Women's Draft Agenda
2001 - 2002

Acknowledgements

The Draft Agenda is the result of many hours of research, writing and editing by dedicated people who continually provide support to NC Equity and our efforts.  We would like to express our sincere appreciation for your information, contributions, and commitment producing the Women’s Draft Agenda 2001-2002.  Many thanks go as well to the Rockefeller Family Fund, the Z. Smith Reynolds Foundation and to our members for their ongoing encouragement and financial support to secure economic strength for North Carolina women and families.

Special Thanks to...

NC Equity Board of Directors
NC Equity Staff

Contributors

Access to Health Care

Adolescent Pregnancy

Aging

Child Care

Civil Rights and Hate Crimes

Clean Elections

Economic Development (includes women-owned businesses, nontraditional jobs for women, and work and family balance)

Economic Self-Sufficiency (includes welfare reform, housing, and transportation)

Living Wage

Pay Equity

Violence Against Women

Draft Agenda Articles

Access to Health Care

In 1997 the North Carolina General Assembly established the Office of Women's Health to "expand the state's public health concerns and focus to include a comprehensive outlook on the overall health status of women. The primary goals of the Office shall be the prevention of disease and improvement in the quality of life for women over their entire life span.” In addition, the Office was specifically directed to "study the feasibility of establishing initiatives for: (1) Early intervention services for women afflicted with HIV; and (2) Outreach, treatment and follow up services to women at high risk for contracting sexually transmitted diseases.” (S.L. 1997-172, Senate Bill 626)

In 1998 the Office held eleven focus groups across the State, published the State's first Women's Health Report Card, and held the 1998 Women's Health Summit entitled "Vision and Strategies for a Healthier Tomorrow.” According to the report card, reported cases of HIV/AIDS among all women per 100,000 population more than doubled from 9.4 in 1990 to 19.9 in 1996. The greatest increase was noted in African American women, from 35.3 in 1990 to 78.0 in 1996, whereas the rates for white women increased from 2.3 in 1990 to 3.7 in 1996. Therefore, the Office held the 1999 North Carolina Women's Health Mini- Summit, "Developing a Message for the New Millennium,” which was dedicated to the issues surrounding HIV/AIDS/STDs and women. A partnership was also formed with the HIV/STD Branch to hold the 1999 statewide conference entitled, “Renewing Hope for Communities: North Carolina's Response to the HIV/STD Epidemic.” The second day of the three-day conference was Women’s Day, when the concentration was on issues affecting women and their families.

Data collected by the National Office of Women’s Health, DHHS, and Women’s Health Data by State and US territory suggest that the #1 killer of all North Carolina women is cardiovascular disease, which includes heart disease and stroke.  The #2 killer of North Carolina women is cancer, with lung cancer killing more white women and breast cancer killing more black women.  And the #3 killer of North Carolina women varies by race.  For white women it is accidents; for African American women it is diabetes.

The focus groups conducted in 1998 identified women with disabilities as another special group needing specific attention.  Women with disabilities stated that they have difficulty accessing health care and finding health care providers who are sensitive to their needs.  In response, the North Carolina Office on Disability and Health along with the North Carolina Office of Women's Health produced and distributed "A Provider's Guide for the Care of Women with Physical Disabilities and Chronic Medical Conditions," which addresses issues specific to this population.

Attention to the "unhealthy" status of women is everyone's responsibility.  Collaborative efforts between the public and private sector are required to assure that North Carolina women have access to and receive appropriate health care.

As a preventative and educational approach to improving the status of women’s health, the challenge is to identify the women at greater risk and inform them of their risks and ways to improve their health.  Groups of women who have special risks and/or needs must also be identified.  The data indicates overwhelmingly that black women in North Carolina have increased death rates in disease categories that their white counterparts do not share. 

Recommendations for Action

• Assure that all women are offered appropriate screening at appropriate intervals and that all women know what are the signs and symptoms of the leading killers of women and where to seek care and/or screening.
  

• Target special groups of women with efforts to assist them to assure that they receive appropriate treatment culturally sensitive to their needs. 
  

• Obtain adequate funding for the Office of Women’s Health for disseminating health information, for wellness promotion and for implementing recommendations of Women’s Health Summit. 
  

• Provide increased funding for Sexually Transmitted Disease and HIV/AIDS programs; institute a special HIV/AIDS prevention program targeted at minority women; increase funding for care and treatment. 
  

• Increase funding for mental health and substance abuse services. 
  

• Provide adequate, accessible family planning services and information to under-served women. 
  

• Increase the State Abortion Fund and remove restrictions on it.

 Back to the Issues List

The new millennium may be a turning point for adolescent pregnancy and births in North Carolina.  The state’s seven-year decline in pregnancies for the 10-19-year-old age group has started to level off.  According to selected health indicators compiled by the State Center for Health and Environmental Statistics, 21,641 young women ages 10-19 became pregnant in North Carolina in 1998.  Total pregnancies for 1998 represent an increase over the 1997 figures.  The pregnancy rate, however, is the same for both years, thus indicating a leveling off of the once downward trend.  The rate is based on the number of pregnancies per 1,000 young women in the 10-19 age bracket and is an accurate predictor of changes.  Of the 1998 reported pregnancies, 15,653 resulted in live births, 5,832 resulted in abortions, and there were 156 fetal deaths.

In addition to the changes in number of pregnancies, the state’s demographics are changing, and the growth in the Hispanic population is particularly significant.  The Hispanic student population in North Carolina was 22,299 in 1996.  In 1998 only two years later, the number increased by 48% to 32,902.  The state had the eighth highest birth rate among Hispanic teenagers ages 15 to 17 of any state in the country in 1994.  These statistics are particularly alarming because Hispanic teens are far more likely to suspend their education because of a pregnancy than African-Americans and Whites.  The Adolescent Pregnancy Prevention Coalition of North Carolina’s Hispanic Outreach Project is working to provide bilingual pregnancy prevention educational materials and is developing effective means of reaching this population.  Most health departments throughout the state have at least part-time interpreters, and existing pregnancy prevention programs are open to anyone.  However, additional initiatives are needed for this growing population that has its own unique problems.

