Showing posts with label Programs. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Programs. Show all posts

Saturday, October 19, 2013

List of the Very best SEO Programs - Price, Features, Reviews

(Difference between revisions)

Spinner Chief. A close rival to TheBestSpinner but it feels clunky in contrast. Either way they have a fully free variation of the applications for one to enjoy!

Google Webmaster Tools. Another preference would obviously be Google Webmaster Tools if I want to focus on the evaluation. There are group of other things you can learn about this awesome tool and simply give your try. Google has been more pro - active in providing suggestions and recommendations through GWT after they started penguin. This is the first thing you get the greatest benefit from this Google product (Tool). I would also point out that GWT provides all the necessary data that's essential for link analysis or link auditing. They are now emailing to the webmasters if their website is not performing well as a consequence of any reason.

Trello. Organisation is an often ignored key component of search engine optimization. Internally we find Trello to be a truly crucial means of keeping an eye on all our jobs with several boards and sub-boards spanning our organization.

Link Detox. This is a relatively new tool for identifying hazardous links to your site and finding the contact information of the link owner. As such, this tool has immediately become priceless. It gives an easy to comprehend shot of your site's link profile by showing all your healthy links as well as your toxic and questionable links. It is a good bet that you will need to contact the site owners of the poisonous links. You will want to take more care in reviewing the suspicious links. Many will need removing; nevertheless, you really need to keep those sites that link to you that have a low page standing yet are wholly relevant. These are not harmful to your site. The data can be exported by you to a CSV file to help you digest and contact the site owners through a mail merge. Link Detox also lets you create a Google Disavow Tool file. A word of extreme care here: in my opinion, it will always be better to build the Disavow list yourself to protect against including any healthy links. Link Detox is a great tool and well worth the small fee for membership.

KeywordSpy. One of the best ways to discover keywords is by analysing your competitors?. KeywordSpy provides a one-stop-shop for all manner of keyword research. You can easily spy on what your competitors have been optimising for and also what they?ve been bidding on for Pay-Per-Click (PPC) campaigns. PPC campaigns can often give you a great insight into which keywords convert well, as the competition will have tested this already for you! Alternatives to KeywordSpy include WordTracker and SEMrush.


View the original article here

Friday, August 9, 2013

The truth about workplace wellness programs: Everybody wins

By Randel K. Johnson, U.S. Chamber of Commerce - 04/25/13 12:07 PM ET

Workplace wellness programs have been critical elements of many employer sponsored healthcare coverage offerings for over a decade. Recently however these programs have come under groundless criticism as nefariously motivated discrimination which some argue allow employers to illegally invade the privacy of their employees and unfairly underwrite premiums based on identified conditions. Nothing could be further from the truth. Efforts to strengthen the ability of these programs to modify behavior, improve health, reduce and mitigate incidents of chronic diseases, and control costs by directly engaging individuals have enjoyed broad bi-partisan support even in the debate over the partisan health reform law. 

The fact that healthcare costs are rising is undisputed. If employers are to continue to provide healthcare coverage for their employees, they have several options: cut benefits, increase employees’ premiums, or drop coverage altogether. In an effort to avoid these less-appealing options, employers for many years now have utilized wellness programs to encourage improvements in employee health. These programs have encouraged individuals to take responsibility for their health and rewarded those for modifying unhealthy behavior. This in turn benefits the entire workforce and protecting colleagues and coworkers who otherwise would also be saddled with higher premiums to compensate for an unhealthy coworker’s poor health choices. The result – better health and lower costs which allows employers to use these savings to pay employees higher wages, invest in further adapting benefits to specific employee population needs, and create more jobs.
Beyond the more direct motives, both altruistic and financial, these workplace wellness programs also reflect the general evolution of our country’s healthcare system toward prevention and maintaining health as opposed to the historic pattern of treatment and healing the sick. In identifying impending and current chronic disease and illnesses, these programs offer another way to advance our country’s health care evolving approach beyond simply treating diseases and caring for the sick to improving health and maintaining wellness. These wellness programs give people tools to identify their risk factors, improve their health, modify unhealthy behavior and stay well both in the workplace and at home.  
It is important to understand that these programs must follow a myriad of privacy and anti-discrimination laws to ensure that employee health information is protected and that individual employees are not discriminated against based on health status. Sensitive medical information and privacy concerns have been carefully protected for years – whether for an employee with a congenital heart defect obtaining healthcare coverage and medical services through an employer’s health plan or for a smoker completing a smoking cessation class as part of an employer’s wellness program. As with other sensitive personal medical information, data collected and monitored in conjunction with these programs is not shared with the employer. Third party entities (and not employers) are responsible for conducting screenings and any personal health information is de-identified and protected. Only information that is necessary to accomplish the purpose for which it is being shared can be communicated.
At the end of the day, both employees and employers benefit from better health. Employers want to continue to provide coverage, and in this difficult time of transition resulting from the healthcare law, wellness programs continue to offer an effective way for employers to encourage healthy behavior without having to decrease benefits, reduce wages, or close their doors altogether.
Johnson is the senior vice president of Labor, Immigration, and Employee Benefits for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
View Comments

