information request | comments and feedback | email this page 

Is There A Glass Ceiling for Women in Development?

The authors wish to acknowledge the generous support of the Women in Development of Greater Boston, Inc. and the Center for Gender in Organizations at Simmons College who co-sponsored this research. We also wish to acknowledge and thank our research assistants Sharon Dudelson and Erin Flanagan-Raynaud.

Abstract:
This article reports the results of an empirical study of salary equity for Women in Development (WID) of Greater Boston, Inc. The study objectives were to examine whether a glass ceiling exists for women in development in the New England area, and develop a historical review of equity progress as compared to previous studies. Issues specific to women in the development field were identified and recommendations given to address identified needs. The findings substantiate the existence of a glass ceiling with a significant difference in average salary and representation in upper management.  Furthermore, the study revealed that the salary gap between men and women is widening over time. Perceptions of barriers to women's advancement and organizational practices that would contribute to equity were also assessed. Recommendations for future research and organizational practices are presented.

Introduction

Equal opportunity for advancement in the workplace and equal compensation for similar work is supported by U.S. legislation. Yet, equality for women and minorities in the workplace is presented in literature as a reality distant from today. According to the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress, the issue termed "pay equity", or more recently, "fair pay", originates from the pervasive fact that women as a group are paid less than men (Levine, 2001). The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) established the Equal Pay Act in 1963, requiring that men and women be given equal pay for equal work in the same establishment. Although the wage gap has narrowed, it still remains an ongoing challenge. (U.S. Department of Labor, 2005).

There are several lines of reasoning for the presence of a wage gap. The term "glass ceiling", coined 20 years ago by the Wall Street Journal, is used in reference to "transparent but real barriers, based on discriminatory attitudes or organizational bias, that impede or prevent qualified individuals, including (but not limited to) women, racial and ethnic minorities, and disabled persons, from advancing into management positions" (Gibelman, 2000, p 251). Women are less likely than men to move up and out of low-wage work. In fact, more than 90 percent of long-term low wage earners among prime-age adults are women. (Rose and Hartmann, 2004).

Another possible explanation for the pay gap is said to be effects of women voluntarily leaving work for family/home obligations, referred to as "opt-out revolution", a New York Times-coined phrase that posits that highly qualified women are dropping out of promising careers in far larger numbers than their male counterparts (Belkin, 2003). The effect of this voluntary dropout (predominately found in female workers) leads to significantly lower future earnings (Ketsche, Branscomb, Gordon, 2003). However, subsequent research has shown that the Opt out demographic is in fact very small, selective, and based on largely anecdotal evidence (Merrill-Sands, Kickul and Ingols, 2005).

BACKGROUND

The Glass Ceiling in For Profit and Nonprofit Sectors

According to the American government's specially appointed Glass Ceiling Commission convened in 1995, even though women had 46% of America's jobs and more than half of master's degrees being awarded, 95% of senior managers were men. This Commission also found that female managers' earnings averaged 68% of their male counterparts'. In 2005, women accounted for 47% of America's workforce and for less than 8% of its top managers and averaged only 72% of their male colleagues' salaries ("The Conundrum of the Glass Ceiling", 2005).

However, there has been some suggestion by the Social Investment Analyst Research Network (SIRAN) that even the Class Ceiling Commission figures may not be accurate. A 2005 study conducted by SIRAN found that a decade after the federal Glass Ceiling Commission recommended voluntary disclosure of equal employment opportunity (EEO) data by publicly traded companies, almost half (46%) of responding Standard & Poor's 100 (S&P 100) companies admit that they fail to publicly release such information in full (SIRAN, 2005).

Although accountability in nonprofit firms continues to increase, less is documented on the presence of the glass ceiling in the nonprofit sector (Gibelman, 2000). Gibelman's studies "substantiate the existence of the glass ceiling phenomenon among the agencies studied. Men are disproportionately represented in management, particularly upper-level management, and they earn higher salaries than women at all hierarchical levels of the organization." (Gibelman, 2000).