In spite of the changes that are taking place in the state, the emotional, social, and economic impact of a single out-of-wedlock pregnancy and birth remain constant.  Out-of-wedlock pregnancies and births forever alter the lives of young women and men, families, and communities.  There is no single or simple solution to preventing adolescent pregnancy because there is no single reason such pregnancies occur.  There are several important factors associated with adolescent pregnancy and its causes.  Those factors include the following: (1) Its causes are multifaceted, (2) It can affect any young woman irrespective of income or race, (3) Physical and sexual abuse play a major role, (4) Adults -- not the peers of adolescent girls who become pregnant -- are the fathers in 85% of the cases, (5) Rape is a factor, and (6) Income and educational level are factors as well.  Since the problem itself is multifaceted, approaches to solving or lessening the problem must be multifaceted as well.  For maximum impact and success, prevention initiatives should be coordinated, long-term, and sustained.

Until two years ago, uncoordinated efforts to get various prevention programs in place and funded were driven by local communities and the Adolescent Pregnancy Prevention Coalition of North Carolina.  Today, the state is assuming an important role.  As anticipated, welfare reform and the Federal Government's emphasis on the reduction of out-of-wedlock births have moved North Carolina toward a more statewide, comprehensive approach for addressing the problems of adolescent pregnancy and out-of-wedlock births.  North Carolina still does not have a plan that includes the entire state, but progress is being made.  Public officials in North Carolina, like those in many states, have used public assistance funds to invest in proven and innovative voluntary pregnancy prevention programs using the flexibility given to states by Congress when the country’s welfare system was reformed.  For example, using $4 million in TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) Block Grant funds that were appropriated by the General Assembly over a period of time, the Department of Health and Human Services’ Women’s Preventative Health Branch set up a multi-component Teen Pregnancy Prevention Initiative.  Through this initiative, and in collaboration with the Adolescent Pregnancy Prevention Coalition of North Carolina, technical assistance is provided to the projects, and funds are provided to counties with the highest teen pregnancy rates so those counties can replicate the "best practices" prevention models in order to reduce their number of adolescent pregnancies.

Additionally, through welfare reform changes adopted by the NC General Assembly in 1999, counties are allowed to remove all income restrictions for such services as pregnancy prevention, child protection, family preservation, job-retention, and tracking and follow-up activities.  This allows a broader population to be reached with prevention efforts.

Along with the new initiatives spun from public assistance money, the state’s long-term pregnancy prevention programs continue to be the following: (1) Adolescent Pregnancy Prevention Program (APPP), now consisting of 22 programs that range from school-based health centers to programs that address male responsibility, and (2) Adolescent Parenting Program serving 30 counties in providing supportive services for teenage parents, helping them finish high school and prevent subsequent pregnancies.  Fifty school-based and school-linked health centers currently exist; of those, fourteen are state funded.  These centers provide a minimal level of pregnancy prevention/reproductive health services.  The centers’ reproductive health services include abstinence counseling, treatment of sexually transmitted diseases, and pregnancy testing, and diagnosis.  These services account for only 4.9 percent of student visits to such centers in North Carolina.

Another major component of North Carolina’s pregnancy prevention efforts is the mandated comprehensive school health education program.  This includes objectives for instruction in a variety of health subject areas such as preventing sexually transmitted diseases including AIDS and other communicable diseases, and abstinence until marriage.  Local school systems are allowed to teach sex education, but there is no mandate to include sexuality education as one of the health subject areas.  Such a mandate does exist for teaching abstinence until marriage education.  Passage of the legislation to mandate the teaching of abstinence-until-marriage education as a health subject area has prompted some school systems to curtail more comprehensive sexuality education.  In some extreme instances, public school personnel have been prohibited from discussing topics of a sexual nature, even AIDS prevention.  Some heath educators and experts in pregnancy prevention fear this retrenchment in schools will result in increasing numbers of pregnancies and out-of-wedlock births.  That fear is justified when one considers the fact that most pregnancy prevention educational efforts occur in schools.

While progress is being made to broaden and use collaborative approaches to pregnancy prevention, new efforts are underway that could threaten prevention initiatives’ ability to serve adolescents.  County commissioners in at least six counties have adopted resolutions calling upon the General Assembly and the Governor to repeal G.S. 90-21.5 — the law governing minors’ consent for health services in areas such as sexually transmitted diseases, pregnancy, abuse of controlled substances or alcohol, and emotional disturbance.  Without this statute, the effectiveness of pregnancy prevention initiatives would be reduced and adolescent health care could be compromised.  Public policies should encourage adolescents to seek timely, professional health care since many adolescents fail to do so because they do not want their parents to find out.  Among the minors who do not inform parents, one-third have experienced family violence and fear it will recur.  Every adolescent does not have a supportive family, and in some instances, it is not safe for the adolescent to talk about sensitive issues with the family.

Recommendations for Action

• Increasing or directing more funds toward primary and secondary pregnancy prevention, thus allowing more counties to participate in such programs and developing more collaborative efforts to address the problem among special populations and ethnic groups.

• Continuing and/or expanding funding for adolescent health care centers.

• Supporting age-appropriate and developmentally appropriate comprehensive sexuality education and abstinence-based sexuality educational programs that are accurate and honest, that promote healthy, positive and responsible decisions and that respect the values and the rights of all individuals. 

• Mandating and funding the teaching of comprehensive family life/sexuality education from kindergarten through the 9th grade, working within the frame work of G.S. 115C-81 [e1], comprehensive school health education.

• Safeguarding adolescents’ access to reproductive health services and maintaining G.S. 90-21.5, which is for some adolescents, critical to improving their health and preventing future health problems.

• Providing the funds for public awareness campaigns to help make teens more aware of the negative consequences arising from unintended, out-of-wedlock pregnancies.

• Placing more emphasis on male responsibility and making the public aware of statutory rape laws through public awareness campaigns.

• Conducting studies to (1) examine the reasons why young women become pregnant, (2) examine the extent to which sexual abuse and statutory rape affect early initiation of sexual activity and unintended pregnancies, and (3) examine ages of fathers of the babies born to adolescent mothers, using the results of the studies to adjust prevention programs and to alter laws, if necessary.

