Document 70: "Part II: Report on the Survey of Women's Groups Nationwide and Women's Statewide Networks," in Susanna Downie, Decade of Achievement: 1977-1987: A Report on a Survey Based on the National Plan of Action for Women (Washington, D.C.: National Women's Conference Committee, 1988), pp. 8-14.
Introduction
The Decade of Achievement: 1977-1987 presents the results of a national survey of women's organizations on activities related to the specific planks in the original National Plan of Action adopted in Houston. This section of the report offers a discussion of the methodology of the survey and a broad analysis of the survey results. Four tables summarize the characteristics of responding groups, the issue orientation of the groups, and several ways of ranking the importance of various issue areas to responding groups. This section concludes with a summary of the findings of the survey and useful remarks on the nature of networking among women's organizations.
p. 8
PART II: REPORT ON THE
SURVEY OF WOMEN'S GROUPS
NATIONWIDE AND WOMEN'S
STATEWIDE NETWORKS
[NOTE: Instrument design and data analysis, including construction of Tables 1-4, was done by Dr. Irene Frieze, who also served as Research Consultant for the Survey Project. Dr. Frieze is Associate Professor of Psychology and Executive Director of the Women's Studies Program at the University of Pittsburgh. Data processing was done using the SPSS Statistical Processing program for the Social Sciences on a DEC 10 system at the University of Pittsburgh. A more technical and extensive analysis and discussion of the survey data will be published by Dr. Frieze in the sociological journals.]
WHO GOT THE SURVEY:
A survey questionnaire was distributed by mail to nearly 2000 women's groups in the United States between June 1 and Sept 30, 1987. Three-fourths of the labels (1500) came from the National Women's Mailing List (see box below), from whose groups list we took a random sample (every fifth label, in zip code order). The rest of the labels (about 400) came from a list of women's NGO's obtained from the UN NGO Liason Information Service, and a small list (about 60 labels) of national women's groups.
****************NATIONAL WOMEN'S MAILING LIST****************
The National Women's Mailing List is another success story of the decade. It was founded in 1980 by Deborah Brecher and Jill Lippett, with the idea of making computer technology work for feminists the way it was clearly working for the Far Right. NWML enables feminist groups to do nationwide or targeted direct mail marketing of their ideas and services. Individuals register what kind of issues they are interested in and who they want to receive mail from, and organizations register what kind of services, information or issues they are concerned with. The list now has about 60,000 individuals and 11,000 groups, available on stick-and-peel labels in almost any configuration of issue(s) and zip code(s), more or less at cost. The groups list contains at least: 728 women's centers, 150 women's bookstores, 530 Health organizations, 500 anti-violence services or organizations, 1000 women's newspapers and newsletters, 200 women's presses and publishers, 600 art or media production groups, 700 student groups, 105 older women's services, 440 women of color groups, 375 lesbian & gay organizations, 210 sports groups, and many other categories. You can buy sets of labels or you can earn them by distributing the registration form. For instance, for this survey project, we agreed to distribute the registration form with the survey report, in exchange for 1500 labels in zipcode order. Thus, you will find a registration form as the last page of this booklet. The Mailing List is operated by the Women's Information Exchange. Deborah Brecher is the author of the Women's Computer Literacy Handbook.
WHAT THE SURVEY MEASURED:
The question around which the whole project grew was: What are women's groups "out there" (i.e., all over the United States) working on, and how many of them are working on which National Plan issues? Naturally, once we started designing a questionnaire, other questions became interesting. Questions pertaining to the characteristics of the groups are summarized in Table 1. Table 2 gives two sets of figures: the percentage of groups working on each issue area of the Plan, and the percentage giving each area of the Plan a positive importance rating for the future. Tables 3 and 4 show average ratings of the four overall categories of groups (local, state or regional, national, and international), comparing what areas of the Plan the groups in each category ranked highest as to Past Work (Table 3) and Future Importance (Table 4).
