1990s compared with 51 percent in
women have finally caught "male
(1997 Dollars)
the 1980s.
60%
wage disease." If so, progress in
closing the wage gap will be hope-
Men's Median
Women's
% of Women's
Analysis of the annual earnings
55%
lessly stalled unless men continue
Annual
Median Annual
Wage
to Men's Annual
series in Table 2b shows a similar
50%
their real wage losses (which is
Year
Earnings
Earnings
Gap
Earnings
phenomenon, with 60 percent of the
1979
1981
1983
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
certainly not a desirable outcome). In
closing of the gap due to increases in
Year
1979
$36,902
$22,017
$14,885
59.7%
the median annual earnings data
$36,297
women's real wages in the 1980s, but
1980
$21,836
$14,461
60.2%
Source: Institute for Women's Policy Research calculations based on March Current Population Survey,
series from the US Bureau of the
1981
$36,090
$21,378
$14,712
59.2%
none of the further closing of the gap in
U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1980-1997
Census, the wage gap narrowed
1982
$35,386
$21,849
$13,537
61.8%
sharply between 1995 and 1996 (the
1983
$35,260
$22,423
$12,837
63.6%
Table 2a.
1984
last year for which this data series is
$35,866
$22,831
$13,035
63.7%
The Causes for the Changing Wage Gap, 1979-97
1985
$36,090
$23,305
$12,785
64.6%
available) because men's real earn-
Decreasing Female-Male Gap in Median Weekly Earnings
1986
$36,985
$23,770
$13,215
64.3%
ings continued to decline (see Figure
1987
$36,658
$23,893
$12,765
65.2%
% Change
% Change
1b and Table 1b). 3
1988
$36,165
$23,886
$12,278
66.1%
% Point
in Gap Due
in Gap Due
1989
$35,376
$24,294
$11,082
68.7%
The lack of growth in both
Change in
% Change in
% Change in
to Rising
to Falling
1990
$33,989
$24,341
$9,647
71.6%
Female/Male
Women's
Men's
Women's
Men's
women's and men's wages in the
1991
$34,670
$24,220
$10,450
69.9%
Year
Wage Ratio
Real Wages
Real Wages
Real Wages
Real Wages
1990s is especially disturbing, given
1992
$34,545
$24,453
$10,092
70.8%
1979-1989
-7.5%
7.6%
-4.0%
54.0%
46.0%
that the economy is now enjoying the
1993
$33,774
$24,155
$9,619
71.5%
longest period of sustained growth
1994
$33,415
$24,048
$9,367
72.0%
1989-1997
-4.4%
1.5%
-4.4%
19.4%
80.6%
since the end of World War II (27
1995
$33,170
$23,693
$9,477
71.4%
1979-1997
-11.9%
9.2%
-8.3%
41.0%
59.0%
1996
$32,882
$24,254
$8,628
73.8%
quarters since the trough of the busi-
Source. Institute for Women's Policy Research calculations based on the March Current Popualtion
Source: Institute for Women's Policy Research calculations based on Merged Earnings Files, Current Population Survey, Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S.
ness cycle in the first quarter of 1991).
Survey, U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1980-1997
Department of Labor, 1979-1997
Researc Brief
Stall in Women's Real Wage Growth
Slows Progress in Closing the Wage Gap
Since 1979, the wage gap between women and men has narrowed significantly, falling by more than 10
percentage points overall. At first glance, this seems like great news for women. However, it is misleading
to interpret this statistic as proof of a continuing and robust improvement in wages for today's working
women. First, the closing of the wage gap has slowed down considerably in the 1990s. Second, women's
real wages (wages adjusted for inflation¹) have stagnated in recent years.
In the 1990s, the remarkable success story of
women's rising real wages seen during the 1980s
Figure 1a. Full-Time Men and Women's
Real Median Weekly Earnings, 1979-1997
ended. Instead, stagnating real wages for women
(1997 Dollars)
has been the norm since the beginning of the
$650
1990s. Women's wage growth during the 1980s
differed dramatically from men's experience in
$600
the labor market (see Figure 1a, showing real
$550
median weekly earnings from 1979 to 1997 for
$500
women and men who work full-time²). While
$450
men's real wages fell overall, women's real
$400
wages increased substantially. Men who worked
$350
full-time lost $25 in weekly earnings (adjusted
Men
Women
for inflation) between 1979 and 1989 while
$300
1979
1981
1983
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
women gained $30 during the same period.