Aging issues that have received public attention are the difficulty low-income elderly persons have in affording prescription drugs, the problem of hiring and retaining competent aides in assisted living facilities and nursing homes, and new proposals for grading or accrediting adult care homes (more popularly known as rest homes or assisted living). 

To address the problem in affording prescription drugs, the General Assembly appropriated $500,000 for a trial program to subsidize medications for cardio-vascular diseases and diabetes for low-income elderly persons not on Medicaid.  Legislators in 1999 asked the Department of Health and Human Services to provide a recommendation for a more comprehensive subsidy.  A task force has recommended that the first priority should be covering necessary medications for elderly or disabled persons with income less than 120% of the federal poverty level.  (Those with incomes less than 100% of the federal poverty level are eligible for Medicaid.)  About 21,000 people in this group have already been identified.  No one can say for sure what the cost would be, but it has been estimated at $51 million a year.  Variations on this proposal are to cover more people at greater cost (up to 150% of federal poverty level) or more people with a $750 per year cap.  Such subsidies are expensive, but the costs in poor health, long hospital stays, and nursing home care are high both in monetary and human terms.

The second most publicized aging issue is the problem nursing homes and adult care homes have in hiring and retaining caregivers.  A statistical study from the Cecil B. Sheps Center at UNC-CH found that at least half of Certified Nurse Aides (CNAs) on the registry are not employed in health care, and many of those who are apparently work only part time.  Low pay, lack of benefits, and lack of respect are some of the difficulties experienced by aides in stressful jobs in long term care facilities.  Two possible solutions are 1) for the legislature to provide “pass-through” money as part of state funding for low-income residents.  This money would go directly to wages of caregivers.  Or 2) the state could subsidize health care benefits as it does for child care workers.

Lastly, concern over the quality of care in adult care homes, in particular, aided by media reports of abuses of residents has resulted in demand for a grading system.  Relatives, usually in a crisis, have no good way to know how to tell which facility is best.  Cost of care is not a reliable indicator.  Many complications arise in working out a plan for grading homes, beginning with who will do the grading.  What standards are to be used for assessment, and how often the homes should be reviewed, are also very important.  A home that is rated excellent today may get a new manager tomorrow and go downhill in a hurry.  A variation that is being considered is a system of accreditation for adult care homes, with those that provide enhanced care getting more state money for serving those residents living in poverty.

The elderly population in North Carolina is growing rapidly.  Of the one million citizens over 65, 61% are women, and of the 107,0000 people over 85, 74% are women.  Aging issues, therefore, are women’s issues.  In addition, many of these women are poor, because North Carolina still has a high poverty rate for the elderly.  Of those over 85, 30% are living at or below the poverty level, with women and minorities over-represented among the poor. 

Choices in long term care for the poor are limited.  The frail person ordinarily wants to stay at home, but the only funds available are for care in an adult care home or a nursing home.  A good practical alternative is often an apartment facility that has personal care and health care services available.  Public housing for the elderly can provide services arranged for by an on-site case manager.  There are not enough of these facilities for low-income people.  Affordable apartment complexes are built using tax credits and low-cost revolving loans from the Housing Finance Trust.  This Trust needs better funding, to the tune of about $25 million a year to provide start-up funding for independent housing with services.

Good legislation passed in the 1999 session of the General Assembly provided for increased staffing in adult care homes, training for aides who administer medications, and other health and safety measures.  Staffing ratios are still too high, however; services for the many cognitively impaired residents are insufficient; and adult care homes are sometimes being asked to provide a level of care that verges on nursing home care.  There is plenty of room for improvement.

Recommendations for Action

• Subsidizing cost of prescription medicines for low-income elderly and disabled adults with incomes up to 120% of federal poverty level.

• Improving pay and training for caregivers in adult care homes (assisted living); providing subsidized health care benefits; lowering staffing ratios.

• Providing a reliable grading system for adult care homes/assisted living.

• Providing $25 million in the continuation budget for the Housing Trust Fund for housing for the elderly.

Choosing the right child care program is one of the most important decisions a parent has to make.  The new Star Rated License System is designed to offer parents a way to quickly identify which child care center or home meets higher-than-minimum licensing standards.  The Star Rated License will help parents see how well child care programs score in three areas that will determine the star rating – program standards, staff education and compliance history.

Recent child development and medical brain research have dramatically demonstrated the importance of the first five years of life for children.  Results from this research have confirmed what many parents, early educators, and other child development experts have always suspected: quality care and early learning experiences are critical in ensuring early childhood growth and development and later school success.¹  Research also shows that high quality child care environments are positively related to children’s later language, math, and behavior skills. 

These studies led North Carolina to develop a rated license system that would motivate and reward child care providers striving for higher quality.  The new system allows providers to earn points for having a high quality environment for children, for having staff with more early childhood education and experience, and for having a high rate of compliance with child care regulations.  Providers set their own goals for what they want their programs to achieve and are eligible for quality bonuses to maintain that quality through the child care subsidy program.

In addition to the rated license, North Carolina has put into place a comprehensive system to support the development of quality care.  The following initiatives demonstrate North Carolina’s commitment to this goal.

• Smart Start – offers training, grants, quality incentives and consultation to licensed child care facilities to enhance and expand the availability of care for infants, toddlers, preschool children and children with special needs.
  
  

• Child Care Subsidy Programs– provide financial assistance to eligible families for child care whose children are ages 0-12 and children with special needs.  Families are free to choose the type of care that best serves their child care needs.

• Teacher Education And Compensation Helps (T.E.A.C.H.) provides educational scholarships and wage supplements to teachers, directors and family child care providers who are obtaining a credential or degree in early childhood education or child development.

• T.E.A.C.H. Early Childhood Health Insurance Program - helps fund the cost of health insurance for individuals working in child care programs that have made a commitment to support the education and compensation of their staff.  The cost for individual health insurance is shared equally by the state, employer, and employee.