All rating scales were 0 to 3, with 0 indicating no importance or no work, and 3 indicating highest importance or most work. We did not try to solicit detailed information about what each group was doing. We wanted to find out which area of the Plan each was working in, and how each respondent felt about other areas of the Plan (the "future importance" rating).
The total response rate was 38%, out of 1782 good addresses.
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE RESPONDENT GROUPS
Table 1 summarizes the answers to the first set of questions, which attempted to get a profile of each
organization. More than half of our respondents are local in scope. The rest function at the state,
regional or national level. Only 7% identified them selves as international in scope. Although comparing
international and national with state and local groups is an "apples
p. 9
SERVICE, EDUCATION, POLICY (THAT'S WHAT WE'RE ALL ABOUT):
We coded the group's statement of purpose as to whether it primarily involved provision of services, education and information, or working to affect policy (public or institutional). Service providers are primarily battered women's shelters, rape crisis centers, health care, job counselling, or resource and referral centers. Educational work includes Women's Studies programs, media production, or public education programs. Policy work attempts to influence governments or other institutions. About a third of our respondents fell primarily into one of these three categories, but many more combine service with education or policy work, and many whose primary purpose seemed to be educational also were engaged in policy work.
The question about size (number of members) was probably the least useful question, since we did not refine it enough to discriminate between groups that have dues-paying memberships, unpaid board, paid and/or unpaid staff and volunteers, paid staff and clients, or just a mailing list. About 25% of our sample did not answer this question, and many respondents commented on its ambiguity. Other demographic data is given in Table 1.
HOW THEY RANKED THE PLAN (Table Two)
We assumed that most of the groups receiving the survey would not be familiar with the Plan, so we included a condensed version of the Plan along with the questionnaire. This version of the Plan, issue by issue, is what appears in Part III of this booklet. Since the Plan section called "International Affairs" contains at least six very different issue and activity areas, we expanded that area into six separate questions for the purposes of the questionnaire. Thus the total number of Plan areas ranked as to "past work", and "future importance", was 30.
Table Two lists the Plan areas and gives the percentage of respondents indicating that they do some work in that area, and the percentage who ranked that area as having some degree of importance for the future, for all women.
The areas of the Plan vary widely as to what percentage of our respondants are working on each, with Insurance Discrimination, Female Offenders, and three areas under International Issues all at the low end (less than 30%), and Education, Employment, Minority women, and the "violence issues" (rape, spouse abuse, child abuse) all at the high end (more than 60%). Child Care, Health, Homemakers, Older Women, Reproductive Freedom, Sexual Preference, and Women, Welfare & Poverty all show 50% or more. It is clear that most of the work of the women's movement gets done by fairly precisely focusing on one or a few related problem areas. But groups were not limited as to how many issues they could select, and many groups are broadly multi-issue.
There was wide consensus that the areas identified in the Plan will continue to be important for women. Each area of the Plan was deemed of future importance by at least 80% of the respondents. Moreover, when asked to identify problem areas that are not in the Plan (Question 11), most respondents gave answers that are already included in the Plan or fit logically into the Plan. (See below for a full report on Question 11.)
In general, there was a pattern of respondents taking a broad perspective beyond the concerns reflected in their statement of purpose or rating of their own past work. About a third of the respondants gave 20 or more of the Plan areas a 2 or 3 on the "future importance" rating. In summary, we found the validity of the 1977 Plan well confirmed for a broad cross-section of women's groups in 1987.