View the original article here

Thursday, July 11, 2013

As GOP Seeks Cuts To Child Nutrition Programs, Democratic Rep. Pushes To Expand School Lunches

Republican budget proposals have included deep cuts to social safety net programs, including those that are aimed at ensuring that needy children have access to nutritional food at school. Last year’s House Republican budget, for instance, would have kicked 280,000 children out of the program, and spending cuts that have been enacted have targeted it too.

Amid those efforts, though, Democratic Rep. Dina Titus (D) is pushing in the opposite direction. School lunch programs provide breakfast and lunch to children when they are in school, but they leave many children without food options on weekends and holidays during the school year. Titus wants to fix that by expanding the program through the Weekends Without Hunger Act, which she introduced last week and rolled out in her Las Vegas district Thursday.

That the Republican budget seeks to cut such programs is a statement of “how out of touch it is with our nation’s needs and priorities,” Titus told ThinkProgress in an email.

“With 50.1 million American living in food insecure households, including 16.7 million children, it is our responsibility to protect programs such as free and reduced school lunches, SNAP, and WIC that these families rely on every day just to get by,” Titus said. “The federal budget is a statement of our national priorities, and providing funding for nutritious meals to ensure that vacation from school does not mean hunger for children is one of my top priorities.”

The legislation is co-sponsored by Reps. Marsha Fudge (D-OH), Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), and Terri Sewell (D-AL) and is one of several efforts to expand child nutrition programs. Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin (D) has introduced a bill that would expand those programs to child care centers in an effort to get food to more low-income children.

The Great Recession drove up the number of children living in poverty, adding to the number of children who live without enough food. Nearly 15 percent — more than 17 million in total — American households were food insecure in 2011, meaning they had difficulty providing food at some point in the year. There are 20 million students who benefit from free and reduced lunches at school, and another 10.5 million who are eligible but don’t receive the benefits.

The school lunch program gets food to children during the week, but weekends and holidays create gaps that leave many hungry. “While school meals help keep children healthy and ready to learn during days that school is in session, there is currently no targeted Federal child nutrition program available to provide these children with food during the weekend or extended holidays when they do not have access to school meals,” a release from Titus’ office said when the bill was introduced. “Vacation from school should not mean hunger for children.”


View the original article here

Friday, June 28, 2013

Sequestration cuts threaten to undermine VAWA programs

The recent reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) was an event to be celebrated, not just because it reaffirmed the importance of the act itself, but also because in the course of the media clamor, countless Americans heard of VAWA for the first time, and learned just how vital it is in the lives of American women.
Yet just as VAWA and other critical programs such as the federal Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (FVPSA) are transforming American communities’ responses to gender-based violence, sequestration is threatening to undo the advances we’ve made, as well as stopping any forward movement.

Sequestration cuts five percent from all federal programs, regardless of intent or efficacy, including VAWA and FVPSA. This will have devastating consequences for women and children who must daily face the crimes of domestic and dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. VAWA is the single reliable source of funding toward the prevention of domestic violence. Domestic violence is far too prevalent – one in four women experiences domestic violence in her lifetime – and yet, private foundations don’t see it as a priority when determining their philanthropic intentions. Less than one percent of philanthropic support goes toward programs that address violence.
In the wake of the recent Steubenville verdict, let’s consider the Rape Prevention and Education Program (RPE), one of VAWA’s most crucial components. According to statistics gathered by RAINN (Rape, Incest, and Abuse National Network), an American is sexually assaulted every two minutes – the RPE supports the work of rape crisis centers and sexual assault coalitions across America, and a five percent cut translates to a loss of $2 million to those services. This in turn translates to 125,000 fewer school and college students receiving information about rape and sexual abuse prevention; 15,000 fewer rape hotline calls answered; and 7,000 fewer professionals trained in identifying sexual violence issues.