• Child Care WAGE$ Project – provides salary supplements to child care teachers, directors and family child care providers who have or earn post secondary degrees in early childhood education and agree to work in the same child care program for a specified amount of time.

• The Child Care Revolving Loan Fund – makes low interest loans available to providers statewide to improve the quality of child care and increase the capacity to serve more children.

• The Child Care Providers Disaster Relief Loan/Grant Program– offers, for a limited time, help for Eastern North Carolina providers affected by the hurricanes and floods to rebuild and retain their capacity to provide quality care for young children.

The human brain is unique in that 80 percent of development occurs during the first three years of life.  Scientific research on brain development points to this period as the most critical in social, emotional and cognitive development – key developments that are paramount to our children’s future successes in life, school and the workplace.  There is no more compelling argument for North Carolina citizens to continue to invest in initiatives that nurture our most precious resource – our young children.

Recommendations for Action

• Fully funding Smart Start expansion for early childhood services.

• Support subsidized care for low income and working families.

• Support the statewide Star Rated License System.

1. Peisner-Feinberg, E.S., Clifford, R.M., Culkin, M.L., Howes, C., & Kagan, S.L. (1999).  The children go to school: The Cost, Quality, and Outcomes Study  Executive summary.   Available at http://www.fpg.unc.edu/d`nced1/PAGES/cqes.htm

Civil Rights and Hate Crimes

Acts of discrimination and hatred are daily occurrences in American life today.  According to the Southern Poverty and Law Center (SPLC), every hour someone commits a hate crime.  Although experts recognize that most hate crimes are undercounted, from those crimes that are reported eight blacks, three whites, three gays, three Jews, and one Latino become hate crime victims each day.  Hate crimes are unlawful acts motivated by bias.  Forty percent of the bias crimes are committed against African-Americans, but the greatest increase in hate crimes in recent years has been toward Asians and homosexuals.  A U.S. Department of Justice report issued in February 1999 pointed out that Native Americans experience a much greater exposure to violence than other races.  It was not known what percentage of violent crime against Indians was motivated by bias, but experts assert that most of it was motivated by prejudice.

Although progress has been made in improving inter-group relations in the United States and in North Carolina, stereotypes accompanied by fear remain commonplace.  Without education and constructive steps to build understanding on a personal level, stereotypes will lead to discrimination, racist policies, and eventually hate crimes.  Organizations that promote and nurture hatred of others because of their race, religion, sex, disability, or sexual preference are loosely referred to as hate groups.  Specific religious tenets and political views characterize these groups, which often adopt a militaristic structure and style.  According to an Intelligence Report from the SPLC, there are only six states with more known hate groups than North Carolina.  There are 22 active hate groups in North Carolina, among which are ten Ku Klux Klan and six Neo-Nazi groups.  In recent years there has been a consolidation of hate groups and extensive use of web-sites as they attempt to mainstream their issues.

Considering that women together with others who also suffer from stereotypes, prejudice, oppression and hatred constitute a majority, logically the first step in eliminating hate crimes is working together.

Women's organizations are often in an ideal position to build alliances with people of color and their organizations around issues of community safety.  For example, women have historically raised issues of community safety with local police.  This relationship can be leveraged to secure greater access to the police for others who are victims of harassment and hate crimes.  Alliances of mutual understanding built on open and frank communication need to be developed.  There are many models for cross-cultural communication being used in North Carolina today; e.g. the Study Circles Program.

Community groups should inquire if local police have personnel who have been trained by the North Carolina Justice Academy on hate crime reporting and verification.  Encourage them to get such training.  Enlist local media to support training in identifying and reporting hate crimes, and give positive local support and publicity to officers who get this training.  The State Bureau of Investigation (SBI) - Division of Criminal Information will provide technical assistance to local agencies for hate crime reporting.  Although none of this training is mandatory, without it, hate crime reports to local police departments cannot be accepted by the SBI’s Division of Criminal Information.  This is the main reason for undercounting of hate crimes in the State.

Another community strategy for action against hate crimes is to enlist religious organizations to educate the public about hate crime as a moral problem in the community.  A compelling case can be made for involving religious leaders because hate groups often use the Bible as justification for their beliefs and actions.

The struggle against bigotry and hatred should extend into our local schools.  Women and other community groups should meet with local Parent Teacher Associations (PTA) and school principals to inquire about curricula used to help children appreciate diversity.  Teachers and principals often welcome suggestions of materials they could use in their classrooms.  The SPLC sends free materials to teachers on “Teaching Tolerance.”  Assuring that all local schools have these or similar materials available for their teachers and students is an excellent and practical local project which ultimately would support change on the state level.  It is important that local and statewide elected state senators and representatives are aware of local interest in hate crime reporting and in diversity education.

Recommendations for Action

• Add “sexual orientation" to the list of protected classes of persons in anti-discrimination legislation and ordinances.

• Mandate hate crimes reporting courses and training for all law enforcement personnel.

• Reconstitute the Governor's Task Force on Racial, Religious, Ethnic Violence and Intimidation so that it has the power to gather statistics on hate crimes, monitor hate groups, provide victim support, and develop an anti-bias curriculum for use in public schools.

• Urge the State Board of Education to mandate diversity training and tolerance in the state education system.

While women vote in greater numbers than men (nationally, they represent 53% of the voting population), and make up over 50% of the total population, the presence of women in elected office does not reflect these majority numbers.  Only 20% of state legislators are women, and nationally, only 59 out of 535 members of Congress are women.  In North Carolina, only 20% of the House Representatives and 14% of the Senate are women, in our key policymaking body.

Why does the face of the policy-makers not reflect the voting strength of women or the proportion of women in American society?  The answer has a lot to do with money, specifically a campaign finance system that favors economically interested donors.  Campaign costs are soaring higher and the chase for more money has gotten out of control.  The cost of winning a seat in the NC Legislature has tripled from 1992 to 1998, and the cost of just running for a seat has multiplied almost five times in that same 6-year period.

A system that excludes otherwise very qualified women, simply because they are not connected to large sums of money, is not just.  A system that marginalizes votes and representation for those unable to make campaign contributions is not just.  This system works against women and their interests in two fundamental ways:  (1) good, qualified women candidates have a difficult time raising money and therefore mounting serious campaigns and (2) the issues that women, along with most Americans, most care about, are not given a fair voice due to the overwhelming influence of special interests and their campaign donations.