RANK ORDERINGS OF ISSUE AREAS,
FOR GROUPS VARYING IN SCOPE
Tables Three and Four condense a great deal of information, enabling us to answer the question: Are there any observable differences, as you go up the scale from local to international work, in what issue areas people see as important, or that they have worked on? As might be predicted, we observed that issue which primarily involve service provision, such as Battered Women, are more important at the local level. Issues which are more abstract, or involve working to change governmental policy, such as E.R.A., show up more strongly at the national level. Child Care is clearly an emerging issue, for everyone. Only state or regional groups listed it high in their past work, but groups at all levels listed it high for future importance. And for all groups, both for past work and future importance, Education remains steadily important. Since every issue area involves first, self-education, then public education, this is not too surprising a finding. But the survey confirms what our intuitions might have told us, and Tables Three and Four show how cohesive the women's movement is. There will be no radical shifts. We will keep doing what we have been doing, only we'll do more of it. The consistent pattern of higher rankings for future importance (for every issue) show that most of us feel there is a lot more to be done, in every areas of the Plan. The reader is invited to study Tables 3 and 4 for further insights, and to observe how the various issues of the Plan work together in the whole spectrum of groups from the local, in every area of the country, to the national and international.
RESPONSES TO QUESTION 11:
WHAT ISSUES NOT IN THE PLAN ARE YOU
WORKING ON OR CONCERNED ABOUT?
Question 11 was open - ended and asked the respondent to list issue areas that were NOT in The Plan. A
lot (at least two thirds) of the respondents left this one blank, or said something like "The Plan seems
very comprehensive", or, "The Plan has too much in it already!" (this woman seemed to feel we were
suggesting that she should take on the whole thing, all by herself). And of those that did list something
p. 10
The Plan areas that got the most reinforcement here (at least 15 mentions) were Child Care, Education, Employment, Women Welfare & Poverty, and International Affairs (Peace). Every area of the Plan except Credit and Insurance got at least one mention, and most got four or five.
Specific mention by at least ten respondants was made of: Child support, Parental leave, Reproductive technology, Low cost housing, special problems (mostly economic) of single parents, and Educating the public about women's issues.
About a third of those who responded specifically to this question mentioned (one way or another) that the most important thing was to get more women into positions of power and leadership. But these responses were evenly distributed over all types of hierarchies: business, government, education, science, religion, medicine, research. Clearly, there is broad consensus about the continuing need to break through "glass ceilings" everywhere.
Issues that came up that are not in the Plan are: surrogate mothers (need to resolve ethical issues), date rape, affordable housing (esp. for single parents), homeless women, immigrant women (esp. as indigent), teaching women to value themselves, legal status for non-traditional family units, pornography (as a general problem, not just in relation to children - pornography is mentioned in the Plan, but under Child Abuse, and only in relation to use of children to make pornography), AIDS, adult survivors of incest (need for services for), battered lesbians, prostitution, women and sports (concern with funding in schools), women in the church and the liturgies, problems of the "sandwich generation" (women who are caring for dependent children and dependent parents at the same time), conflict-resolution, and eco-feminism (concern for the environment, esp. as a feminist issue). All of these were mentioned several times, not always in the same words, but with equivalent intent.
Some respondents put general admonitions or worries for Q. 11. These included: •• expressions of concern to prevent backsliding and loss of ground for feminism, •• the need to avoid complacency, •• the mistake of assuming that because women are nearly 50% of the workforce and have made so many inroads into "nontraditional" areas that we are now equal, •• concern about ignorance and apathy in the young, ••the ever-present threat of the Far Right and Right-to-Lifers, •• the need for more coalition building and networking (at least ten people mentioned this).
These are all concerns that we all share, and the frequency with which they came up in one form or another shows how cohesive the women's movement is among those who are the movers of it. We are never all in one place at one time physically, and there is no organization to which we all belong, but we share a common worldview, and common concerns, over the decades, and in spite of all our differences.