Not only do such losses represent the very height of cruelty and insensitivity, they also represent financial folly. Annual victim costs for rape are estimated at $127 billion – and this doesn’t include the costs of child sexual abuse. Simply put, rape is the most costly of all crimes. Saving money by not funding prevention and intervention is an abandonment of American women at a time of almost incalculable vulnerability, and will ultimately cost this country more than it saves.
This is equally true for cuts to programs that target intimate partner abuse: Domestic violence directly impacts one in four women and 15.5 million children every year; an average of three American women are killed every day by a current or former intimate partner.
According to Senator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), federal government agencies, and the Campaign for Funding to End Domestic and Sexual Violence, sequestration will result in at least 106,020 fewer victims receiving lifesaving services -- some 70,120 victims won’t have access to domestic violence programs and shelters, and another 35,900 won’t get assistance in obtaining protection orders, crisis intervention and counseling, and other critical help.
And in spite of what some in Washington would have Americans believe, private philanthropy just doesn’t make up the difference. These are challenging, thorny, and painful issues – it can be difficult to draw donors, simply because the problems themselves are so ugly. For government to leave the well-being of millions of women and children to the vagaries of private charity is a flagrant abdication of duty to some of our most vulnerable citizens.
The passage of VAWA in 1994 represented a sea change in American culture. For the first time in history, our government acknowledged the pernicious and insidious nature of gender-based violence, and took real action to provide aid and comfort to victims, while also acting to change the reality that allows such crimes to occur.
Since that time, survivors of domestic and dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking have had unprecedented access to services that enable them to escape abuse, protect their children, heal from assault, and rebuild their lives. In 2012 alone, VAWA-funded programs provided lifesaving help to three-quarters of a million victims of gender-based violence.
Sequestration threatens to undo these gains for far too many women. Without the effective law enforcement and prosecution that VAWA makes possible, abusers are more likely to become repeat offenders; without programs like transitional housing and legal services, many victims have no alternative to staying with their partner, and are thus at an increased risk for homicide.
For the tens of thousands of women who will be hurt by these cuts, there is simply no alternative. Every day that Congress delays its response to sequestration is a day that proves harmful, even deadly, for victims of domestic violence and sexual assault.
Our elected representatives have a duty to serve all Americans, but particularly those who are most vulnerable. No political in-fighting can excuse inaction when so many lives are at stake. We urge Congress to act with all haste to resolve the sequestration, and restore the funding so necessary to the Violence Against Women Act.
Weinstein is executive director of Jewish Women International.

View Comments

View the original article here

Tuesday, May 28, 2013

Reform food programs in farm bill

Both sides of the aisle agree that the farm bill needs reform. There's widespread support for fixing our broken agricultural programs such as direct payments for farmers. Although these are good proposals in general and should be pursued, they will only make a small dent in overall farm bill spending.

That's because "farm bill" is quite the misnomer. Most of the spending doesn't even go toward farm programs. Eighty percent of the spending in the bill goes toward the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), informally known as food stamps. Congress simply won't be able to achieve meaningful farm bill savings if it keeps reforms to the welfare programs off the table.

Like many other line-items in the federal budget, food stamp spending is skyrocketing. Since President Obama took office, the amount that the federal government spends on SNAP has more than doubled. Last year, the federal government spent over $78 billion on the program alone. Although high unemployment is one driver of the growth in food stamp spending, it’s not the only one. The 2002 and 2008 farm bills lowered the eligibility threshold; meanwhile, state governments removed barriers like asset tests to sweep even more people into the program.

A coalition of 27 organizations representing millions of Americans recently sent a letter to Capitol Hill, outlining several fixes to the food welfare provisions the bill. These reforms would bring significant savings to food components of the farm, while continuing to provide a basic social safety net for the truly needy in our society.

One reform that they recommend is replacing the annual appropriation with a block grant for states. This would give states an incentive to control costs. This is an improvement over current policy, in which states have an incentive to procure as many federal dollars as possible. Another fix would be to apply income and asset tests to categorically eligible households. According to the Congressional Budget Office, adding income and asset tests to categorical eligibility requirements would trim average annual outlays by $12 billion over 10 years.

The letter includes more general reforms too, such as rolling back Farm Bill spending to FY 2008 levels: Federal outlays for nutrition programs in 2008 were $37.6 billion; in 2013, they will total $82 billion. Returning spending to FY 2008 levels would strike a balance between fiscal responsibility and providing a reasonable social safety net.

