Re:Gender works to end gender inequity and discrimination against girls and women by exposing root causes and advancing research-informed action. Working with multiple sectors and disciplines, we are shaping a world that demands fairness across difference.
Researchers at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) analyzed grant applications to determine whether there is a correlation between the sex of the applicants and the award of NIH grant funding. The study determined that success and funding rates for men and women were not significantly different in most award programs and that, in programs where participation was lower for women than men, the disparity was primarily related to a lower percentage of women applicants compared with men, rather than decreased success rates or funding rates.
Longitudinal analysis showed that men with previous experience as NIH grantees had higher application and funding rates than women at similar career points. On average, women received larger R01 awards, which are the "gold standard" of NIH funding, than men, but men had more R01 awards than women at all points in their careers.
Purpose: The authors provide an analysis of sex differences in National Institutes of Health (NIH) award programs to inform potential initiatives for promoting diversity in the research workforce.
Method: In 2010, the authors retrieved data for NIH extramural grants in the electronic Research Administration Information for Management, Planning, and Coordination II database and used statistical analysis to determine any sex differences in securing NIH funding, as well as subsequent success of researchers who had already received independent NIH support.
Results: Success and funding rates for men and women were not significantly different in most award programs. Furthermore, in programs where participation was lower for women than men, the disparity was primarily related to a lower percentage of women applicants compared with men, rather than decreased success rates or funding rates. However, for subsequent grants, both application and funding rates were generally higher for men than for women.
Conclusions: Cross-sectional analysis showed that women and men were generally equally successful at all career stages, but longitudinal analysis showed that men with previous experience as NIH grantees had higher application and funding rates than women at similar career points. On average, although women received larger R01 awards than men, men had more R01 awards than women at all points in their careers. Therefore, while greater participation of women in NIH programs is under way, further action will be required to eradicate remaining sex differences.
According to a survey of the new partner class of 2011 released by the Project for Attorney Retention (PAR), law firms slid two percentage points in promotions of their women attorneys since last year, 32% compared to 34% in 2010.
From the press release:
In 2010, the National Association of Women Lawyers reported that while women comprise about 60% of staff attorneys, only 15% of equity partners are women. This is not good news for firms. As a recent MCCA study found, law firms with proportionate representation of women from staff attorneys through equity partner levels outperformed disproportionate firms by $20 million.
The report also lists all the firms included in the survey and their percentage of female new partners.
Project for Attorney Retention at UC Hastings College of the Law
The Accounting MOVE Project is produced by strategic communication firm Wilson-Taylor Associates, Inc., in partnership with the American Society of Women Accountants (ASWA) and the American Woman’s Society of Certified Public Accountants (AWSCPA). The report finds that over half of today's accounting graduates are women and that firms are going to have to adapt to the new face of the profession.
From the report:
2011 Key Findings and Recommendations
Millennials want to invest in their careers at firms — on their own terms.
Male millennials expect women to be business leaders and change agents.
Women millennials expect male peers to be equitably included in all development and work-life programs
Women have made incremental gains at the top level.
Business development programs should be customized for all professional employees, including new associates.
Business development programs should pay for themselves — right away.
Build on Transparency
Open, clear reporting about the progress of a firm's women builds credibility.
The “self deselection” dynamic is disarmed by open communication.
Millennials expect honest dialogue about all MOVE topics, including compensation structures.
Small is Strong
Women expect to gain partner-track skills more quickly at regional and local firms.
Local and small regional firms should use association-sponsored programs as the nucleus for women's initiatives and business development programs.
Some of the most powerful advancement and retention tools cost nothing.
This American Express OPEN publication bridges the gap between the quinquennial Survey of Business Owners conducted by the U. S. Census Bureau. The report offers an up-to-date accounting of the state of women-owned businesses in the United States in 2011. Using data from the three most recent business census surveys (1997, 2002, and 2007)—the most recent of which was just published in December 2010—this report provides estimates of the number, employment and revenues of women-owned firms as of 2011. Data are reported at the national level in total, and by industry, revenue and employment size class. Trends at the state level are also reported.