| TABLE ONE: CHARACTERISTICS OF RESONDENT GROUPS | ||||||||
| Sampling Strategy: | ||||||||
| Sent | Returned | Response Rate | ||||||
| National Women's Mailing List | 1362 | 512 | 38% | |||||
| Non-Governmental Orgs. (U.N.) | 347 | 113 | 33% | |||||
| Other | 73 | 51 | 70% | |||||
| TOTAL | 1782 | 676 | 38% | |||||
| Overall Sample Characteristics: | Sample of 676 Groups | |||||||
| Scope of Group | Purpose of Group | Members Under 25 | ||||||
| Local | 358 | 53% | Service | 36% | (444 Groups) | |||
| State or Region | 99 | 15% | Education | 24% | 10% or less = | 64% | ||
| National | 118 | 18% | Policy | 29% | Average percent = | 16% | ||
| International | 49 | 7% | Other/Unknown | 11% | More than 50% = | 8% | ||
| Other/Unknown | 48 | 8% | ||||||
| Size of Group | Sources of Funding | Minority Members | ||||||
| (601 Groups) | (457 Groups) | |||||||
| 10 or less | 14% | Donations | 18% | 10% or less | 52% | |||
| 100 or less | 34% | Public Funds | 33% | 11 - 20% | 15% | |||
| 1000 or less | 16% | Dues | 14% | 21 - 40% | 18% | |||
| 50,000 or less | 10% | Fees & Sales | 14% | 41 - 60% | 9% | |||
| Over 50,000 | 2% | Other | 20% | 61 - 99% | 6% | |||
| Other/Unknown | 25% | Average Percent = | 20% | |||||
| Men Who Are Members | ||||||||
| (479 Groups) | ||||||||
| 10% or less = | 78% | |||||||
| Average percent = | 9% | |||||||
| More than 50% = | 3% | |||||||
p. 11
| TABLE TWO: PERCENTAGES OF GROUPS A) WORKING ON EACH AREA OF THE PLAN AND B) SEEING THAT AREA AS IMPORTANT FOR THE FUTURE | ||
| Area from the 1977 Plan | % Working on Issue |
% Giving Priority for Future |
| Arts and Humanities | 44 | 88 |
| Battered Women | 76 | 96 |
| Women-run Business | 46 | 86 |
| Child Abuse services and education | 64 | 93 |
| Child Care | 56 | 92 |
| Credit for Women | 41 | 86 |
| Disabled Women services & education | 46 | 89 |
| Education about Sexism | 75 | 95 |
| Elective and Appointive Office | 48 | 89 |
| Employment issues: Equal pay, nontrad. jobs | 66 | 94 |
| Equal Rights Amendment | 50 | 88 |
| Health Services, midwives, nursing homes | 52 | 90 |
| Homemakers rights; Displaced homemakers | 49 | 89 |
| Insurance discrimination | 24 | 82 |
| Role of Women in the Media | 48 | 91 |
| Minority Women's special problems | 69 | 95 |
| Female Offenders services | 28 | 82 |
| Older Women's services and conditions | 58 | 93 |
| Rape laws. Rape victim services. Education | 67 | 94 |
| Reproductive Freedom. Abortion. Sex Educ. | 54 | 91 |
| Rural Womens' rights. Migrant workers. | 26 | 83 |
| Sexual Preference. End discrimination | 53 | 85 |
| Include sex & race in national stats | 33 | 84 |
| Women, Welfare & Poverty. Unemployment | 52 | 92 |
| International Issues: | ||
| Participation of women in foreign policy | 23 | 82 |
| Include women in national development plans | 19 | 79 |
| Compliance with human rights treaties | 18 | 80 |
| Disarmament, peace education | 31 | 84 |
| Education about women in other countries | 38 | 85 |
| Particpation of women in internat. events | 34 | 85 |
| Groups rating 1, 2, or 3 on Past Work; Rating 1, 2, or 3 for Future. | ||
| TABLE THREE: RANK ORDERING OF ISSUE AREAS, AS TO FUTURE IMPORTANCE FOR GROUPS ARRANGED BY GEOGRAPHICAL SCOPE | ||||
| Ratg | Local | State/Regional | National | International |
| 2.8 | Employment | |||
| 2.7 | Battered women | Child Care Employment |
Employment | |
| 2.6 | Education Battered Women Poverty |
Education Minority women Reprod. Freedom |
Education | |
| 2.5 | Child Abuse Child Care Employment Rape |
Child Abuse Health Reprod. Freedom Minority Women Older Women |