Lastly and most simply, the coalition partners recommend severing the SNAP title from the rest of the farm bill. Food welfare is unrelated to the agricultural subsidies contained in the rest of the bill and it deserves its own treatment in stand-alone legislation. No more combining food programs with agricultural subsidies in order to secure votes.

It’s easy to pledge to rein in spending in media interviews and in campaign speeches, but it’s another thing to put this into practice. Conservatives in Congress can deliver on their promises to rein in spending when it takes up the farm bill later this year by including some or all of these reforms to nutrition programs. Supporting unchecked spending levels is not why their constituents sent them to Washington.

Harbin is a federal policy analyst at Americans For Prosperity.

View Comments

View the original article here

Sunday, May 26, 2013

Paul Ryan Learns Nothing from Historic Gender Gap: Budget Guts Women’s Health Programs

Our guest blogger is Lindsay Rosenthal, a Research Assistant for Health Policy and Women’s Health and Rights at the Center for American Progress.

The 20 point gender gap in the 2012 election was the largest since Gallup poll began tracking in 1952 — the Obama-Biden ticket beat the Romney-Ryan ticket by a large margin with women, driven largely by women of color turning out at high rates for the President.

That loss was predictable based on polling that asked women questions about specific proposals in Paul Ryan’s previous budgets, which showed that women highly disapprove of cutting Medicaid, Medicare, and other vital programs that meet their health care needs. But the budget Ryan released this week suggests he learned nothing from women’s responses at the voting booth.

Ryan has never been a friend to women’s health, and has repeatedly taken action to limit women’s rights and access to health care — and his new budget is just more of the same. It would dismantle the advancements made through the Affordable Care Act and institute dramatic reductions in the services available through key programs, on top of the cuts women’s health services are already facing as a result of the sequester.

Here are the top four ways the new Ryan Budget (which is just the same as the old Ryan budget) guts key programs for women’s health:

Millions of women would lose the consumer protections and access to affordable health coverage that they gained under the health law. These reforms are critical for both women’s health and economic security.

The Ryan budget would eliminate the ban on discrimination against those with preexisting conditions, including breast cancer, Cesarean sections, rape, and health needs related to domestic violence; provisions that allow young women to stay on their parents health insurance plans until age 26; premium tax credits that help individuals and small businesses purchase health insurance; Obamacare’s expansion of Medicaid; and a slew of other benefits that the law provides for women’s health.

By repealing protections in Obamacare, the Ryan budget would preserve an individual health insurance market that routinely discriminates against women. Insurance companies in the individual market charge women $1 billion more in premiums than men each year for the same set of benefits. Under the health reform law, insurers will also be required to cover maternity care — only 12 percent of plans on the individual market currently do.

Women are 70 percent of adult Medicaid beneficiaries. In fact, more than one in ten non-elderly women receive their health insurance coverage through Medicaid.

But the Ryan budget would replace guaranteed federal funding for Medicaid with block grants to states — fixed sums of money set in advance, regardless of actual costs. By 2023, the Ryan budget would reduce federal Medicaid spending by 810 billion, forcing states to cut back on coverage and benefits. And by repealing Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion, the Ryan budget would deny Medicaid coverage to at least 7 million women who are expected to become newly eligible for the program if the law is fully implemented, leaving them with nowhere to turn for coverage.

Women represent over half of Medicare beneficiaries and 62 percent of those over the age of 80.

The Ryan budget would move toward a privatization of Medicare, proposing that those currently in the health program get vouchers for private insurance. Under the Ryan plan, the first seniors hit by these changes could pay up to $59,500 more during retirement, with those who will be Medicare eligible in 2050 paying up to $331,200 more.

Women on Medicare generally earn less in social security benefits than their male counterparts and have higher out-of pocket-medical costs. Paul Ryan’s plan to privatize Medicare threatens both the health and economic security of elderly women.

By repealing Obamacare and gutting Medicaid, the Ryan budget would severely undermine access to reproductive health care, especially contraception, for millions of women.

47 million women are projected to benefit from the no-cost preventive services that have already gone into effect, including mammograms, Pap smears, well-baby care, contraception, preconception and prenatal care in well-woman visits, gestational diabetes screening, lactation supports, and much more. In addition, the Medicaid program provides 75 percent of public funding for family-planning services and is expected to play an even greater role in providing access to family planning once the ACA is fully implemented.

Women of reproductive age spend 68 percent more on their health care expenses than men and their reproductive health care and the expense of birth control is a significant part of that spending. Surveys show that nearly one in four women with household incomes of less than $75,000 have put off a doctor’s visit for birth control to save money. More than half of young adult women say they have not used their prescribed contraceptive method as directed because it was cost-prohibitive.


