How are Women and Girls Faring in California? Check out the Women’s Well-Being Index

Are you an elected official? A social service provider or advocate? Perhaps you’re a philanthropist deciding where your donation can make the most difference.

Or maybe you’re just a run-of-the mill numbers nerd (like me).

If you’re any of the above, it’s well worth your time to dive into the data in the Women’s Well-Being Index – and check out how women and girls are faring in California.

An update of the online Index – developed by the California Budget and Policy Center in partnership with the Women’s Foundation of California – was released in a webinar this week.

CBPC’s Senior Policy Analyst Kristin Schumacher took the lead to develop the Index and accompanying issue briefs in four areas: Work Supports, Boosting Income, Building Wealth, and Safety Net.

What makes the Index particularly powerful is that it provides data for all 58 California counties, with multiple indicators for women’s health, personal safety, employment and earnings, economic security, and political empowerment.

The Index also ranks counties, and you can download county fact sheets.

For Sacramento, where I live, I learned we rank in the top 10 for only one indicator: mental health status. Just over 7 percent of women age 18 and over experienced serious psychological distress in the past year, placing us 7th out of the state’s 58 counties.

On a far less positive note, Sacramento ranked in the bottom 10 on 3 indicators: women’s commute time (52nd), hospital visits due to assault (52nd), and neighborhood safety (49th), the percentage of women who feel safe in their neighborhood all or most of their time.

Some of the Index’s statewide findings are especially alarming: In every age group, California women are more likely than men to live in poverty. And poverty is significantly greater for women who are African American (21.4%), Native American (21.3%); and Latinx (18.3%) than for women who are Asian & Pacific Islander (11.7%) or white (10.4%).

And consider these statistics for single mothers: On average, 60% of a single mom’s median income is needed to pay fair market rent, and 67.2% is needed for child care for an infant and school-age child.

Surina Khan, who directs the Women’s Foundation of California, points out that these “combined costs for housing and child care add up to more than 100% of median income in every county in California – which means there is nothing left over for other basic necessities like food, transportation and clothing. That’s why people are going into debt.”

Be sure to check out the Women’s Well-Being Index. You don’t have to be a numbers nerd to realize it’s a terrific tool for research, policy analysis and understanding more about the lives of women and girls in California.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Gerson’s Three-Point Sermon Needs a PostScript

Conservative Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson writes that “religious conservatives have become a corporate sponsor of Trumpism, like Visa at the Olympics” – which is, without doubt, the best line I’ve read post-election.

Even better, the three points Gerson offers up in his “uninvited sermon” are thoughtful and deserve wide discussion in the evangelical community.

But it’s pretty shocking there wasn’t a fourth point – a sign of a serious blind spot in the roster of conservative priorities and sensibilities.

Let’s turn first to Gerson’s advice, starting with his first point about nativism and immigrants:

First, it is a fact – one of those real facts – that Trump’s brand is associated with nativism, particularly the dehumanization of illegal immigrants (as rapists and murderers) and the otherization of Muslims (as internal and external threats). Evangelicals in the governing coalition need to find a way to demonstrate that this was not the reason they supported Trump – that their hard choice was motivated by other, nobler causes

His second point is about freedom of speech applying to all:

Second, evangelicals must utterly reject the idea that the protections of the First Amendment apply to them but not fully to Muslims.

Finally, Gerson raises a red flag about the danger religions face when they affiliate with a political group:

Third, conservative Christians need to remember that – throughout the cautionary tale of Western history – when religion identified with a political order, it is generally not the political order that suffers most. It is the reputation of the faith.

What’s missing from this provocative, heartfelt troika of advice?

Any mention of Mr. Trump’s sexist language and behavior. Any concern expressed about Trump’s pattern of demeaning and predatory behavior with women.

Who can forget how Trump’s smarminess was so succinctly summarized by Megyn Kelly at the August 2015 Republican debate:

“You’ve called women you don’t like ‘fat pigs,’ ‘dogs,’ ‘slobs’ and ‘disgusting animals.’ …

Who can forget the tapes from Access Hollywood or the Miss Universe pageant?

It’s particularly perplexing that Mr. Gerson’s column was published in the Post two days following the Women’s March on Washington, a time when millions of Americans were raising up concerns about civility, sexism, and equal access and opportunity.

Mr. Gerson’s three-point sermon is a thoughtful homily that deserves consideration for many Sundays to come.

But the sermon needs a postscript: Conservative Christians must also demonstrate that their political support of Mr. Trump doesn’t indicate an endorsement of secondary status for women and girls – or in any way communicate that respectful treatment of women and girls is negotiable.

10 CSU Campuses that have Never had a Woman President

My recent Op-Ed in the Sacramento Bee identified 10 CSU campuses that have never had a woman president.  Here’s the full list:

  1. Bakersfield
  2. Channel Islands
  3. Chico
  4. Fresno
  5. Los Angeles
  6. Sacramento
  7. San Bernardino
  8. San Diego
  9. San Francisco
  10. San Luis Obispo

The Chart Tells All: Women Presidents of Color Under-Represented at CSU

Are you a statistics nerd? 

My recent Sacramento Bee op-ed — Cal State system has a major gender diversity problem — took a careful look at gender and race/ethnicity.

Below is a chart I put together that shows the representation of male and female CSU presidents — white, African-American, Latino, Asian — compared to their representation in California’s adult population.

The major take-aways?  Men from all backgrounds are over-represented.  Women of color are under-represented.  White women are at parity – but only because of the one-year interim appointment of Susan Martin as president of San Jose State University.