A telling example of how money spent on special-interest media campaigns can directly affect women can be found in the case of a female legislator from Duplin County, NC.  After sponsoring legislation to regulate the hog industry as part of representing her constituents, who were subjected to horrific odors, water pollution, fish kills, and lagoon spills, she was the target of a vicious targeted ad campaign, and was narrowly defeated in her re-election bid. 

A more general example of how the system in which those with money or access to money can influence elections can be found in the case of a female candidate from Sampson County.  She had long-standing political popular support but was defeated because she did not solicit or receive substantial financial support from certain groups owing to her belief that representatives in state government should serve the entire electorate.  In 1998 she won in the primary.  Over the entire 1998 election cycle, however, she only raised and spent $2,530, and lost the election.  Her opponent spent $102,095.

Recommendations for Action

• Support passage of The North Carolina Clean Elections Act, with co-sponsoring support from 56 state legislators (about a third of the legislature).  It is modeled on legislation voted in by citizens in states as diverse as Massachusetts and Arizona.  It lets state-level candidates receive enough public funds to run a competitive campaign if they meet these public-trust qualifications:  (a) show strong support by collecting a set number of signatures and small donations from registered voters in the district; (b) accept strict spending limits; and (c) take no other private money than these small, qualifying contributions.

• Gather support statements for Clean Elections from local elected leaders to join the more than 1,000 mayors, county commissioners, and town council members across North Carolina who have signed such statements.

• Gather support statements from civic, religious, and business leaders in the community.

• Sponsor petition drives at festivals and events.

• Write letters to the editor of the local paper.  The NC Voters for Clean Elections coalition can offer help with facts.  The address is P.O. Box 27510, Carboro, NC 27510 or call 1-877-663-3257.

NOTE:  When the Draft Agenda went to print this issue was still under consideration by the NC General Assembly.

(includes women-owned businesses, nontraditional jobs for women, and work and family balance)

Earnings and economic well-being are inextricably linked for all people and increasingly so for women.  Women’s employment status and earnings have grown in importance to women, and their families rely on both the husband’s and wife’s earnings to survive.  More women are heading their own households alone, and more women are in the labor force.  Women in North Carolina make up 48% of the state’s labor force.

Women face a number of economic development challenges.  Recruiting industry or building roads or providing for other infrastructure needs are seen as economic development issues, but if a woman and her children cannot leave an abusive partner and father because they can’t afford it or they have nowhere to go – that is an economic issue.  Reforming welfare may be about getting people off the rolls, but for it to work, reform must be able to help people attain economic self-sufficiency.  Many women in North Carolina still do not have access to health care or even if they have access they cannot afford it.  That is an economic issue.  Available child care determines whether parents can work and cost of care may determine the quality of care. The cost of long-term care is an economic issue for many families in North Carolina.  These issues are addressed in other articles in the Agenda issues.

Other economic issues must be addressed if North Carolina is to build the human capacity of this state.  For example, in a study done four years ago, women in North Carolina ranked 40th compared to other states in the number of women in professional and managerial positions, 34th in earning and 36th in economic autonomy/self-sufficiency. 

Nontraditional Jobs

With access to nontraditional jobs, a woman’s capacity to better provide for her family will increase. Nontraditional jobs for women are jobs in which less than 25 percent of the workforce is female.  Nontraditional jobs pay higher wages, have greater career and training opportunities, and offer many women greater job satisfaction.

Women Owned Business

Women, nationally and in our state, are starting their own businesses at an unprecedented rate.  As of 1999, there were 9.1 million women-owned businesses in the U.S., employing over 27.5 million people and generating over $3.6 trillion sales.  In North Carolina, two areas, Charlotte and the Triad region, ranked in the top 50 metropolitan markets in the growth in the number of women-owned businesses.  A study by Catalyst and others found that women are starting their own firms because of the glass ceiling and a sense of being stifled or bored in the corporate environment.

Starting a business is not easy and women face barriers such as a lack of access to credit.  Many use credit cards to fund ventures.  While the state of North Carolina has improved its efforts to provide access to women and minorities to state contracts, these groups still face difficulties in getting contracts.  In 1999 the state passed its goal for 8% for contracts to women and minorities and has a goal of 10% in 2000-2001.

Work and Family

Time for work and family continues to be one of the top issues facing men and women.  An estimated 40% of caregivers for the elderly are also caring for children age 18.  In a 1998 national survey 62% of women and 55% of men reported that finding time for work and family has become harder during the last five years.  National surveys also found that the factor most significantly affecting the commitment of workers to their employers was “management’s recognition of the importance of personal and family life” rather than traditional salary or benefits. 

Recommendations for Action

• A legislative study commission should look at the issue of fair and equal pay for all North Carolina workers. 

• An increase is needed in the state and national minimum wages. Currently, North Carolina statutes call for the state to increase the minimum wage when the federal rate increases.

• North Carolina state government should pass a state-level nontraditional employment for women act that sets goals for state and local goals for nontraditional training and placement and earmarks a certain percentage of workforce development and/or welfare funds for nontraditional training 

• Women need support in starting a business and should have access to capital through policies that encourage creative underwriting and financing, incentives for lenders to lend, educating entrepreneurs about banking and finance and vice versa, and implementing government regulatory changes that make it easier to start a business.

(includes welfare reform, housing, and transportation)

Achieving economic self-sufficiency is the dream of many women and their families in North Carolina.  During the past two decades, public support has eroded for government programs assisting low-income and working poor individuals in North Carolina and across the nation.  At the national and state level, the welfare system has been dramatically changed.  Congress revised the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program into what is now known as the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) block grant.  The TANF block grant is the federal funding provided to states for cash assistance and related services for low-income families with children.