Highlights from the Executive Summary:
As of 2011, it is estimated that there are over 8.1 million women-owned businesses in the United States, generating nearly $1.3 trillion in revenues and employing nearly 7.7 million people.
Between 1997 and 2011, when the number of businesses in the United States increased by 34%, the number of women-owned firms increased by 50%—a rate 1½ times the national average.
Despite the fact that the number of womenowned firms continue to grow at a rate exceeding the national average, and account for 29% of all enterprises, women-owned firms only employ 6% of the country’s workforce and contribute just under 4% of business revenues . Further, the employment and sales growth of women-owned enterprises between 1997 and 2011 (8% and 53%, respectively) lags the national average (17% and 71%).
The full results and reflections from the Diversifying the Leadership of women’s centers project are available for PDF download.
While participants in this project on Diversifying the Leadership of women’s centers were focused on their own very different institutional realities, their work – like other Council work in the area of diversity, institutional change, and leadership – shares common threads and carries some common lessons:
The full analysis of the Diversity & Inclusion project's Strategies, Outcomes and Lessons Learned.
The May 2011 report from the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board finds that women have made many advances in federal government employment but also still find many challenges in the progress toward equality.
From the Executive Summary:
There have been many changes in American society since [the 1992 report, A Question of Equity: Women and the Glass Ceiling in the Federal Government,], and those changes have been mirrored in the Federal Government. Over the past two decades, the Federal Government has made substantial progress in hiring and advancing women in the Federal workforce. More women are employed in positions in professional and administrative occupations, which offer the greatest opportunities for pay and advancement. Increases in the representation of women in the executive ranks have outpaced projections from MSPB’s 1992 study. Pay differences between women and men have been considerably reduced.
These tangible gains have been accompanied by substantial, if less visible, improvements in Federal workplaces and the work lives of Federal employees. Fewer women believe that they have been subjected to overt or subtle discrimination at work. MSPB’s analysis of General Schedule promotion rates supports a belief that the prevalence and force of stereotypical assumptions about the abilities and appropriate roles of women have greatly diminished. Although women and men can differ in career factors such as occupation, family responsibilities, geographic mobility, and interest in supervisory roles, women are about as likely as men to be promoted when factors such as occupation, experience, and education are held equal.
Contributors to this progress include changes in American society that have expanded the opportunities available to women and changes in the civilian labor force that have expanded the pool of highly-qualified women in many occupations. Within the Federal Government, those changes are reflected in diminishing differences between women and men in important characteristics such as education and experience. That trend, combined with a continued interest in career advancement among women in the Federal Government, bodes well for future gains in the representation of women at the highest levels of pay and responsibility, including the Senior Executive Service. Much credit is also due to agency efforts to recruit and advance women, to reduce the incidence of prohibited discrimination, to provide greater flexibility in work arrangements, and to focus on contributions and skills—rather than on indirect and unreliable indicators of performance and dedication such as time spent in the office or irrelevant factors such as marital status and family responsibilities—when evaluating and promoting employees.
Still, progress toward full equality is not yet complete. Women remain less likely than men to be employed in high-paying occupations and supervisory positions. That reflects, in part, continuing occupational differences between women and men in the Federal workforce and the broader civilian labor force. Women have made great strides in entering occupations such as physician and attorney, but remain relatively scarce in fields such as law enforcement, information technology, and engineering—fields important to the current and future Federal workforce. Also, even within a given occupation, women often have lower salaries than men, and those salary differences cannot be fully explained by differences in measurable factors such as experience and education.
Agencies and stakeholders should also be aware that future progress may come less easily than past progress. First, occupational differences persist between women and men in both American society and Federal workplaces. Such occupational differences can complicate recruitment and create glass walls—barriers to movement across organizations, functions, or occupations—within the Federal workforce, resulting in different opportunities for women and men even if they are comparable in terms of educational attainment, years of experience, and performance. Second, agencies have increased their use of external hiring and upper-level hiring to fill positions in professional and administrative occupations. Women are increasingly successful in employment competitions of all types, reflecting diminishing differences in critical factors such as education, experience, and career interests. Nevertheless, for a variety of reasons, women are generally less likely to be hired when an agency fills a position through external (as opposed to internal) recruitment or fills a position at upperlevel instead of entry-level.