Year
These losses can be clearly seen in Figure la
Source: Institute for Women's Policy Research calculations based on the Merged Earnings Files,
which compares the 1979 wage levels (marked
Current Population Survey, Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, 1979-1997.
by straight lines extending from the 1979
earnings points across the graph) to the 1989
Figure 1b. Full-Time Men and Women's
earnings points.
Real Median Annual Earnings, 1979-1996
(1997 Dollars)
Between 1989 and 1997 women gained only
$40,000
$6 in real weekly earnings while men's earnings
$35,000
continued to decline (men lost $27; see Table 1a).
These losses for men can be clearly seen in
$30,000
Figure la by comparing the 1989 wage level,
marked by solid lines from the 1989 points
$25,000
extending across the graph, to the 1997 earnings
$20,000
point. In fact, the highest ratio of women's median
Men
Women
weekly earnings to men's earnings was in 1993
$15,000
(76.9%). The wage gap has actually increased
1979
1981
1983
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
Year
since that time, so that women in 1997 only earned
Source: Institute for Women's Policy Research calculations based on the March Current
74.4% of men's median weekly earnings.
Population Survey, U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1980-1997.
INSTITUTE FOR WOMEN'S POLICY RESEARCH
1400 20TH STREET N.W.
SUITE 104
WASHINGTON, D.C.
20036
(202) 785-5100
COMMITTEE
=
NATIONAL
Z
NATIONAL COMMITTEE
JUSTICE
A
YOU CAN
N
BANK ON
ON PAY EQUITY
=
EQUITY
=
1126 Sixteenth Street, NW Suite 411 Washington, DC 20036 (202) 331-7343 FAX (202) 331-7406
Wage Gap Briefing Materials
March 15, 1999
National Council of Women's Organizations
Women's Equality Summit
4477 $ 3400
Printing Courtesy of Service Employees International Union. AFL-CIO. CLC
COM
EE
=
Z
Z
NATIONAL COMMITTEE
JUSTICE
YOU CAN
N
BANK ON
ON PAY EQUITY
=
EQUITY
=
1126 Sixteenth Street, NW Suite 411 Washington, DC 20036 (202) 331-7343 FAX (202) 331-7406
THE WAGE GAP: 1997
1997 MEDIAN ANNUAL EARNINGS YEAR-ROUND,
NOTES:
FULL-TIME WORKERS
The wage gap is a statistical indicator often used
as an index of the status of women's earnings
relative to men's. It is also used to compare the
earnings of people of color to those of White men.
Wage Gap: 74.1%
The wage gap is expressed as a percentage (for
$33,674
example, in 1997, women earned 74 percent as much
35,000
as men) and is calculated by dividing median annual
30,000
$24,973
earnings for women by median annual earnings for
men.
Median Annual Earnings
25,000
20,000
To calculate the wage gap for each race/sex
15,000
group, median annual earnings are divided by those
of White males, who are not subject to race or sex-
10,000
based wage discrimination.
5,000
0
Individual earnings data for Asian/Pacific
Men
Women
Islanders and Native Americans are available, yet
they are from a very small sample and thus are not
as reliable.
Statistics are from the Census Bureau Current
1997 MEDIAN ANNUAL EARNINGS BY
Population Reports, Series P-60, U.S. Commerce
RACE AND SEX
Department.