Work First, North Carolina’s TANF funded cash assistance program for poor families, was implemented in July 1996.  It put in place new limits on program benefits and duration of receipt of those benefits.  Work First families must sign a “Mutual Responsibility” contract, agreeing to meet several requirements in exchange for cash assistance.  They agree to ensure: 1) their children will get immunizations and regular medical checkups, 2) their school-age children will attend school regularly; 3) teen parents will live at home and stay in school; 4) they will cooperate in locating the other spouse for child support; and 5) they will have a job or prepare themselves to get a job within 12 weeks of getting benefits.  While these requirements may seem simple, they have proven to be onerous for Work First families.  North Carolina sanctions more of its welfare recipients than any other state, with 28.6 percent sanctioned in an average month in 1998.^[i]  In 1999 the General Assembly made state sanctions harsher, but these have not yet been implemented.

In August 1998, the first families in which adult recipients had not found a job reached the end of their two-year time limit to receive assistance, about 300 families that month.  Since that time hundreds of families have been terminated from assistance due to the two-year time limit.  These families can go back on assistance if they have good cause for not being able to support themselves, e.g. disability, or after they have been off the rolls for 36 months.  While only some Work First families are subject to the state set two-year time limit, all recipients are subject to the federally set five-year lifetime limit.  Beginning January 1, 2001 some Work First families will be terminated from the program each month due to the five-year time limit and will never be able to receive cash assistance in any state for the rest of their lives.  As of March 2000, about 7,000 families on the rolls had received 30 months or more of assistance and are at risk of permanent cut-off from the program.^[ii]  Federal law does allow up to 20% of the caseload to be exempted from the federal five-year time limit, but North Carolina has not implemented this hardship exemption.

In spite of the numerous work and other requirements, the Work First program emphasizes caseload reduction over assisting recipients in achieving economic self-sufficiency.  The primary basis on which county performance has been judged has been how much and how quickly their caseload has declined.  Statewide, there were about 112,000 families receiving Work First assistance in July 1995 and as of March 2000 there were only about 47,000 families on the rolls.  In that same time period the average benefit paid per family dropped from $223 per month to $213 per month.  ^[iii] 

Feeling pressure to get a job and leave the rolls, many Work First recipients have taken jobs that provide only minimum wages and few, if any, career advancement opportunities.  Work First evaluation data indicate that in the first 12 months after families left Work First for employment in 1996-97, 64% of families earned less than $10,000, and 35% earned less than $5,000 that year.^[iv]  In addition, 66% of the families worked in the service and retail trades where wages are low, turnover is high and benefits are rarely offered.  Furthermore, only about 8% of those on the welfare rolls are working as compared with a high of 15% in July 1996, which reflects that people are leaving Work First as soon as they find employment even if their wages are so low they still qualify for assistance.^[v]

Unique among all of the states, North Carolina’s welfare system is divided into two parts.  Twenty-one counties, called Electing counties, were selected by the General Assembly to implement their own welfare program and rules.  The remaining 79 “Standard” counties continue to follow statewide rules and policies but have local control over a grant for providing services like transportation and training to Work First recipients and other poor families.  The Electing county welfare plans tend to vary from state rules only to implement harsher limitations in their programs.  Some counties made time limits shorter, reduced benefit amounts and made sanctions harsher.^[vi]  Many Electing county plans did a good job assessing community needs in areas such as wages, education, transportation and housing; however, they rarely were able to address those needs but nonetheless sanction families harshly for not finding employment.

Since the implementation of North Carolina’s Work First program, thousands of families have left the welfare rolls and many of them now contain working adults, but this has not resulted in a reduction in poverty in North Carolina.  In spite of the longest growth period in the state’s economy, average family income for the bottom fifth of wage earners has remained stagnant over the last decade and the percentage of people living in poverty has not changed.  North Carolina female-headed households remain enmeshed in poverty at an alarming rate with 46.6% estimated in poverty in 1998.^[vii] 

Housing

The shortage of safe and decent affordable housing in North Carolina is at a crisis stage.  One in five North Carolina households live in substandard, overcrowded or unaffordable housing.  Over 400,000 households pay more than 30% of their incomes (the standard for determining affordability) for housing and utilities.  More than 200,000 households spend at least half of their income on housing.  The fair market rent for a two-bedroom apartment in NC is $519 and over $640 in the Raleigh/Durham/Chapel Hill area.  Forty percent of renters in North Carolina are unable to afford the fair market rent for a two-bedroom unit.

In addition to the dramatic shortage of affordable housing throughout NC, Hurricane Floyd and the resulting flooding damaged or destroyed approximately 43,000 homes, including an estimated 7400 rental houses and apartments in Eastern North Carolina.  There has been insufficient funding to replace these lost units, particularly affordable rental units, and more must be done.

Transportation

Getting to and from work poses a problem for many poor and low income families.  In 1995, just six percent of welfare families nationwide had cars.  Only the major urban areas have any bus service, so many rural and working poor have difficulty not only finding transportation to work, but also getting transportation for health care, shopping and other basic necessities.  In 1997, the General Assembly appropriated $1.75 million to support the employment transportation needs of former Work First participants that are working and no longer eligible to receive Work First Assistance.  In addition some counties have developed car ownership programs where cars donated to nonprofits and state and local governments can be sold to Work First recipients for a small cost.  While these new programs are a step in the right direction, they address only a small portion of the need for transportation assistance throughout the state.

^[i] U.S. Government Accounting Office, Welfare Reform: State Sanction Policies and Number of Families Affected, March 2000.

^[ii] N.C. Division of Social Services, March 2000.

^[iii] N.C. Division of Social Services, April 2000.

^[iv] N.C. Division of Social Service, May 1999.

^[v] N.C. Division of Social Service, April 2000.

[^vi] N.C. Justice and Community Development Center, Will Devolution Help Welfare Families?  An Analysis of the Proposed Electing County Welfare Plans, May 1998.

[^vii] Cartron, Kimberly, N.C. Budget and Tax Center, BTC Reports: The Grim Side of the North Carolina Economy: Income Inequality and Persistent Poverty, March 2000.

Recommendations for Action

• Increasing state funding for public transportation including regional rail service so individuals can have access to jobs, health care and other needed services.

• Increasing funding for the State Housing Trust Fund and other housing initiatives to at least $20 million a year.