Also, sex-based discrimination and stereotypes have not yet completely disappeared. Even in the absence of overt discrimination, many employees continue to believe that women are subjected to unfounded assumptions about their abilities or dedication to work. However, most issues that are critical to the fair treatment and advancement of women are universal. For example, concerns about the role of favoritism in personnel decisions are widespread and shared equally by women and men. Other issues important to both women and men include the recruitment and selection of supervisors, career management (e.g., helping employees understand what is required to advance), and balancing demanding jobs with life/family responsibilities.
In Risk and Reward: Black Women Leading Out on a Limb, the League of Black women report that due to insufficient support from the Feminist Movement, professional Black women continue to fall dramatically short of the career goals they aim for. According to the national leadership survey, their due rewards and recognition are missing, given the time and effort they put in – and the risk they assume – to achieve at the highest levels.
From the press release:
Black women are high risk takers, but support of feminist values and 40-plus years of diversity and inclusion efforts have failed to translate into the rewards and recognition they had expected for their risk investments, according to a new study by the League of Black Women.
Nearly half (49 percent) of respondents to the groundbreaking Risk and Reward Survey said they were behind where they had expected to be in their careers. The majority (64 percent) said "Not getting paid what I am worth" is the key barrier to their personal and professional well-being, followed by "lack of other Black women in positions of power" and "lack of resources and opportunities to pursue my goals."
The survey also found that Black women get the least encouragement for risk taking at work and in their communities; they feel the least freedom to take risk in matters of public policy.
A report from the Center for Women in Government & Civil Society at Rockefeller College of Public Affairs & Policy at SUNY Albany finds that women make up 23% of all federal judgeships and 27% of all state-level judgeships. Vermont leads the nation with 40% of positions held by women; Idaho has the fewest women judges at only 11%.
Highlights: Women on Federal and State Benches in 2011 (from the report)
No state has achieved equal representation of women (50% of all seats) in either federal or state-level judgeships.
In the U.S., women make up 23% of all federal judgeships and 27% of all state-level positions. This represents an overall 1% increase from 2010 levels, which were 22% and 26% respectively.
In 2011, women accounted for 26.6% of both federal and state-level judgeships.
Compared with their 2010 levels, women’s share of federal and state judgeships has increased in 65% of states, remained at the same levels in 22% of states, and decreased in 14% of states.
Vermont retained its first place ranking in terms of the percentage of women on federal and state benches. With 40% of seats occupied by women on its federal and state benches, Vermont is approaching parity.
Idaho also retained its 2010 last place ranking among other states. Only 11% of seats on federal and state benches are occupied by women.
Center for Women in Government & Civil Society, Rockefeller College of Public Affairs & Policy, SUNY Albany
According to a report from the Alliance for Board Diversity, women and minorities continue to be underrepresented in positions of power in American corporations.
“White men held 73 percent of board seats at Fortune 100 companies last year, up from 71 percent in 2004, according to the alliance, which advocates the inclusion of women and minorities on corporate boards. White women accounted for 15 percent in 2010, compared with 14 percent in 2004, while minorities made up 13 percent, down from 15 percent.
Citigroup, International Business Machines Corpt. (IBM) and Procter & Gamble Co. (PG were among just 15 companies in the Fortune 500 whose boards last year had representation from each of the U.S. Census Bureau’s major groups: men, women, Whites, African Americans, Asian Pacific Islanders and Hispanics, the alliance said.”
In 2003, with support from the Ford Foundation, the National Council for Research on Women undertook a project to explore the impact of leadership on diversity in institutions of higher education. The project was designed to identify best practices for enhancing diversity among students, staff, faculty, and within the curriculum; to identify leadership models provided by administrators and faculty that create and sustain greater diversity; and to analyze the institutional architecture necessary to support those practices. The analysis was to be based on the actual experiences of higher education leaders, their visions and strategies as identified in site visits to campuses and in the latest data and scholarship on diversity and leadership.