THE WAGE GAP: 1997
BY RACE AND SEX
$40,000
$35,193
100%
$35,000
100.00%
$26,432
$30,000
25,331
90.00%
75.1%
$22,035
Median Annual Earnings
$21,615
71.9%
80.00%
61.4%
62.6%
$25,000
$18,973
$15,000
Earnings as a Percentage of
70.00%
53.99
$20,000
White Male
60.00%
Men
50.00%
Women
Men
40.00%
$10,000
30.00%
Women
$5,000
20.00%
10.00%
$0
0.00%
Hispanic
Black
White
Hispanic
Black
White
4477 S 3400
Printing Courtesy of Service Employees International Union. AFL-CIO. CLC
CHANGES IN THE WAGE GAP, 1970 - 1997
MEDIAN ANNUAL EARNINGS OF BLACK MEN AND WOMEN,
HISPANIC MEN AND WOMEN, AND WHITE WOMEN AS A
PERCENTAGE OF WHITE MEN'S MEDIAN ANNUAL EARNINGS
YEAR
WHITE
BLACK
HISPANIC
WHITE
BLACK
HISPANIC
MEN
MEN
MEN
WOMEN
WOMEN
WOMEN
1970
100%
69.00%
N/A
58.70%
48.20%
N/A
1975
100%
74.30%
72.10%
57.50%
55.40%
49.30%
1980
100%
70.70%
70.80%
58.90%
55.70%
50.50%
1985
100%
69.70%
68.00%
63.00%
57.10%
52.10%
1990
100%
73.10%
66.30%
69.40%
62.50%
54.30%
1992
100%
72.60%
63.35%
70.00%
64.00%
55.40%
1994
100%
75.10%
64.30%
71.60%
63.00%
55.60%
1995
100%
75.90%
63.30%
71.20%
64.20%
53.40%
1996
100%
80.00%
63.90%
73.30%
65.10%
56.60%
1997
100%
75.10%
61.40%
71.90%
62.60%
53.90%
THE WAGE GAP SINCE 1960: 37 YEARS LATER, STILL 26 PERCENT BEHIND
Median Earnings of Year-Round, Full-Time Workers by Sex: 1960 to 1997
40
35
Earnings in thousands of 1997 Dollars
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
1960
1962
1964
1966
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
Women
Men
Years
Over a 37 year period, the gap, in 1997 dollars, between women's and men's earnings has closed by less than $2,000.
Data from the Census Bureau, 1997
The National Committee on Pay Equity is a national membership coalition of over 200 organizations, including labor unions, women's and civil
rights organizations, religious, local, educational and professional associations, state and local pay equity networks, and individuals working to
eliminate sex and race-based wage discrimination and to achieve pay equity.
COMMITTEE
Z
JUSTICE
NATIONAL COMMITTEE
YOU CAN
Z
BANK ON
ON PAY EQUITY
=
EQUITY
=
1126 Sixteenth Street, NW Suite 411 Washington, DC 20036 (202) 331-7343 FAX (202) 331-7406
Profile of the Wage Gap by Selected Occupations
According to an analysis of data provided by the U.S. Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor
Statistics, women are paid less in almost every occupational classification for which data is
available.
1
Even in job categories where women make up the majority of workers, women are paid less.
Only in two categories, miscellaneous food preparation and legal assistant, do women make more
money. The women in miscellaneous food preparation average $6 more per week than men in the
same occupation. They earn 102% of men's earnings. Female legal assistants earn 104% of the
earnings of comparable men; they earn $20 more per week.
Below are median earnings for women and men in selected occupations. The earnings gap and
earnings ratio (as a percentage) are shown, as well as the percentage of workers in each
occupation who are women.
Table I.
Occupations with estimated earnings of under $20,000²
Percent
Men's
Women's
Earnings
Earnings
Occupation
Women
Wages
Wages
Gap
Ratio (%)
Waiter/
Waitress
72%
$343
$282
$61
82%
Cleaning &
Building Service
29%
$358
$288
$70
80%
Occupations.
Bartender
55%
$379
$293
$86
77%
Dry Cleaning
Machine
55%
$301
$270
$31
90%
Operators
1
Data was analyzed using 1998 Household Data Annual Averages, Bureau of Labor Statistics
2
Approximate Annual Earnings categories were estimated by multiplying median weekly wages for men by 52
weeks
4477 $ 3400
Printing Courtesy of Service Employees International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC
Table II.
