San Francisco Department on the Status of Women

San Francisco Department on the Status of Women

Page 1

Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW)

GENDER ANALYSIS REPORT

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

DEPARTMENT ON THE STATUS OF WOMEN

April 2007

I. INTRODUCTION

The San Francisco Commission on the Status of Women (Commission) was established in 1975 by a resolution of the City and County of San Francisco Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco. The mission of the Commission is to foster the advancement and ensure the equitable treatment of women and girls throughout San Francisco. In 1994, the citizens of San Francisco passed Proposition E to make the Commission a permanent body under the City Charter. Today, the seven-member Commission, appointed by the Mayor, establishes policy priorities to be implemented by the Department on the Status of Women (Department) that has a staff of eight (two are part-time). Together, the Commission and the Department promote the status of the women and girls of San Francisco through policy development and support, the funding of community-based anti-violence programs, and continually working to meet the ever-changing needs of women and girls.

In April 1998, the Department partnered with community organizations to spearhead the passage of local legislation reflecting the principles of the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), a comprehensive international bill of rights for women adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1979.[1] San Francisco became the first municipality in the country to implement a local CEDAW Ordinance (City and County of San Francisco Administrative Code Chapter 12K).[2] At the October 2005 annual planning retreat, the Commission elected to utilize the CEDAW framework as a means to organize the Department’s work. All of the Department’s programs and policy work fall under 1 of the 5 core principles of CEDAW:

• The Implementation of Women and Girls’ Human Rights
• The Right to an Adequate Standard of Living
• The Right to Bodily Integrity
• The Right to Adequate Health Care
• The Human Rights of Girls to Education and Social Services[3]

Specific examples of the Department's work to advance the status of women and girls are as follows:

 Promoting access to and developing policy with local government agencies to advance equity;

 Advocating, proposing, and monitoring legislation to improve the quality of life;

 Supporting programs that increase public awareness and understanding of violence against women and its prevention;

 Administering funds for emergency shelter for women and their children, and coordinating City and community support services for survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault;

 Promoting public education and awareness to prevent sexual harassment and discrimination;

 Providing technical assistance and referrals related to employment and social services to individuals, community organizations, businesses, and government agencies; and

 Working with community organizations and coalitions on human rights.

The Commission on the Status of Women adopted this report in December 2006.

II.OVERVIEW OF CEDAW AND ITS LOCAL IMPLEMENTATION

CEDAW was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1979.[4] The human rights framework of CEDAW is based on the following principles:

• The inherent right of all people to be treated with dignity and respect.
• The need for a high level of moral and ethical standards of government accountability.
• Freedom from intolerance and bias.

The treaty defines discrimination as follows:

[Any] distinction, exclusion, or restriction made on the basis of sex that has the effect or purpose of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment, or exercise by women, irrespective of their marital status, on a basis of equality of men and women, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil, or any other field.[5]

Specifically, CEDAW mandates the protection of the human rights and fundamental freedoms for women and girls in political, economic, social and cultural, civic, and legal arenas. CEDAW formally recognizes that culture, tradition, and difference in life experiences determine how decisions are made, thereby potentially resulting in social, economic, and political inequities affecting women and girls throughout society.

The historic passage of the 1998 CEDAW Ordinance (Ordinance) in San Francisco resulted from a unique public/private partnership between the Commission, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, the Mayor, and a consortium of community organizations spearheaded by the Women’s Institute for Leadership Development for Human Rights (WILD for Human Rights), the Women’s Foundation, and Amnesty International. The Ordinance focuses on gender equity and the elimination of bias in political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any other field, including gender-based violence, that is, violence directed against a woman because she is a woman or that affects women disproportionately. It also condemns acts that inflict physical, mental, or sexual harm or suffering, threats of such acts, coercion, and other deprivations of liberty by family, community, or government.

The local Ordinance called for the development of “gender analysis” as a preventive tool to use against discrimination. The Ordinance requires City and County departments to undergo gender analysis to determine whether they were abiding by the principles of the CEDAW Ordinance in three key areas: 1) service delivery, 2) employment practices, and 3) budget allocation. The aim was to integrate gender into the daily operations of local government so that women and men are assured equitable access to services and fairness in the workplace. In 1999, a CEDAW Task Force (Task Force), composed of City officials and human rights advocates from the community, began to develop a set of gender analysis guidelines, including protocols and questions to be used for the analysis.

Between 1999 and 2001, the following 6 departments underwent gender analysis:

• Department of Public Works
• Juvenile Probation Department
• Adult Probation Department
• Arts Commission
• Department on the Environment
• Rent Stabilization Board

Each department collected extensive data and developed a full gender analysis report, including its own recommendations as well as those from the Task Force.[6] Later, each department gave periodic progress updates to the CEDAW Task Force. The central findings from these analyses identified the following common issues:

 Need for training on human rights with a gender perspective

 Lack of comprehensive data for evaluating the gender equity of departmental budgets and services

 Need to increase effective recruitment to diversify the workforce

 Importance of providing meaningful work-life balance policies

 Need to increase professional development opportunities for all employees

In 2003, before it was scheduled to sunset, the Task Force developed a Five-Year Action Plan that was adopted by the Commission to be carried out by a CEDAW Committee appointed by the Commission. The members of the CEDAW Committee were expected to have a commitment to the values and principles of CEDAW and represent stakeholder community organizations and government agencies. The goal of the Committee was to ensure the implementation of the local Ordinance and, in particular the Action Plan, and thereby positively impact the lives of women and girls throughout San Francisco.