Women in Management: For Profit and Nonprofit Sectors

The percentage of women officials and managers in the private sector has increased from just over 29 percent in 1990 to just over 36 percent in 2002 (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2004). In the for-profit sector, "industries with a high proportion of women in headquarters management are more likely to have disparities between the men and women in field management pools and less likely to have such disparities in white collar pools. Conversely, industries with a low proportion of women in headquarters management are less likely to have disparities in field management pools and more likely to have disparities from white collar pools" (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2004).

In the nonprofit sector, women are both underrepresented and underpaid in management (Gibelman, 2000; Hallock 2002). Although studies have focused on the wage gap between male and female managers (Mesch and Rooney, 2005; Chronicle of Philanthropy, 2004; Salamon and Sokolowski, 2005), little literature exists on the proportion of women in nonprofit management.

Pay Equity in the For Profit and Nonprofit Sectors

The U.S. Department of Labor's Highlight of Women's Earnings in 2004 findings indicates that even though the Equal Pay Act has existed for 43 years, a wage gap still exists.  This report, which includes employees in both the private and public sectors but excludes all self-employed persons, found women's and men's earnings gap much larger among middle-aged and older workers than among younger workers; within workers aged 45 to 54, women earned 73 percent of what men earned. It has been documented that "much research has been conducted on the gender pay gap in the private sector indicating that women are paid significantly less than men, even when controlling for the industry, firm size, occupation, human capital, performance, and organizational structural factors that are traditionally associated with pay differentials" (Mesch and Rooney, 2005).

Nonprofit wages, although generally lower than those of for-profit enterprises or government, actually equal or exceed for-profit wage rates in industries in which both sectors are involved (Salamon and Sokolowski, 2005). And, similar to the for-profit sector, women earn less.  Although less abundant, research conducted on the gender pay gap in the nonprofit sector (Gemeinhardt and Werner, 1995; Conry, 1998; Gibelman, 2000; Ruhm & Borkoski, 2003; Mesch and Rooney, 2005) indicates that women are paid significantly less in this sector as well.

In addition to earning less than men for performing similar jobs in nonprofit firms, women were far less likely to work at the larger organizations (Blum, 2005). According to GuideStar 2005 statistics, nonprofit groups with annual budgets over $50-million had men's CEO median salaries 27 percent higher than women's; other positions showed much smaller gaps between the sexes ("Differences in Pay for Men and Women in Top Charity Jobs", 2005).

The Role of Nonprofit Boards

Boards decide who will lead organizations--and how much that leader will be paid, playing a large role in the continuing gap in salary and opportunity between male and female nonprofit heads (Joslyn, 2003). According to the 2000 survey by Council on Foundations, from 1982 to 2000, the percentage of women on foundation boards increased from 23 percent to 34 percent while the share of minority-group board members grew from 4 percent to 11 percent (Lewis, 2002). The survey reported the make-up of these boards as being: White male: 60%, White female: 30%, Black male: 4%, Black female: 3%, Hispanic male: 1%, Hispanic female: 1%, other males 0.8%, other females: 0.9% (Lewis, 2002). There is some suggestion that this bodes well for sensitivity to salary and advancement opportunities for women.

Nonprofit Fundraising and Gender Equity

Studies of gender equity in fundraising over the past decade have increased (Conry, 1998; Mesch and Rooney, 2005), over which time there has been an increase in the memberships of the top three professional organizations representing fundraisers to the point where the majority of professionals are women (Conry, 1998). More women than men are entering this profession as paid employees, occupying all fundraising job categories across all types of nonprofit organizations (Conry, 1998).