• Adopting the State Earned Income Tax Credit.

• Defining which Work First recipients will be exempted from the federal five-year lifetime limit and work requirement.

• Implementing policies to reduce the sanction rate of Work First families while better helping them to meet program requirements.

• Conducting a thorough and public evaluation of the Electing county Work First programs and approving for continuation only those counties that are implementing plans significantly different from the state plan and that are not hurting families or children.

• Implementing policies and conducting outreach to increase participation in the food stamp program of families and individuals that qualify.

• $3 million or more continuing housing assistance to counties from TANF funds.

• $200 million additional flood relief to build affordable housing.

Living Wage

Women in North Carolina earn 78 cents for every dollar earned by men.  Women are the majority of low-wage earners in North Carolina, and women head 2/3 of all poor families with children.  A worker earning $5.25 per hour earns $10,920 if she works every day of every week of the year.  In addition, jobs in this pay range are often seasonal or part-time and generally offer few employment benefits such as health care.  North Carolina's economy is strong; however there are areas of the state where unemployment is high and jobs are simply not available.  The Self-Sufficiency Standard released by NC Equity in 1997 found that one parent with an infant in an urban area needed to earn an average of $10.74 an hour and $7.30 an hour in a rural county to be self-sufficient.  Fair pay is one of the key issues facing women in North Carolina, and the need for a living wage in the state is a key to getting many families out of poverty.

More women are becoming single heads of households and have the sole responsibility of providing for their families.  

Although North Carolina’s economy has grown dramatically over the past decade, tens of thousands of North Carolinians have not benefited from this growth.  In today’s economy, more people are working than at any other time in our state’s history.  These workers are working harder and longer but often are barely surviving.  The annual wage income of workers has remained flat and there has been a significant decline in the value of the minimum wage.  Despite the fact that overall incomes are up, the distribution of income and wealth is extremely uneven, creating a large and growing gap between those at the top of the economic ladder and those in the middle and at the bottom.

This widening income gap, coupled with increases in the cost of living, is leading to a declining standard of living for many workers and families.  Most low wage families lack access to affordable housing.  They also frequently do not have insurance and therefore they lack access to affordable health care.  Because of a decline in public transportation and the increased cost of owning a vehicle, working families also are spending more just to be able to get to and from work.

In past, a person who worked hard could earn enough to support their family.  Nevertheless, in our current economy, working hard is not enough any more.  Instead, working two or three jobs is what it now takes just to keep a family’s head above water.  The conditions facing low wage families should not exist during this time of great economic expansion in our state.  As a society which values hard work, initiative and dedication, we collectively have a duty to ensure that all work is valued from the lowest skilled job to the highest skilled job; work pays wages and provides benefits necessary to support a family, and families receive the support they need to remain strong and healthy.

A living wage means a wage on which a family can live and adequately meet all of their basic needs.  A living wage will ensure that the prosperous economy translates to working families, who can work less, and spend more time with friends, family, and community.

Recommendations for Action

• Government should set the example for providing adequate pay for their employees and should increase the minimum wage, which would benefit many North Carolina working women and their families.

• North Carolina should adopt a living wage policy for the state.

• For individuals, government should shift the tax burden from low and moderate-income families to those who have shared in the economic boom.  Economic development tax policy should support jobs that pay enough for families to make ends meet.

The gap between men's and women's wages continues to exist and to narrow at a slow rate.  The Equal Pay Act prohibited unequal pay for equal or "substantially equal" work.  When it was signed into law in 1963, there was a 41% difference in earnings between men and women.   

After more than 30 years the gap between women’s and men's median salaries in North Carolina has narrowed to 22%, with women earning 78 cents for every man's dollar.  Therefore, a full-time employed woman earns $113 less per week.  This is better than the national average of 74 cents.  The closing of the gender gap in North Carolina reflects the low wages of minority men rather than women's greater gains.  The gender gap in wages is greater for North Carolina women of color who earn 68 cents for every dollar earned by men, or $161 less per week.  Women of color earn less than white women or 84 cents for every dollar.   

At the current rate of change, the wage gap will close in 2038.  In part, the closing of the gap is due to a decrease in men's real wages rather than an increase in women's real wages, and doesn't mean that wages are greatly improving.  Across the US American working families lose $200 billion in annual income to the wage gap.  After accounting for differences in education, age, location, and number of hours worked, the wage gap costs an average annual loss of $4,000 per family.  In North Carolina, the wage gap costs women and men and their families $5.1 billion annually. 

It is estimated that the average 25-year-old woman, who works full time, year-round for 40 years will earn $523,000 less than the average 25-year-old man, if current wage patterns continue.  The wage gap affects how working women and their families live.  It affects their ability to provide affordable quality child care, good health care, higher income, and a secure retirement.  Social Security benefits are directly tied to earnings and women who live longer than men, and earn less, are likely to have an insecure old age. 

The wage gap persists although women have more experience in the labor market, have moved into higher-paying occupations and have more education.  Education is not always the equalizing tool it is often said to be.  Women college graduates earn $14,574 less than white male college graduates.  Furthermore, a woman of color with a master's degree earns $9216 less than a man with only a basic college degree.   

How do we explain why the gap is so resistant to change despite other sweeping changes that have occurred in our society's view of women's roles and the increasing access of women to more and varied occupations?  For example, in the burgeoning field of information technology (IT) women play a significant role and the pay is good for almost everyone employed in it.  For women, the median earnings in IT are about 60% higher than for women employed outside the IT industry.  However, women are underrepresented, making up only 29% in five key IT occupations.  Also women are most underrepresented in those IT occupations where the pay is the highest - electrical engineering, for example, where women occupy only 10% of the jobs.  And the wage gap occurs within the IT occupations, with women's median earnings about 20% less than men's.  

Even in occupations where women traditionally greatly outnumber men, such as teaching in K-12 or in administrative support jobs, women's median earnings are about 17% less than men's.

The reasons pay inequity persists are many.  The wage discrimination laws (Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) are poorly enforced and cases of discrimination are difficult to prove and win.  They are costly and slow and women are fearful that asking for a fairer wage will cost them their jobs.  Also studies show that women do not negotiate their salary and benefits as effectively as men and start at a lower salary which affects all future earnings.