III.METHODOLOGY

Similar to previous departments that have undergone gender analysis, the Department on the Status of Women began the process utilizing the gender analysis tool by reviewing and responding to the questions from the original guidelines. The overall goal was to examine the extent to which the Department effectively responded to the needs of the communities served, and that available resources were used to work towards concrete human rights for women and girls. The analysis reviewed programs and data from a span of years beginning with the initial implementation of CEDAW in 1998, and focused on fiscal year (FY) 2004-2005 Violence Against Women Program service data.

This report responds to the first 3 of 5 steps outlined in the guidelines. Not surprisingly, the Department encountered challenges similar to other departments and found the process difficult at times, but extremely informative, overall. In particular, the time spent collecting data seemed repetitive throughout the first 3 steps, yet without the data, it would have been impossible to identify potential obstacles to equality.

A.Step 1: Data Collection

The first step was to collect data, both quantitative and qualitative, about the Department’s annual budget, services, and employees. Ideally, this information would have already been disaggregated by gender, race, and other intersecting identities (e.g., race, ethnicity, sexual preference, physical handicap, etc.). The Department was able to collect some disaggregated data related to services and employment by utilizing voluntary and confidential sources. Due to its small size and close working relationships with Partner Agencies (community-based agencies who receive grant funding from the Department), the Department collected qualitative data informally from staff, Partner Agencies, and members of the public.

B.Step 2: Data Analysis

The second step was to analyze the disaggregated data collected from Step 1 to both identify benchmarks and analyze trends within the data, with an eye towards understanding how the day-to-day operations of the Department impacted gender and other intersecting identities of customers/clients, the Department’s employees, and the various communities it serves. The final analysis consisted of a series of highlights, including best practices that promote the human rights of woman and girls, and areas in need of improvement that may unintentionally limit the human rights of women and girls.

C.Step 3: Recommendations

The third step was to formulate specific recommendations to prevent gender-based discrimination and other identities in both the Department and the City’s practices and policies. The gender analysis resulted in recommendations that was presented to the CEDAW Committee for feedback. Comments or recommendations were incorporated into this report.

D.Step 4: Action Plan

The fourth step of a gender analysis is to implement recommendations through an Action Plan. Input from the CEDAW Committee, the public, and the Commission will be incorporated into an Action Plan to addresses any and all deficiencies identified in this report. Specific means to correct any deficiencies will also be addressed. These will be presented to the Commission for approval and incorporation in the Commission’s Strategic Plan.

E.Step 5: Monitoring

The fifth and final step of the gender analysis is to monitor the Plan. The CEDAW Committee will ensure the implementation of the Department’s Plan through regular monitoring.

IV.DEPARTMENT BUDGET

The Executive Director of the Department on the Status of Women, submits an annual budget to the 7-member Commission on the Status of Women.[7] The budget reflects the policy priorities established by the Commission at an annual strategic planning meeting that is open to the public.

A.Budget Process and Planning

The budget process, similar to the annual strategic planning process, garners input from the Commission, Department staff, Partner Agencies, and other members of the public. This input is gathered through monthly Commission meetings, as well as meetings with community groups. Staff members provide input on the budget and the strategic plan throughout the year. The Commission convenes community meetings at least twice a year. These community meetings are public meetings held in various neighborhoods throughout San Francisco. In advance of these meetings, the Commission and Department go to great lengths to reach out to and involve community members to ensure attendance and input. The same 5 CEDAW principles reflected in the Commission's strategic plan cited above serves as the framework for the Department budget.

B.Funding Issues

The Department’s annual budget for FY04-05 was approximately $2.42 million, and the City and County of San Francisco’s overall budget was approximately $5.02 billion. In FY05-06, the Department's annual budget was $2.58 million, while the City's overall budget was $5.34 billion. Though women compose 49% of the City's population of 776,733,[8] and the Commission is mandated to represent and address their needs, the Department’s budget accounts for a miniscule amount, roughly 1/25 of 1% of the annual budget for the City and County of San Francisco.

Most of the Department’s total budget is derived from the City’s General Fund, with small portions derived from the Children’s Fund, and the Marriage License Fee. In addition, the Department received a $150,000 two-year federal grant from the Department of Justice, Office of Violence Against Women, to fund the Justice and Courage Project, an initiative to oversee reform of the City-wide response to domestic violence.