This phenomenon, referred to as "the feminization of fund raising" (Conry, 1991) could have negative implications on the salaries, prestige, and status of a previously male dominated occupation in which fundraising is seen as "women's work" (Conry, 1998; Mesch and Rooney, 2005). According to the Association of Fundraising Professionals, median salary of U.S. Nonprofit fundraisers in 2003 was $72,050. Female fundraisers in the U.S. earned a median salary of $23,000 less per year than their male counterparts. Fund-raising in the For-profit sector earned a higher median salary: $100,000 (Blum, 2005).

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

Research to date has indicated that there are factors present that could indicate a glass ceiling in various types of nonprofit organizations. Research has only recently focused on pay disparities among managers in the nonprofit sector. This study will take one slice of the nonprofit sector, that of development, and examine for wage disparity, the existence of a glass ceiling and look at the wage gap over time. As such our research questions are as follows:

1. Is there a wage disparity between women and men in the development field?  If wage disparity does exist, in which types and sizes of organizations does it occur?
2. Is there a glass ceiling?  Are women taking time out of the workforce in great numbers thereby limiting their future careers?
3. If there is wage disparity among women and men in the development field is it getting greater or less over time?
4. Given the state of the development field today what can individuals and organizations do to remedy the wage and advancement gaps for women?

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The Sample

In July 2005, a link to an online questionnaire was sent to 4,393 men and women employed in the fundraising field. Email addresses were provided by: the Planned Giving Group of New England (PGGNE), the Council for Advancement and Support of Education (CASE), the New England Development Research Association (NEDRA), the Association of Fundraising Professionals (AFA) and Women in Development of Greater Boston (WID).  The questionnaire included 50 questions on demographics, salary, bonuses, pensions, benefits and leadership. The return rate for the survey was 22%, which yielded 970 completed surveys.

Measures of Analysis

In order to examine the differences between the genders, frequency distributions were assembled and then cross-tabulated by gender. Chi-square analysis was then used to examine for the presence of relationships between gender and other study variables, which might answer the research questions or provide explanation for various results. The study variables included in the chi-square analysis were: organization type, organization size, institutional budget, area of responsibility, job title, advancement expectations, salary (exclusive of benefits), satisfaction with salary, pension plan, time off from job, reason for time off from job, marital status, age, presence of children at home, highest degree attained, coursework taken in philanthropy and racial/ethnic group. Chi-square is used to test the statistical significance of the observed association in a cross-tabulation.  This technique assists in determining whether a systematic association exists between two variables (Malhotra, 1999).

In order to explore the presence of wage inequity over time, average salary and job title of this study were compared against primary data collected by WID in 1988 and 1998. Average salary data from 1988 and 1998 was converted to 2005 dollars for comparison according to the Consumer Price Index Calculator of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS, 2005). Salary progress and job title progress by gender were compared over time.

RESULTS

Sample Demographics

The survey included 800 women (82%) and 170 men (18%). Ninety-three percent of the sample was white/Anglo-European. Sixty-one percent were married and their average age was 43 years old. While over twenty different organization types were represented in the survey, 36% of the sample came from private universities/colleges. This is not surprising given the high concentration of colleges and universities in the New England area. Fifty-four percent of the sample was from the Greater Boston area, although all New England States and New York were represented. This was a well-educated sample with 39% holding a Bachelor's degree and 36% holding a Master's degree.

The average development office represented in the sample contained 23 professionals and 12 support employees and 25% had institutional budgets in excess of $100 million. Most respondents had worked an average of 5 years at their current employer, had worked 10 years in the development field and worked 9 years outside the development field. Fourteen percent of the survey worked in an area called Annual Giving and another 14% worked in Major Gifts. The most popular job title was director (36%) and respondents had worked on average, 4 years in that position. The average number of employees supervised was 9 professionals and 8 support staff.

Fifty-five percent of the respondents did not see themselves advancing in their current organization but they did feel that career opportunities in this field were increasing over time. Seventy-four percent felt they worked in family-friendly organizations. Sixty-one percent had taken time off from their job or career due to birth of a child or unemployment and spent less than 6 months out of the workforce.