View the original article here

Tuesday, April 30, 2013

Sequestration Cuts To Education Programs Threaten To Widen Education Gap Between Rich And Poor

The achievement gap between school districts in high-income neighborhoods and those in low-income ones is already more canyon than crack, and if $1.7 trillion in automatic sequestration cuts are allowed to go into effect on March 1, that gap could grow even wider.

Dozens of education programs would face reduced funding, but three crucial programs — No Child Left Behind, Head Start initiatives, and the Individuals with Disabilities Act — provide the most assistance to low-income students and also face the sharpest cuts if the sequester is allowed to go into effect, as the Center for American Progress’ Juliana Herman and Kaitlin Pennington detailed in a new report:

Altogether, the sequester would cut approximately $725 million from Title I funding, potentially affecting 2,700 schools, impacting 1.2 million students, and placing 9,880 education staff at risk of losing their jobs. [...]

Head Start and Early Head Start—a similar program for infants—both work to ensure that parental income does not determine whether a child will be able to learn during these influential years. But should sequestration happen next week, approximately 70,000 children will be kicked out of Head Start due to inadequate funding. [...]

If sequestration goes through, funding under the Individuals with Disabilities Act could be reduced by as much as $579 million.

In all, the report estimates, the cuts would impact as many as 1.2 million children, 30,000 teachers and 2,700 schools, the overwhelming majority of which will be from low-income communities.

Recent studies have shown the devastating correlation between income and student achievement. Since the late 1980s, the gap in metrics like college completion between students from high-income and low-income households grew by more than 50 percent.


View the original article here

Friday, April 26, 2013

Obamacare Wellness Programs Could Raise Health Costs

One part of the Affordable Health Care Act that kicks in with the rest of Obamacare in 2014 is a greater monetary incentive for employers to implement wellness programs.

Worker wellness programs — ways for employees to get healthier through such items as checkups, workout and weight loss programs, smoking cessation as well as vaccinations — have been around for more than 30 years with the associated financial rewards and punishments regulated by the federal government.

And even though it's not a mandatory provision — employers can choose to avoid implementing any worker health program — many more firms are expected to take part in setting up these plans next year in an effort to cut down on health care costs.

What it means economically for workers whose employers do participate can be a mixed bag depending on their habits. There are bigger financial rewards for healthier workers along with more costly punishments — specifically increased insurance premiums — for those who are considered health risks. (Read More: South Carolina Workers Could Pay More for Health Care)

For instance, under the 2014 provisions, health insurers will be able to charge 50 percent more on insurance premiums for someone who smokes. The previous rule, set in 2006, was a top increase of 20 percent. So, a 60-year-old smoker without dependents could end up paying nearly $5,100 more for health insurance each year at work starting next year, instead of around $1,100 now, according to insurance industry estimates.

On the flip side, a reward would offer up to a 30 percent reduction in premiums for someone who takes part in smoking cessation programs or who lowers their cholesterol. Other benefits for better health results could also include rebates and taxable gift cards.

"These wellness programs will be set up by the companies, and they can offer the carrot or the stick or both to get workers involved," said Amy Gordon, an employee benefits lawyer at McDermott Will & Emery.

"There are even rewards if you do almost nothing, such as just taking a diagnostic test and the outcome doesn't matter. It just depends on how the firm sets it up," Gordon said.

Employers can even include workers' children and spouses for the reward and punishments if they are part of a worker's insurance coverage.

"Families tend to drive up the cost of health insurance for a firm as much as workers, so it does make sense to look at a worker's dependents and whether they should be included," Gordon said.

"And a firm can often look at what type of ailments are driving up costs, say diabetes for example, and base their incentive programs on how workers are testing for it," she said.

Wellness programs started in the 1970s as a way for employers to improve worker productivity and cut down on absenteeism. As the U.S. became more health conscious over the years, workers began to ask their firms to include health programs, like gyms and flu shots.

By 2008, according to the Center for Health Affairs, about 88 percent of large companies in the U.S. (more than 200 employees), and about half of small companies (three to 199 workers) offered wellness programs. In 2006, the government established guidance rules for the percentage workers could get for punishments and rewards. (Read More: Report Faults High Fees for Out-of-Network Care)

The standard was up to 20 percent in premium hikes or reductions, or rebates. In 2014, it will be 30 percent top, with smoking penalties up to 50 percent in additional health insurance premium costs.

For employers, the costs of worker habits have become expensive. The U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention reports that more than 75 percent of an employer's health care costs and productivity losses are related to employee lifestyle choices.