Most of the Department’s funding is generally from stable General Fund sources. However as San Francisco faced historic deficits, over the past few years, the Department was subject to reductions that would have had a devastating impact on services to women and girls in San Francisco. Community members voiced concerns about the impact of cuts to the Partner Agencies who, as part of the Department's Violence Against Women Prevention and Intervention (VAW) Grants Program, provide direct services to victims of domestic violence and sexual assault. Commissioners also asserted that cuts to the VAW Grants Program were deleterious to the welfare of the women and girls of San Francisco and, therefore, unacceptable. As a result, the Commission rejected proposed cuts to the Department’s annual budget for the past 2 years. The anti-violence community has worked especially hard over the past years to preserve the Department’s funding of the VAW Grants Program. A recommendation of this analysis is that, to ensure more secure funding sources especially for programs that serve women and girls, the Department should explore increasing its share of funds from voter mandated bond monies (e.g. the Children’s Fund and the Public Education Fund) the Marriage License Fee.[9]

C.Performance Measures

Annually, City Departments must identify performance measures to ensure accountability. Given the mission of the Department, these measures have always been directly related to women and girls. In FY06-07, the Department overhauled existing measures in order to align them with the CEDAW framework. Measures were developed in each of the following areas:

• Advancing the human rights of women and girls, including the workforce, services, and budget of city government;
• Advocating for policies reflecting the right to an adequate standard of living;
• Conducting outreach to underserved communities on the right to adequate healthcare;
• Promoting access to education and social services for girls; and
• Monitoring City-wide programs and policies that address the right to bodily integrity.

While all of the Department’s measures and indicators relate to the human rights of women and girls, one recommendation of this gender analysis is that these measures can be further improved to better reflect how policies and legislation improve the lives of women and girls by focusing on outcomes.

VI.SERVICES

A.Right to Bodily Integrity

Since its inception, a primary focus of the Department has been on the Right to Bodily Integrity, or freedom from violence, for women and girls. As part of this focus, the Department administers the Violence Against Women Prevention & Intervention (VAW) Grants Program which distributes public funds to community-based agencies in order to provide direct services to women and girls.

1.Violence Against Women Prevention and Intervention (VAW) Grants Program

To address the needs of women experiencing violence, the Department provides 25 grants to 20 organizations in 6 different program areas:

• Crisis Lines provide 24-hour telephone support for survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault.
• Intervention and Advocacy provide counseling, social services, and advocacy for women and their children.
• Legal Services create access to family law for survivors of domestic violence.
• Prevention, Education, and Training promotes public awareness of violence against women, with a particular focus on youth.
• Shelters provide emergency shelter and support services for domestic violence victims

and their children. There are 3 facilities in San Francisco.

• Transitional Housing provides housing and support services for battered women and their children. The Department funds 3 facilities dedicated to women residents.

Below is the budgetary data for the six primary funding categories, organized by funding source, and in order of allocation size, for FY04-05.

FY04-05 VAW GRANT PROGRAM FUNDING*

Service Category / General Fund / Marriage License Fees
(Shelters Only) / Children’s Fund
(Violence Prevention Programs) / Violence Against Women Grants Program (Total) / Percent of VAW
Grants Program
Shelters / 282,968 / 194,000 / 476,968 / 27%
Prevention, Education, & Training / 252,815 / 127,577 / 380,392 / 22%
Crisis Line / 256,914 / 256,914 / 15%
Legal Services / 246,698 / 246,698 / 14%
Intervention & Advocacy / 198,470 / 28,759 / 227,229 / 13%
Transitional Housing / 130,713 / 42,341 / 173,054 / 10%
Totals / 1,368,578 / 194,000 / 198,677 / 1,761,255 / 101%**

*These figures are based on the grant contracts for FY 2004-2005. They may not match final budgetary amounts,
as changes were made during the year. **Total is over100% due to rounding.

In FY04-05 the Department budgeted approximately $1.77 million for the VAW Grants Program. The bulk of this funding, $1.37 million, came from the City’s General Fund, with $198,677 from the Children's Fund, and $194,000 from the Marriage License Fee.

a.Budget

For a number of years, the Department has acknowledged that the bulk of its funding was devoted to anti-violence programs, but the gender analysis revealed just how great the scope of that work is and that it, in fact, constitutes over 90% of the Department’s overall budget. In reviewing the questions from the gender analysis guidelines, the Department realized it had not accurately accounted for the staff resources devoted to this area. Until now, the Department focused on the direct “grant funds” in this area, which has constituted approximately 70-75% of the Department’s budget. Upon review, it was determined that a large percent of the staff work on anti-violence policies and programs was directly addressing the CEDAW principle of the Right to Bodily Integrity. Not only does the Grants Administrator spend all of his time in this area, the Justice and Courage Policy Analyst is also dedicated to this area. In addition, the Executive Director and one administrative support staff spend approximately 50% of their time on these issues. The Department’s part-time accountant spends the majority of his time with invoices and payment to the grant programs as well. Accounting for all staff time and overhead expenses, approximately $375,000, or roughly 50% of all staff costs was devoted toward the Right to Bodily Integrity in FY05-06.