The average salary for the sample was $70,607 and 52% were satisfied with their salary. The average percentage raise in pay in the previous year was 5% and 10% received bonuses averaging around $4,200. Seventy-seven percent stated that their employer offered a pension plan and 43% said their employer matched contributions to their pension plan.

Testing for Wage Disparity and the Glass Ceiling

In testing for indications of a glass ceiling, chi-square analysis found that there was a significant difference (at .05 level) between gender and salary, pension plan, job title, satisfaction with salary levels, organization type and organization budget. See Table 1.

A. Gender, Salary and Job Title

In this study, men had a significantly higher salary than women. The weighted average salary for women was $67,271 and the weighted average salary for men was $86,265. The difference between these average salaries is significant $18,994. Figure 1 shows the distribution of women's and men's salaries over various salary ranges.

It is evident from Figure 1 that women hold a larger number of lower paying jobs in this field with the largest number of women making between $45,000 and $60,000. Men hold more of the higher paying jobs in the field with the highest number of men falling in the $90,000 to $120,000 salary range.

An analysis of gender and job title provides a bit more insight into the pay disparities. Figure 2 shows a plot of the percentage of job titles held by each gender. Men and women appear to track relatively evenly by job title until the director level. More men than women hold more senior (and thus high paying) job titles. Figure 3 shows a cut of the data by job level categories of administration, consultants, deans, officer titles, directors and senior managers. Women hold more of the lower level administrative jobs as well as more of the director level positions while men hold more of the senior management positions. The differences between salary and job title certainly point toward a glass ceiling for women in this profession.

Even though our sample appeared to have the same average experience level between men and women (approximately 10 years) it was important to examine how average salary tracked against experience level. Figure 4 shows salary levels by experience by gender.

It is evident from Figure 4 that even though men and women start at about the same salary levels men consistently earn more than women throughout their careers in the fundraising field.

A check was also made on education levels to see if the men in the sample were more educated than the women thus explaining the difference in salary levels. Again, using chi-square analysis there was no significant difference between gender and education levels.

B. Gender and Pension Plan

While overall, seventy-seven percent of the sample had a pension plan, there was a significant difference between gender and pension plans. More men than women in the sample had pension plans with their organizations.  Seventy-six percent of the women and 85% of the men had a pension plan.

C. Gender and Satisfaction with Salary Levels

Women were generally less satisfied with their salary than men. Fifty-one percent of the women were satisfied with their salary levels as opposed to 56% of the men. Given that salary levels were significantly lower for women than men, this is not a surprising finding.

D. Gender and Organization Type

Table 2 shows the proportion of each gender in which organization type with each organization's average salary. Simply presented, men work in organizations that pay higher salaries.

E. Gender and Organizational Budget

Table 3 shows the proportion of men and women that work in organizations with various budget levels. Overall, women tend to work in organizations with smaller budgets and lower average salaries. Sixty-five percent of the women and only 51% of the men work in organizations that have a budget of less than $50 million. One-third of the men in the sample work in large organizations with budgets over $100 million. Only about 20% of the women work in organizations with budgets of over $100 million. See Table 4. This also adds explanation to the higher salaries of men in the study.

In only two of the twelve organizational budget levels in Table 4 do women receive a higher salary than men. Even in the largest organizations with budgets in excess of $50 million or more, women's salaries trail behind men by $20,000 or more.

F. Job Dropout

One reason that has been forwarded in the literature for the fact that women have lower wages then men is that women take time off thus limiting their future career. In this study we asked respondents if they had taken time off from their job/career, how long they were out of the workforce and the reason they took the time off. Women had taken time off from their career twice as much as men had. Forty-two percent of women and 21 percent of men had taken time off from their jobs. Interestingly, the majority of women, 58%, never took any time off from their jobs for any reason. So if this is representative of the female population as a whole, a majority of women do not take time off from their job thereby discounting "opting out" as a reason for limited advancement. Table 5 below shows how long both men and women were out of the workforce and for what reason.