Occupations with estimated earnings between $20,000 and $33,000
Percent
Men's
Women's
Earnings
Earnings
Occupation
Women
Wages
Wages
Gap
Ratio (%)
Bus Driver
41%
$476
$352
$124
74%
Sales Worker;
Retail & Personal
56%
$412
$272
$140
66%
Mechanics &
Repairers
4%
$599
$519
$80
87%
Admin. Support,
incl. clerical
76%
$518
$418
$100
81%
Construction
Trades
2%
$545
$408
$137
75%
Table III.
Occupations with estimated earnings above $33,000
Percent
Men's
Women's
Earnings
Earnings
Occupation
Women
Wages
Wages
Gap
Ratio (%)
Accountants &
Auditors
60%
$821
$618
$203
75%
Securities &
Financial
31%
$930
$598
$332
64%
Services Sales
Pharmacists
42%
$1,146
$985
$161
86%
Engineers
10%
$1,011
$831
$180
82%
Physicians
32%
$1,255
$966
$289
77%
Teachers,
College & Univ.
37%
$998
$769
$229
77%
Lawyers
34%
$1,350
$951
$399
70%
Editors and
Reporters
44%
$812
$616
$196
76%
Table IV.
Other Occupations in Which the Majority of Workers Women
Percent
Men's
Women's
Earnings
Earnings
Occupation
Women
Wages
Wages
Gap
Ratio (%)
Registered
Nurse
91%
$774
$734
$40
95%
Social Worker
65%
$609
$568
$41
93%
Elementary
School Teacher
84%
$749
$677
$72
90%
Secretaries,
Stenographers,
98%
$484
$436
$48
90%
& Typists
Cashiers
75%
$302
$259
$43
86%
=
COMMITTEE
=
O
NATIONAL
Z
NATIONAL COMMITTEE
JUSTICE
A
YOU CAN
Y
Z
BANK ON
ON PAY EQUITY
=
EQUITY
=
1126 Sixteenth Street, NW Suite 411 Washington, DC 20036 (202) 331-7343 FAX (202) 331-7406
The Wage Gap By Education
1997
Following are wages reflecting the median earnings in 1997 for full-time, year-round workers 25
years and older:
H.S. Grad
B.A. Degree
Master's
Doctorate
All Men
$30,655
$46,255
$57,553
$70,706
White
$31,195
$47,220
$60,081
$71,423
Black
$25,790
$35,962
$42,125
$61,573*
Hispanic
$24,021
$37,725
$44,702
$42,082*
All Women
$21,291
$33,432
$41,856
$50,758
White
$21,602
$33,896
$41,884
$52,653
Black
$19,993
$31,010
$40,589
$40,342*
Hispanic
$19,247
$31,993
$41,554*
$55,956*
*Indicates that numbers are taken from a small sample and therefore not as reliable.
Overall this table shows:
Women college graduates are behind white male college graduates by $13,788.
A black college educated woman earns $16,210 (34%) less than the college educated white
male and $185 less than the white male high school graduate.
A Hispanic college educated woman makes $15,227 less (32%) than college educated white
males.