Child Care | Child Care Health Disarmamant Reprod. Freedom Intern. Development Intern. Education Intern. Activities |
| 2.4 | Education Minority women Reprod. Freedom |
Elective office Rape Homemakers |
Health Battered women Older women |
Foreign Policy Human Rights Battered women Media Minority women |
| 2.3 | Poverty | Business | Child Abuse Elective Office Media E.R.A. Poverty Rape |
Arts Elective Office Rape E.R.A. Child Abuse Older women |
| Ratg=Average rating of importance for women in the future from O=Not at all to 3=Highest. | ||||
p. 12
| TABLE FOUR: RANK ORDERING OF ISSUE AREAS, AS TO AMOUNT OF PAST WORK, FOR GROUPS ARRANGED BY GEOGRAPHICAL SCOPE. | ||||
| Ratg | Local | State/Regional | National | International |
| 1.9 | Battered women | |||
| 1.8 | Education | Education | ||
| 1.7 | Intern. Educ. | |||
| 1.6 | Battered women Education Employment |
Minority women Employment |
Media | |
| 1.5 | Rape | Employment Intern. Development Intern. Activ. |
||
| 1.4 | Education | Health Minority women |
||
| 1.3 | Child Abuse | Rape | E.R.A. | Disarmament |
| 1.2 | Employment Minority women |
Child Abuse Child Care Homemakers Minority women Poverty |
Health | Arts Intern. Particip. |
| 1.1 | Health | Media Older Women Reprod. Freedom Intern. Activ. |
Rape Reprod. Freedom |
|
| 1.0 | Reprod. Freedom | Business Elective Office E.R.A. Older women Reprod. Freedom Sexual Preference |
Arts Elective Office Statistics Poverty |
Battered women Business Older women Sexual Preference Human Rights |
| Ratg=Average numerical rating for amount of past work. O=None to 3=Most. | ||||
STATEWIDE NETWORKS
No account of the past decade of the women's movement would be complete without some notice of the formation of networks and coalitions that bring together women from a wide variety of organizations, representing an equal variety of issue areas, to provide mutual support and concerted action in a specific area of the country. We make a beginning here, reporting on a survey of statewide networks, but there are many other configurations: municipal, county, multi-county, regional, and national. This report is based on the work of Ms. Betty Cook Rottman.
We conducted a survey of statewide networks simultaneously with the national survey reported in the first section of Part II, but we modified the questionnaire to make it more appropriate for statewide networks, as such. Ms. Rottman, working out of her office at the University of Missouri at Columbia, did the main work of carrying out the survey, using a list compiled by the National Women's Conference Committee, which contained a few municipal, county, and regional networks, a few commissions for women, and four national organizations, as well as all known statewide networks. 22 statewide networks responded, out of probable 25 or 30 such networks on the list. Only statewide networks are reported on here, because it was the only category of networks for which we had an adequate sample.
WHEN THEY BEGAN:
Some of the statewide networks (SNs) in our sample began before the National Plan was drafted in 1977, most began since, and some began with the Plan in hand. But, as we found with women's groups generally, all over the country, the Plan issues have wide relevance, whether or not the women involved known about the Plan or start with the Plan in mind. Some of the more recent organizations started with a focus on The Forward Looking Strategies (FLS), the official document of the End of Decade World Conference of Women held in Nairobi, Kenya, in 1985.