Women were generally out of their jobs for 1 week to 3 months principally for childbirth, adoption or raising a child. By the 6 month mark over 50% were back to their jobs. Like women, men were out of work mostly for 1 week to 3 months, but were out for different reasons like unemployment or more education.

The Wage Gap over Time

In order to examine the wage gap over time, primary data collected in 1988 and 1998 by WID was examined. Similar in scope to the present study, surveys were administered to men and women in the fundraising field by WID in 1988 and 1998 and then reports were generated. In order to assess wage growth over time, 1988 and 1998 dollars were converted into 2005 dollars by adjusting for inflation. By comparing 1988 average salaries (in 2005 dollars) against average salaries in this study, actual growth in real dollars can be assessed.

Table 6 shows salary progress over time by position. Average salary of the total sample was $37,047 in 1988 dollars. After adjusting for inflation, the average salary of the total sample would be $57,176 in 2005 dollars. The percentage change in salary from 1988 to 2005 is 18%. This represents the real growth in dollars over this 17 year period.

As Table 6 indicates the percentage change in real dollar growth is about the same between men and women. But, when salary progress by job title is examined (Table 7) it is evident that real growth in senior level positions, i.e. vice presidents, is an enormous 42%. Earlier analysis showed that more men than women held these senior level positions. Earlier analysis also indicated that more women were in director positions that saw real dollar growth in salaries of only 10% over the seventeen year period.

Next, a wage gap line was constructed of average salary for 1988, 1998 and 2005. This is depicted in Figure 5 below. The difference between average salaries of men and women in 1988 was $10,585, in 1998 was $9,257 and in 2005, $18,994. There was a slight narrowing of the wage gap between 1988 and 1998, but by 2005, the gap had almost doubled. This is due to the fact that real dollar growth in salaries was in the senior level positions where men hold a higher proportion of these jobs.

Advancement and Skills Sets for the Future

Women in the sample were asked if they felt that they had the same advancement opportunities as men in the development field. The majority said yes at 65%. Obviously, they are optimistic about the field. Those that answered no to this question (35%) were asked what three organizational practices would contribute most to the advancement of women in the development field. The three organizational practices that would contribute most were 1) leadership development; 2) recognizing different work and leadership styles; and 3) family-friendly policies and culture.

Survey respondents were also asked how they thought women get ahead in the development field. Women felt they get ahead in this field by 1) using power and leadership effectively; 2) performing above and beyond job expectations; and 3) through high visibility assignments.

DISCUSSION

Wage Disparity and the Glass Ceiling

This study indicates that there is a definite wage disparity between men and women in the development field. Even though the fundraising field is predominantly women, no real improvements have been made in eliminating the wage gap. GuideStar found a difference of $23,000 in median salaries of men and women in 2003 and this study found a difference in average salaries of approximately $19,000. When comparing against GuideStar's data it is clear that there has not been any real improvement in narrowing the wage disparity.

In salary distribution, the majority of women in this study were in the $45,000 to $60,000 salary range and the actual number of women in the higher salary ranges dropped quickly. More women than men held the lower paying administrative jobs. The distribution of men's salaries was more bimodal. The largest group of men had salaries in the $90,000 to $120,000 salary range with a second smaller group in the $45,000 to $60,000 range.

Some of this wage disparity can be explained in the fact that women tend to work in organizations that pay less on average. Women also tend to work in smaller organizations, which pay less. However, even in smaller organizations women are not paid at the same average salary rate as men. In organizations with budgets below $10 million, women still make on average $9,700 less in salary.

Experience levels were not significant by gender in this study. Therefore, it cannot be argued that men were paid more because they had more experience. Men and women in this study started at about the same salary levels but men's salaries increased at a higher rate than women's salaries.  Men's and women's salaries converged around 17 years of experience but then men's jumped higher presumably because they were offered and took senior level positions.