According to the CDC, workplace alcohol, tobacco and other drug use costs American companies over $100 billion each year and obesity costs $147 billion a year.

"Firms are more aggressive these days on certain health issues like weight loss, smoking or having vaccinations," said Tom Vincz, a spokesman for Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey, which counsels companies on setting up wellness programs. "When we look at a firm, our goal is to set up the best program for the company and the workers."

Vincz said Horizon has seen the benefits of its own wellness program.

"We have some 89 percent of our 5,000 workers involved," he said. "We embraced a weight loss program in 2011 and we've seen the benefits of that with a huge reduction in weight for many workers."

But some companies will likely pass on putting in any wellness program in 2014 they might not have already started, Gordon said.

"Companies are mixed on wellness programs," Gordon said. "Some say it's a great opportunity, while others say it's not their business to regulate the health of our workers." (Read More: Rule Limits Aid to Families Who Can't Afford Employers' HealthCoverage)

While most workers cannot be forced to join a wellness program, many firms have implemented provisions like asking their employees to declare whether they smoke. A yes answer can raise a worker's health insurance premiums purchased through work or even deny coverage.

For example, Scotts Miracle-Gro bans employees on its health insurance policy from smoking, regardless of whether it is done on company or personal time.

Cadmus Community Corp. of Richmond, Va., requires employees and their spouses to submit to health-risk assessments in order to obtain health insurance. Iowa-based Principal Financial Group has a similar policy in which workers must undergo health exams that track things like weight, blood pressure and use of tobacco to qualify for coverage.

Some workers, like members of the Oregon State Police, have filed lawsuits against their wellness program — one that docks them a monthly fee of up to $30 if they don't participate in an online health survey.

Another issue drawing the ire of workers is what constitutes a pre-existing condition — something health insurers cannot deny consumers through Obamacare.

Some workers contend obesity, diabetes and smoking are pre-existing conditions and therefore those who smoke or are overweight can't be denied health insurance coverage or have their premiums raised because of wellness programs.

Many of the lawsuits against the programs are based on regulations under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996. Those rules say that employer-sponsored group health plans may not vary premiums or contributions, or provide different discounts or rebates, to similarly situated individuals as a result of a health factor.

Whether any wellness programs are getting people healthier or not is unclear yet, said Gordon.

But In the end, she said it's up to the companies and workers to decide how healthy they want to be.

"I'm a big proponent of wellness programs because I think taking proactive steps is the right thing to do," Gordon said. "If we can drive down medical costs and getting people healthier, I can't see the harm in that."


View the original article here

Friday, March 8, 2013

Presidential Memorandum -- Coordination of Policies and Programs to Promote Gender Equality and Empower Women and Girls Globally

Presidential Memorandum -- Coordination of Policies and Programs to Promote Gender Equality and Empower Women and Girls Globally | The White House Skip to main content | Skip to footer site map The White House. President Barack Obama The White House Emblem Get Email UpdatesContact Us Go to homepage. The White House Blog Photos & Videos Photo Galleries Video Performances Live Streams Podcasts 2012: A Year in Photos

A unique view of 2012

2012: A Year in Photos

Briefing Room Your Weekly Address Speeches & Remarks Press Briefings Statements & Releases White House Schedule Presidential Actions Executive Orders Presidential Memoranda Proclamations Legislation Pending Legislation Signed Legislation Vetoed Legislation Nominations & Appointments Disclosures Visitor Access Records Financial Disclosures 2012 Annual Report to Congress 2011 Annual Report to Congress 2010 Annual Report to Congress on White House Staff A Commitment to Transparency

Browse White House visitor logs

President Obama greets White House visitors

Issues Civil Rights It Gets Better Defense End of Iraq War Disabilities Economy Jobs Reform and Fiscal Responsibility Strengthening the Middle Class A Plan for Refinancing Support for Business Education Energy & Environment Ethics Foreign Policy Health Care Homeland Security Immigration Taxes Tax Receipt The Buffett Rule Rural Urban Policy Veterans Joining Forces Technology Seniors & Social Security Service Snapshots Creating Jobs Health Care Small Business PreK-12 Education Women Violence Prevention Now Is The Time