The oldest SN is the Minnesota Women's Political Caucus which was founded in 1971 and merged with the
Equal Rights Alliance in 1983. In 1972, the Virginia ERA Ratification Council brought together a statewide
network. Then followed: in 1973 - the Women's Rights Coalition of Oregon, in 1975- Illinois Women's
Agenda, 1976 - Michigan ERA America, 1977 - Colorado Women's Coalition and Louisiana
p. 13
FINDINGS OF THE SURVEY:
We asked how many organizations belonged to each network. The range was from 2 to 135, but half of our sample (11) have between 30 and 65 organizational members. Since the work of implementing the Plan is carried out largely by single-issue groups (e.g. women's shelters, health clinics, employment-related groups, etc.) it is important that multi-issue statewide networks have representation from as many areas of Plan work as possible, and therefore as many groups as possible. Recently formulated requirements for NWCC Board membership (for the newly created statewide network representatives) stipulate that networks must be working on at least five areas. Of the ten SNs recognized by NWCC as to September '87, eight responded to our survey.
We also asked for an estimate of percentages of individual members who are under age 25, men, or racial minorities. Most respondants did not provide answers here. We take this to mean that the question had not been asked before or that they did not know and were not willing to guess. For the few who did answer these questions: three had as many as 10% of members under 25 years of age. One had 10% men. Two had more than 30% minorities. Two reported a number of organizations of Blacks or Hispanics as organizational members. It is clear that the work of the Plan cannot ultimately be accomplished without men, young people and racial minorities being involved, sooner rather than later. It would be A Good Thing if all organizations working on Plan issues began to take stock of their demographics, and where it is appropriate and feasible, take action to attract young, or male, or non-white members.
The question about sources of funding was designed to find out how groups sustain themselves and whether there are some issues that are getting more support than others. For SNs, dues are the sole source of funds for a third of our sample. Six are supported 50% to 100% by donations. Only 3 (out of 22) primarily depend on grants or foundation funds.
A related question elicited information about number of paid staff. Only 6 (IL, LA, MN, OR, PA, WI) out of our 22 have at least one fulltime paid staff person. Of these 6, one is a fulltime lobbyist, one is a half-time lobbyist, and one is a secretarial service. Only one SN has more than one paid staff person: Pennsylvania Women's Agenda has 3 full-time and 4 part-time staff, with their main focus on lobbying, and with 65% grant funding. Of the 22, it appears that 16 have no paid staff. We asked this question because we know that paid staff are a stabilizing factor and usually enhance the work of volunteers. The women's movement as a whole, and statewide networks in particular are still very dependent, perhaps too much so, on volunteer energy.
The heart of the survey was the question which asked the respondant to rate each area of the Plan on a scale of 1 (least important or no activity) to 5 (most important, much activity). The top 14 issues, in order of importance ascribed by our 22 SNs are given here; the number in parentheses is the number of networks giving that area a rating of 3, 4, or 5: Women, Welfare & Poverty (15), Education (15), Battered Women (11), Rape (11), ERA (10), Employment (10), Older Women (10), Minority Women (10), Elective & Appointive Office (9), Insurance (9), Business (8), Offenders (8), Child Abuse (7), Homemakers (7).
This rank ordering parallels the finding of the survey of the national sample reported earlier in Part II (Table I). The violence issues are of great concern to everyone. Education and economic issues also rate high. Insurance and Offenders rank higher with the SNs than with the national sample, because the insurance industry and criminal law are regulated primarily at the state level.
MORE ABOUT INDIVIDUAL NETWORKS:
We do not have space here to give an account of each network in our sample. But we describe a few of them here to highlight the special character of each and to suggest the range of organizational styles.
THE ILLINOIS WOMEN'S AGENDA was founded in 1975, International Women's Year. Although they did not have the National Plan in hand when they started, they had something like it in mind. They now have 60 organizational members, representing all areas of the Plan, with an estimated constituency of 80,000. One of their principal concerns is the impact of the state's budget on women.
THE WISCONSIN WOMEN'S NETWORK was founded in 1979, by women who were delegates to the Houston Conference, and who established the Plan as the platform of the Wisconsin Network. WWN had a lot to do with Wisconsin's progressive Pay Equity legislation and model legislation on marital property. They are now focusing efforts on Family Leave policy, along with the continuing defense of reproductive freedom. WWN now has 65 organizational members, and their statement of purpose, bylaws and structure have served as models for other state networks (Missouri - 1983, Connecticut - 1984, et.al.)