Job title was a significant differentiator among men and women. The majority of women in the study held the position of director. Even though a large proportion of women were in director positions this did not in turn translate into senior management positions holding such titles as: assistant vice president, executive director of development, vice president or chief development officer. Men held a higher proportion of senior level positions than women.

Hand and hand with salary, there was a significant difference between gender and pension plans. More men than women had pension plans with their organizations. It was not surprising to find that women were less satisfied with their salary than men. If salary and access to pension plans were significantly lower for women than men it is not surprising to find that women were less satisfied than men.

When asking women if they had "opted out" of the workforce for any reason the majority, 58%, stated they had not. This has been previously cited as a factor in lack of career progress. So, in theory, since the majority of women in the study did not take any time off they should not have been constricted by this factor. Of those women that did take time off of work over 50% of the women had returned to work by the 6th month. Over 70% of women were back within one year. Putting this into a career perspective, it is obvious that one 6 to12 month period should not significantly impact a career spanning over 40 years. It also should be noted that some men also take time off from their careers. Their reason is different for taking time off – unemployment. It would seem that unemployment would have more of an impact on salary levels than taking time off for childbirth.

A wage disparity over time was also demonstrated in this study. The difference between the average salaries of men and women were$10,585 in 1988, $9,257 in 1998 and $18,994 in 2005. Obviously, there is an historical wage gap and the gap is getting wider, almost doubling between 1988 and 2005. Real salary growth occurred in the senior level positions that are typically held by men, with little salary growth in the director level positions where women hold a higher proportion of jobs.

The results of this study point clearly to the existence of a glass ceiling in development. Generally, women are paid less, and progress to director level positions where they are prevented from going further despite equal experience and education levels. They have less access to pension plans and are less satisfied with their salary levels. The growing wage gap also indicates that action needs to be taken now to reverse the impact of this discrimination as the problem appears to be getting larger.

IMPLICATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH

The women surveyed identified several areas that were hindering their advancement within the development profession. These areas are consistent with those cited by corporate women: failure of senior leadership to assume accountability for women's advancement, stereotypes and preconceived notions off women's abilities and roles, commitment to personal and family responsibilities, and exclusion from formal networks. (Catalyst, 1999) This suggests that fundraising organizations may be well served by examining corporate responses to these issues for lessons learned and examine potential adaptability of best practices for remedying these issues.

Best Practices for Gender Equity

Best practices in the private sector include work/family initiatives (examples include Child Care Resource & Referral, On-Site Child Development Centers, Dependent Care Assistance Plans), workplace flexibility, initiatives that promote upward mobility (examples include Leadership and Career Development, Mentoring, Accountability Programs), leadership and career development, rotation/nontraditional employment, diversity initiatives, networks for women, and benchmarking corporate initiatives for women's advancement (Catalyst, 1994). Although, Mesch and Rooney (2005) caution that "Without a body of research that specifically focuses on the nonprofit sector, it is difficult to determine whether or not incentive systems that have been successful in the private sector will have their intended effects in the nonprofit arena".

As consistent with best practices in diversity management, it may also behoove development and fundraising organizations to examine their current formal and informal career paths for women, and invest in leadership education and development programs for women. Clearly professional organizations such as WID in the Greater Boston area have provided this service in the past and can continue to further develop these types of services which provide up to date and on going education for women and their organizations based on timely and specific research such as presented in this study. The cultures of organizations themselves need to be examined as part of an organization's self assessment to examine issues such as different work and leadership styles which may not fit traditional male styles or definitions.

A great deal of research in the recent past has pointed to the ways in which women's leadership may not be recognized or valued as such (Fletcher, 2001) Clearly senior leadership must be held accountable for progress. Cultural audits of compensation and advancement practices, including job assignments and ongoing monitoring of the pipeline for advancement will provide data with which organizations can measure progress against real goals.