To do something about gun violence

Now Is The Time

7 Things You Need to Know

About the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012

Explore the President's Plan

The Administration We the People

Create and Sign Petitions Now

We the People

President Barack Obama Vice President Joe Biden First Lady Michelle Obama Dr. Jill Biden The Cabinet 2010 Video Reports White House Staff Chief of Staff Jack Lew Deputy Chief of Staff Nancy-Ann DeParle Deputy Chief of Staff Alyssa Mastromonaco Counselor to the President Peter Rouse Senior Advisor Valerie Jarrett Executive Office of the President Other Advisory Boards About the White House White House On the Go

Download our mobile apps

Download our mobile apps

2012: A Year in Photos

A unique view of 2012

2012: A Year in Photos

Inside the White House Interactive Tour West Wing Tour Video Series Décor and Art Holidays Presidents First Ladies The Oval Office The Vice President's Residence & Office Eisenhower Executive Office Building Camp David Air Force One White House Fellows President’s Commission About the Fellowship Current Class Staff Bios News and Newsletters White House Internships About Program Presidential Department Descriptions Selection Process Internship Timeline & FAQs Tours & Events 2012 Easter Egg Roll Kitchen Garden Tours Mobile Apps Our Government The Executive Branch The Legislative Branch The Judicial Branch The Constitution Federal Agencies & Commissions Elections & Voting State & Local Government Resources /* Maximize height of menu features. */if(typeof(jQuery)!='undefined')jQuery.each($('#topnav'),function(i,v){var o=$(v),oh=o.height(),sh=o.siblings().height();if(oh HomeBriefing RoomPresidential Actions • Presidential Memoranda   The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release January 30, 2013 Presidential Memorandum -- Coordination of Policies and Programs to Promote Gender Equality and Empower Women and Girls Globally

 

January 30, 2013 MEMORANDUM FOR THE HEADS OF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES SUBJECT: Coordination of Policies and Programs to Promote Gender Equality and Empower Women and Girls Globally  Promoting gender equality and advancing the status of all women and girls around the world remains one of the greatest unmet challenges of our time, and one that is vital to achieving our overall foreign policy objectives. Ensuring that women and girls, including those most marginalized, are able to participate fully in public life, are free from violence, and have equal access to education, economic opportunity, and health care increases broader economic prosperity, as well as political stability and security. During my Administration, the United States has made promoting gender equality and advancing the status of women and girls a central element of our foreign policy, including by leading through example at home. Executive Order 13506 of March 11, 2009, established the White House Council on Women and Girls to coordinate Federal policy on issues, both domestic and international, that particularly impact the lives of women and girls. This commitment to promoting gender equality is also reflected in the National Security Strategy of the United States, the Presidential Policy Directive on Global Development, and the 2010 U.S. Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review. To elevate and integrate this strategic focus on the promotion of gender equality and the advancement of women and girls around the world, executive departments and agencies (agencies) have issued policy and operational guidance. For example, in March 2012, the Secretary of State issued Policy Guidance on Promoting Gender Equality to Achieve our National Security and Foreign Policy Objectives, and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) Administrator released Gender Equality and Female Empowerment Policy. The Millennium Challenge Corporation issued Gender Integration Guidelines in March 2011 to ensure its existing gender policy is fully realized. My Administration has also developed a National Action Plan on Women, Peace, and Security, created pursuant to Executive Order 13595 of December 19, 2011, to strengthen conflict resolution and peace processes through the inclusion of women, and a Strategy to Prevent and Respond to Gender-based Violence Globally, implemented pursuant to Executive Order 13623 of August 10, 2012, to combat gender-based violence around the world. Improving interagency coordination and information sharing, and strengthening agency capacity and accountability will help ensure the effective implementation of these and other Government efforts to promote gender equality and advance the status of women and girls globally. By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to further strengthen the capacity of the Federal Government to ensure that U.S. diplomacy and foreign assistance promote gender equality and advance the status of women and girls worldwide, I hereby direct the following: Section 1. Strengthening Capacity and Coordination to Promote Gender Equality and Advance the Status of Women and Girls Internationally. (a) Enhancing U.S. global leadership on gender equality requires dedicated resources, personnel with appropriate expertise in advancing the status of women and girls worldwide, and commitment from senior leadership, as exemplified by the critical and historic role played by the Office of Global Women's Issues at the Department of State. To assure maximum coordination of efforts to promote gender equality and advance the status of women and girls, the Secretary of State (Secretary) shall designate a coordinator (Coordinator), who will normally also be appointed by the President as an Ambassador at Large (Ambassador at Large) subject to the advice and consent of the Senate. The Ambassador at Large, who shall report directly to the Secretary of State, shall lead the Office of Global Women's Issues at the Department of State and provide advice and assistance on issues related to promoting gender equality and advancing the status of women and girls internationally. (b) The Ambassador at Large shall, to the extent the Secretary may direct and consistent with applicable law, provide guidance and coordination with respect to global policies and programs for women and girls, and shall lead efforts to promote an international focus on gender equality more broadly, including through diplomatic initiatives with other countries and partnerships and enhanced coordination with international and nongovernmental organizations and the private sector. To this end, the Ambassador at Large shall also, to the extent the Secretary may direct, assist in: (i) implementing existing and developing new policies, strategies, and action plans for the promotion of gender equality and advancement of the status of women and girls internationally, and coordinating such actions with USAID and other agencies carrying out related international activities, as appropriate; and (ii) coordinating such initiatives with other countries and international organizations, as well as with nongovernmental organizations. (c) Recognizing the vital link between diplomacy and development, and the importance of gender equality as both a goal in itself and as a vital means to achieving the broader aims of U.S. development assistance, the Senior Coordinator for Gender Equality and Women's Empowerment at USAID shall provide guidance to the USAID Administrator in identifying, developing, and advancing key priorities for U.S. development assistance, coordinating, as appropriate, with other agencies. (d) The Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs (or designee), in close collaboration with the Chair of the White House Council on Women and Girls (or designee) and the Ambassador at Large (or designee), shall chair an interagency working group to develop and coordinate Government-wide implementation of policies to promote gender equality and advance the status of women and girls internationally. The Working Group shall consist of senior representatives from the Departments of State, the Treasury, Defense, Justice, Agriculture, Commerce, Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Homeland Security; the Intelligence Community, as determined by the Director of National Intelligence; the United States Agency for International Development; the Millennium Challenge Corporation; the Peace Corps; the U.S. Mission to the United Nations; the Office of the United States Trade Representative; the Office of Management and Budget; the Office of the Vice President; the National Economic Council; and such other agencies and offices as the President may designate. Sec. 2. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this memorandum shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect: (i) the authority granted by law or Executive Order to an executive department, agency, or the head thereof; or (ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals. (b) This memorandum shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations. (c) Upon designation as such by the Secretary, the Coordinator shall exercise the functions of the Ambassador at Large set forth in this memorandum. (d) This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person. (e) The Secretary of State is hereby authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal Register. BARACK OBAMA