The persistent differences in average pay of men and women are the result of many factors that interact in complex ways.  It is difficult to pinpoint how much is due to discrimination in the workplace and how much is due to differences between men and women in job choices and preferences by working women.  For example, if women consistently choose different occupations than men, stereotypes about women’s abilities may be reinforced and discriminatory actions by employers may be perpetuated.  If employers make it difficult for women to enter certain professions, women may lose the incentive to invest in training for those professions. 

To close the wage gap, access to salary information is essential and not easily accessible in the private sector. Passage of The Fair Pay Act and the Paycheck Fairness Act in the US Congress would prevent employers from penalizing employees who share salary information with coworkers.  Currently employers are able to fire employees who discuss and compare salary information.  This keeps the gender wage gap a well kept secret that only comes out by chance and makes it very difficult to negotiate a fair salary and benefits. For example, in North Carolina, a woman lawyer inadvertently discovered she was being paid one-half the salary of a male colleague in the same law firm, although they had the same educational and work experiences and job responsibilities.  The company did not deny the male employee's greater salary and offered her a large (but not equal) salary increase.  She refused and started her own legal practice.

Closing the wage gap means preparing to enter fields that offer higher salaries and often require more education and training.  Women need to widen their career choices and prepare for the careers of the 21st century.  From an early age, girls need to be encouraged to study math and sciences and use computers.  Women at different stages in their lives need to consider information technology and non-traditional fields.  

Balancing work and family, career and motherhood in the fast moving, high pressured workplace is the challenge of today's women.  Pay Equity - equal pay for equal work is a family paycheck issue.  It is long overdue, it is just, and it is good business practice.  

Recommendations for Action

• Support passage of national and state legislation that provides effective legal recourse to women and people of color who are not being paid equal wages for doing equal work; and offer education and technical assistance to employers to assist in implementing fair pay policies.

• Urge policymakers to research equal pay and the gender wage gap in North Carolina including earnings by occupational choice, educational levels, technical training, time in the labor force, current position and responsibilities, on-the job training opportunities, family responsibilities and marital status, and employment opportunities in the area. 

• Monitor the way the federal laws enacted to prevent wage discrimination are implemented in North Carolina (eg.1963 Equal Pay Act, Civil Rights Act of 1964, and Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938).  

• Create a coalition of organizations dedicated to equity in the workplace to develop and implement outreach programs that will educate all facets of the community about the economic and social consequences of pay inequity, motivate individuals and communities to take the necessary steps to rectify the persistent gender wage gap, and develop mentoring programs to encourage young girls and women to prepare for careers in science and technology and for non-traditional occupations that offer greater economic opportunities.

The past twenty years have brought a sea of change in the awareness of and organized response to violence against women.  The energy put into crisis education and response, legislation, and funding can be measured by the 77 battered women's programs and 67 rape crisis programs in North Carolina.  Efforts organized by women led to passing the marital rape exclusion, pro se ability to get a protective order, warrantless arrest, and greater stalking penalties.  There are increased penalties for serial assaults, a restriction of firearms in households where domestic violence is found and an increase in the marriage license fee which goes to support battered women's programs.  In addition the Violence Against Women Act at the national level provides funding for many of the training initiatives for court personnel, law enforcement, the clergy, medical personnel, and schools. 

An evaluation in what is most critical for victims of violence has occurred.  Safety and shelter were the first solutions to what was considered a crisis problem.  Once the immediate problem was met, the family could reunite.  Little thought was given to prosecution.  The realities were more complex.  A victim returned because she loved the batterer, and even if she was afraid, the children needed a father, he was loving some of the time, and she was often very vulnerable economically.  Therefore, shelters began offering the option of longer stays while they tried to help a victim with self-esteem and job-seeking.  Analyzing violence enlarged the definition to include economic and psychological battering.  The model of power and control superseded the one of anger gone awry.  The wisdom a generation later says that it is not anger in play but entitlement, that the battered or raped woman is not at fault, and control of another person is the motive.

A national survey of over 6000 American families found that 50% of the men who frequently assault their wives also abused their children.  Another study found that men who witnessed abuse in their homes when they were children were three times more likely to abuse their own wives than those of non-violent parents.  The Salvation Army Shelter in Mecklenburg County estimates that 70% of the women and children coming to them are fleeing violence.

Statistics released by the National Workplace Resource Center on Domestic Violence give some idea of its impact on the workplace -- 94% of corporate security and safety directors say it is a high security problem. Over 60% of the Employee Assistance Directors place it in the top five issues.  Women lose their jobs because the batterer has taken their car keys, refused to give them money for car fare, made them lose work for medical reasons.  A 1991 nationwide study estimated that every year domestic violence results in 100,000 hospitalizations, almost 30,000 emergency room visits, and almost 40,000 visits to a physician.  A woman is at least as likely to have to visit a dentist for repair work, and these treatments were not included in the study.

Many domestic violence victims have also been sexually assaulted.  Prosecution of rape cases continues to be difficult.  Fortunately, Sexual Assault Nurse Examiners are being trained to improve collection of rape evidence. Funding for rape crisis centers is very low, under $19,000 annually per program.  Finding shelter can still be difficult for victims of domestic violence.  In 1998-99 77 domestic violence programs served 39,469 victims.  Of that, they provided shelter for 1,215 adults and children

 Recommendations for Action

• Batterer intervention programs (designed to help him/her adopt a different world view) must meet the standard adopted by the NC Council for Women if they are court-ordered programs.

• The collection of data and sharing of information among agencies involved with the response to violence must be funded

• Require Child Support Enforcement to respond to a Domestic Violence request within five (5) days.

• Increase funding for rape crisis centers.

• Provide funding for the NC Coalition Against Sexual Assault similar to that given to the NC Coalition Against Domestic Violence

For more information about the Women's Agenda Program or Women's Advocacy  Day, contact Christina Medlin at nceleadership@mindspring.com or 1-800-451-8065, ext. 31.

From www.ncequity.org - January 2002