Equitable work/family policies and a supportive organizational culture for implementation are crucial to women's advancement in this field.  Work-Life balance is important for women, and implementation of work/family programs is often the first step in a company's development of programs to recruit, retain, develop and advance women (Catalyst 1994).  Work-Life balance is important in nonprofits particularly, as, according to the Independent Sector and the Urban Institute, 70 percent of the nonprofit workforce is female.

Included within the nonprofit sector are more than half of the nation's general hospitals; nearly half of its higher education institutions; most of its family service agencies; almost all of its symphonies; substantial proportions of its nursing homes; and most of its homeless shelters, soup kitchens, community development agencies, and hospices (Salamon and Sokolowski, 2005). More than half (52.4%) of nonprofit employment is in the health field; split 38 percent in hospitals and the rest in nursing homes, residential care, and clinics. Another 20 percent of nonprofit employment is in social services (for example, individual and family services, child day care, and job training).  Of the remainder, 15 percent is in education, and the balance is split among membership organizations, culture and recreation, and assorted other activities (Salamon and Sokolowski, 2005).

Research Directions

Further research is needed to substantiate these findings in areas outside of New England within the development profession. Future studies could help determine if organizational size and geographic location are significantly related to the existence and pervasiveness of the glass ceiling. It would also be interesting to explore if women are stalling at the Director level in other nonprofit jobs outside of the development field. A large scale "opt-out" study is also needed.

Women of color and white women have reported different types of experiences in the for-profit and not-for-profit sector (O'Neill, 1994, Nkomo and Bell, 2003). The fact that there were not enough women of color in this sample to report significant similarities or differences tells us that that recruitment of women of color is the challenge facing development organizations at this point, not advancement. Previous research has shown that women of color face disproportionate barriers to upward mobility and salary in the profit and not for profit sector (Gibelman, 2000). Future research should attempt to include race and ethnicity to determine if similarities or differences exist among women in the development profession.

Implications

The glass ceiling identified in his study is detrimental for many reasons:  it breeds employee dissatisfaction and turnover, lowers productivity, impacts donor relationships, and reflects a loss of institutional knowledge. Unless these issues are addressed directly and aggressively the widening gender gap in wages and advancement will continue to grow. Beyond issues of equity, development organizations need to address this major challenge affecting their productivity and effectiveness in a time of rising expectations for organizational stewardship.