THE SYNCHRONY COALITION in Arkansas was organized in 1983. It has 12 member organizations, four of which are predominantly black. Child care and prevention of teenage pregnancy are their focal issues for 1987-88. But when they started, their focus was increasing the number of women registered to vote, and working to increase the number of women in elective and appointive office.
THE MISSOURI WOMEN'S NETWORK was organized in 1983 with help from the Wisconsin Women's Network,
and in conjunction with a national seminar of Federally Employed Women. Pat Pierstorff, president of MWN,
is a Missouri leader of FEW. In 1984 and 1986, MWN organized the Women's Vote Project for Missouri, and in
1985 they hosted the annual conference of NWCC. A newsletter and postcard
p. 14
In 1985, at least two SNs formed specifically to work on promotion of the Forward Looking Strategies, which contains all the issues of the Plan and more: Minnesota Worldwide Women and the Forward Looking Strategies Coalition of California.
MINNESOTA WORLDWIDE WOMEN emphasizes "using the arts as a tool for community education and empowerment for action". Issues of common agreement are derived from the FLS document. MWW makes a special priority of "coalition building with community organizations, particularly across traditional barriers of race, nation, culture, class, sexual orientation, and disability."THE FORWARD-LOOKING-STRATEGIES COALITION, in California, has 40 member organizations, representing an international population, and has produced more than 13 cable TV programs to demonstrate that "all issues are women's issues". The organization began in southern California, with a base in Los Angeles, and is currently working to include the whole state, while pushing to get more women with global perspectives on public and private boards and commissions.
THE SOUTH DAKOTA ADVOCACY NETWORK FOR WOMEN got started in 1984, and currently has 31 organizational members. Using a three-tiered approach of Study, Support, and Propose, the network has chosen five 1987-88 legislative priorities: children's issues, family violence, health issues, concerns of the elderly, and funding, especially for the issue of domestic violence.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION:
(Arkansas) Synchrony Coalition, P.O. Box 704, Fayetteville AR 72702. Dr. Margaret Clark, Pres.
(California) Forward Looking Strategies Coalition, 777 Silver Spur Road #225, Palos Verdes Peninsula, CA 90274. Lea Ann King, Chair.
Illinois Women's Agenda, 118 N. Clinton, Suite 200, Chicago IL 60606. Andrea M. Schleifer, Pres.
Minnesota Worldwide Women, 1929 South 5th St., Minneapolis MN 55454. Kathleen Remund, Co-ord./Editor.
Missouri Women's Network, 9004 East 57th Terrace, Raytown MO 64133. Pat Pierstorff, Pres.
South Dakota Advocacy Network for Women, P.O. Box 398, Sioux Falls SD 57101. Harlene Pesicka, Chair.
Wisconsin Women's Network, 8 W. Mifflin St., Madison WI 53703. Constance F. Threinen, Co. Chr.
The other statewide networks with representation on the NWCC board are:
Colorado Women's Coalition, c/o Colleen Kent de Ruiz, Chair, 832 Miller Court, Lakewood CO 80215
Connecticut Women's Network, 417 Whitney Rd. U-118, Storrs CT 06268. Gail Mellow, Chair.
Kentucky Women Advocates, Margaret B Britton, Chair, 3870 Garden Terrace, Owensboro KY 42301.
Louisiana Women's Network, P.O. Box 850, Jeanerette LA 70544. Lourna Bourg, Treasurer.
Washington Women United, P.O. Box 27815, Olympia WA 98507. Marianne Craft Norton, Pres.
U.S. MAP SHOWING STATES WITH STATEWIDE NETWORKS
 |
 |
 |
| Previous Document |
Document List |
Next Document |