Extending Middle Class Tax Cuts

Blog posts on this issue January 31, 2013 5:39 PM ESTWatch: "Fireside Hangout" with Cecilia Muñoz on Immigration Reform

Watch the full video from a Google+ Hangout with Director of the Domestic Policy Council, Cecilia Muñoz on immigration reform.

January 31, 2013 5:33 PM ESTHighlighting Inclusion, Diversity and Human Rights at the Special Olympics World Winter Games

The Secretary of Agriculture is leading the U.S. Presidential Delegation to the 2013 Special Olympics World Winter Games.

January 31, 2013 12:13 PM ESTThe Posse Foundation Selects First Cohort of Veterans for College Success Program

The Posse Foundation has teamed up with Vassar College to launch its Veterans Posse Program, helping veterans succeed at home and in school.

view all related blog posts ul.related-content li.views-row img {float: left; padding: 5px 10px 0 0;}ul.related-content li.view-all {padding-bottom: 3em;} Stay ConnectedFacebookTwitterFlickrGoogle+YouTubeVimeoiTunesLinkedIn   Home The White House Blog Photos & Videos Photo Galleries Video Performances Live Streams Podcasts Briefing Room Your Weekly Address Speeches & Remarks Press Briefings Statements & Releases White House Schedule Presidential Actions Legislation Nominations & Appointments Disclosures Issues Civil Rights Defense Disabilities Economy Education Energy & Environment Ethics Foreign Policy Health Care Homeland Security Immigration Taxes Rural Urban Policy Veterans Technology Seniors & Social Security Service Snapshots Women Violence Prevention The Administration President Barack Obama Vice President Joe Biden First Lady Michelle Obama Dr. Jill Biden The Cabinet White House Staff Executive Office of the President Other Advisory Boards About the White House Inside the White House Presidents First Ladies The Oval Office The Vice President's Residence & Office Eisenhower Executive Office Building Camp David Air Force One White House Fellows White House Internships Tours & Events Mobile Apps Our Government The Executive Branch The Legislative Branch The Judicial Branch The Constitution Federal Agencies & Commissions Elections & Voting State & Local Government Resources The White House Emblem En español Accessibility Copyright Information Privacy Policy Contact USA.gov Developers Apply for a Job

View the original article here