REFERENCES

Belkin, L. "The Opt-Out Revolution." The New York Times, October 26, 2003.
Blum, D.  "Female Charity Executives Win Big Increases in Pay." Chronicle of Philanthropy, 2005, 18 (1), 35.
Blum, D. "Fund Raisers' Pay Hits New High, Compensation Survey Finds." Chronicle of Philanthropy, 2005, 17 (14), 31.
BLS, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Inflation Calculator, Retrieved on February 11, 2006 from www.bls.gov/bls/inflation.htm.
Catalyst. Cracking the Glass Ceiling: Strategies for Success. NYC, NY: Catalyst, 1994.
Catalyst. Women of Color in Corporate Management: Opportunities and Barriers. New York City, New York: Catalyst, 1999.
Center for Gender in Organizations at Simmons College Conry, J.C. "Gender and Pay Equity in the Fundraising Workforce; Implications for Practice and Policy." New Directions for Philanthropic Fundraising, 1998, 19, 73-91.
"Differences in Pay for Men and Women in Top charity Jobs." Chronicle Of Philanthropy, 2004, 17 (3), 41.
Fletcher, J.K. "Invisible Work: The Disappearing of Relational Practice at Work."  CGO Insights, March 2001, Center for Gender in Organizations, Simmons School of Management.
Gardyn, R. "Building Board Diversity." Chronicle of Philanthropy, 2003, 16 (5), 25-27.
Gemeinhardt, G. and Werner, S. "Nonprofit Organizations: What Factors Determine Pay Levels?" Compensation and Benefits Review, 1995, 27(5), 53-60.
Gibelman, M. "The Nonprofit Sector and Gender Discrimination." Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 2000, 10 (3) 251-269.
Gose, B. "Charities Pay Women Less Than Men, Study Finds." Chronicle of Philanthropy, 2004, 17 (3), 40.
Hallock, K. "The Gender Pay and Employment Gaps for Top Managers in U.S. Nonprofits." Department of Economics and Institute of Labor and Industrial Relations, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, January 12, 2002.
Joslyn, H.  "Charity's Glass Ceiling." Chronicle of Philanthropy, 2003, 15 (1), 47-50.
Ketsche, P., Branscomb, L., Gordon, L. "The Long-Term Costs of Career Interruptions Study." Journal of Healthcare Management, 2003, 48 (1), 30-45.
Levine, L. The Gender Wage Gap and Pay Equity: Is Comparable Worth the Next Step? Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service, The Library of Congress, June 5, 2001.
Lewis, N. "Women and Minorities Slowly Gain Board Seats, Report Says." Chronicle of Philanthropy, 2002, 14 (20), 30-32.
Malhotra, N.K.  Marketing Research: An Applied Orientation. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1999, p 465-487.
"Nearly Half of America's Largest Companies Responding to Survey Do Not Voluntarily Disclose Equal Employment Opportunity Data on Women, Minorities." Social Investment Research Analyst Network, 2005.
Merrill-Sands, D., Kickul, J. and Ingols, C.  "Women Pursuing Leadership and Power: Challenging the Myth of the Opt out Revolution."  CGO Insights, February 2005, Center for Gender in Organizations, Simmons School of Management.
Mesch, D. and Rooney, P. "Determinants of Compensation for Fundraising Professionals; a Study of Pay, Performance, and Gender Differences." Paper presented at ARNOVA, Washington D.C., November, 2005.
Rose, S. and Hartmann, H., Still a Man's Labor Market: The Long-Term Earnings Gap. Washington, D.C.: Institute for Women's Policy Research, 2004.
"Nearly Half of America's Largest Companies Responding to Survey Do Not Voluntarily Disclose Equal Employment Opportunity Data on Women, Minorities." Social Investment Research Analyst Network, 2005.
Nkomo, S.M. and Bell, E.L.  Our Separate Ways: Black and White Women and the Struggle for Professional Identity.  Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press, 2003.
O'Neill, M.  "The Paradox of Women and Power in the Nonprofit Sector." In T. Oldendahl and M.O'Neill (eds), Women and Power in the Nonprofit Sector. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1994.
Rose, S. and Hartmann, H. Still a Man's Labor Market: The Long-Term Earnings Gap.  Washington, D.C.: Institute for Women's Policy Research, 2004.
Ruhm, Christopher J., and Carey Borkoski, 2003 "Compensation  in the Nonprofit Sector".  Journal of Human Resources, 38 (4)
Salamon, L. and Sokolowski, S. "Nonprofit Organizations: New Insights from QCEW Data." Monthly Labor Review, 2005, 128 (9), 19-26.
"The Conundrum of the Glass Ceiling." The Economist, July 23, 2005, 376 (8436), p 67.
U.S. Department of Labor. Highlights of Women's Earnings in 2004.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Labor, September 2005
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Equal Pay and Compensation Discrimination, 2005. Retrieved February 2, 2006, from http://www.eeoc.gov/types/epa.html.
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Glass Ceilings: The Status of Women as Officials and Managers in the Private Sector. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2004.

FIGURES

Figure 1 Salary Distribution for Women and Men

Figure 2 Job Titles by Gender

Figure 3 Job Level Category by Gender

Figure 4 Salary by Gender by Experience

Figure 5 Salary by Gender 1988-2005

TABLES

Table 1 Chi-square Results

Table 2 Gender by Organization Type by Average Salary

Table 3 Gender by Organizational Budget by Average Salary

Table 4 Budget Size by Average Salary of Women & Men

Table 5 Gender by How Long Out of the Workforce and the Reason

Table 6 Salary Progress by Gender over Time

Table 7 Salary Progress by Position over Time