4477 $ 3400
Printing Courtesy of Service Employees International Union, AFL-CIO. CLC
Median Annual Female and Male Earnings by Dollar and Ratio
for Full-Time, Full-Year Employed Men and Women
Female
Male
Female/Male
Ratio
State
Earnings
Earnings
Ratio
Ranking
Alabama
$ 20,577
$ 32,490
63.3%
50
Alaska
$ 31,380
$ 47,327
66.3%
44
Arizona
$ 21,906
31,407
69.7%
33
Arkansas
$ 20,577
$ 26,835
76.7%
4
California
$ 28,158
$ 36,860
76.4%
5
Colorado
$ 24,749
$ 37,038
66.8%
42
Connecticut
$ 30,541
$ 43,212
70.7%
29
Delaware
$ 25,721
$ 33,952
75.8%
7
District of Columbia
$ 30,865
35,281
87.5%
1
Florida
$ 23,169
$ 30,541
75.9%
6
Georgia
$ 23,169
$ 32,648
71.0%
27
Hawaii
$ 25,276
$ 33,789
74.8%
10
Idaho
$ 22,223
$ 31,594
70.3%
30
Illinois
$ 26,329
$ 37,176
70.8%
28
Indiana
$ 21,606
$ 32,490
66.5%
43
Iowa
$ 21,606
$ 31,647
68.3%
37
Kansas
$ 23,581
$ 32,490
72.6%
19
Kentucky
$ 22,635
$ 32,490
69.7%
33
Lousiana
$ 20,235
$ 31,407
64.4%
48
Maine
$ 21,906
$ 32,450
67.5%
41
Maryland
$ 29,241
$ 38,988
75.0%
9
Massachusetts
$ 28,808
$ 39,096
73.7%
15
Michigan
$ 25,721
$ 38,988
66.0%
45
Minnesota
$ 24,909
$ 34,981
71.2%
25
Mississippi
$ 19,494
$ 27,779
70.2%
31
Missouri
$ 23,663
$ 31,732
74.6%
11
Montana
$ 21,606
$ 29,488
73.3%
17
Nebraska
$ 20,577
$ 28,808
71.4%
23
Nevada
$ 24,909
$ 33,701
73.9%
14
INSTITUTE FOR WOMEN'S POLICY RESEARCH
1400 20TH STREET N.W.
SUITE 104
WASHINGTON, D.C.
20036
(202) 785-5100
Female
Male
Female/Male
Ratio
State
Earnings
Earnings
Ratio
Ranking
New Hampshire
$ 25,992
$ 35,309
73.6%
16
New Jersey
$ 28,435
41,877
67.9%
40
New Mexico
21,606
$ 29,782
72.5%
21
New York
$ 27,400
$ 36,822
74.4%
12
North Carolina
$ 22,635
$ 30,527
74.1%
13
North Dakota
$ 19,548
$ 30,541
64.0%
49
Ohio
24,692
35,739
69.1%
36
Oklahoma
$ 19,852
$ 31,380
63.3%
50
Oregon
24,909
35,807
69.6%
35
Pennsylvania
$ 25,450
$ 35,739
71.2%
25
Rhode Island
26,750
$ 36,860
72.6%
19
South Carolina
$ 21,606
$ 30,865
70.0%
32
South Dakota
21,063
$ 27,382
76.9%
3
Tennessee
$ 22,743
$ 31,594
72.0%
22
Texas
$ 23,196
$ 30,865
75.2%
8
Utah
$ 22,116
$ 32,490
68.1%
39
Vermont
$ 25,276
$ 30,865
81.9%
2
Virginia
$ 24,692
$ 34,656
71.3%
24
Washington
27,075
$ 37,038
73.1%
18
West Virginia
21,063
$ 32,490
64.8%
46
Wisconsin
$ 24,201
$ 35,414
68.3%
37
Wyoming
$ 21,063
$ 32,490
64.8%
46
US Total
24,909
$ 34,438
72.3%
Source: Institute for Women's Policy Research, 1998. The Status of Women in the States.
The calculations are based on the 1995-97 annual Demographic Files (March) from the Current Population Survey,
which reports earnings for the calendar years 1994-1996. Median yearly earnings are calculated for noninstitutionalized
women and men aged 16 and older who worked full-time, year-round (more than 49 weeks during the year and more
than 34 hours per week). Earnings are converted to constant 1997 dollars using the Consumer Price Index.
For more information on IWPR Reports or Membership
please call (202) 785-5100 or visit our website at http://www.iwpr.org
The Institute for Women's Policy Research (IWPR) is a public policy research organization dedicated to in-
forming and stimulating the debate on public policy issues of critical importance to women and their families.
IWPR focuses on issues of poverty and welfare, affirmative action and pay equity, employment and earnings, work
and family issues, and the economic and social aspects of health care and domestic violence.
The Institute works with policymakers, scholars, and public interest groups around the country to design,
execute, and disseminate research that illuminates economic and social policy issues affecting women and fami-
lies, and to build a network of individuals and organizations that conduct and use women-oriented policy research.
IWPR, an independent, nonprofit organization, also works in affiliation with the graduate programs in public
policy and women's studies at the George Washington University.