Native American Women,
Leadership and the Native Nonprofit Sector
By Raymond Foxworth, Ph.D.
Vice President of Grantmaking, Development and Communications
First Nations Development Institute
Independent Sector American Express NGen Fellows
Acknowledgements
This report was created for the exclusive use of First Nations Development
Institute. All material is copyrighted and is not intended for reprint unless
permission is specifically granted by First Nations Development Institute. Such
permission is also needed for quotes of 50 words or more, or more than 400
words of material quoted from this report.
This report was authored by Raymond Foxworth, Vice President at First Nations
Development Institute. He thanks Independent Sector and the American Express
NGen Fellowship Program. He also thanks 2015 American Express NGen Fellows
Janet Arias-Martinez, Gretcen Beesing, Maggie Dunne, Cecilia Fong, Michele
Frix, Christopher Johnson, John Kern, Ellen Liu, Lindsay Louie, Rishi Moudgil and
Brett Weisel. These bright and talented individuals engaged critical conversations
around gender within the nonprofit sector and helped frame early thinking around
this issue related to the Native nonprofit sector.
He would also like to thank Sherry Salway Black, Cheryl Crazy Bull, Crystal Echo
Hawk, Sarah Echohawk, Julie Garreau, Sarah Kastelic, Mary LaGarde, Trisha
Moquino and Corrine Sanchez. These Native women leaders took time to be
interviewed and shared their personal leadership stories and candid assessments
of this topic. The author thanks them for their dedication to the work they do and
their willingness to have candid conversations related to this topic.
He would like to also thank Mary K. Bowannie, Randy Blauvelt and Montoya
Whiteman from First Nations Development Institute. Their valuable feedback and
edits greatly improved this research project and report.
The views, errors and omissions in this report are those of the author alone and
do not necessarily reflect the opinions of interviewees, partners or colleagues.
Suggested Citation: First Nations Development Institute (2016). Native American
Women, Leadership and the Nonprofit Sector. Longmont, CO: First Nations
Development Institute.
© 2016 First Nations Development Institute.
For more information, or to order additional copies of this report, please call (303)
774-7836 or email [email protected].
The cover illustration – Birch Bark Women – is by Native artist Karen Savage Blue (Fond
du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa). It is copyrighted by the artist and used here
with permission. Learn more about the artist and her work at www.karensavageblue.com
2
Native American Women,
Leadership and the Native Nonprofit Sector
By Raymond Foxworth, Ph.D.
Vice President of Grantmaking, Development and Communications
First Nations Development Institute
There has been a significant rise in recent
literature documenting the gender disparity
when it comes to leadership within the national
nonprofit sector. These studies have found
that while roughly 75 percent of nonprofit
organizations are staffed by women, about
55 percent of CEO positions are held by men
(“Study: Gender gap persists in nonprofit
leadership positions,” 2015; Warner, 2014a).
Many scholars and think-tanks that have
examined this trend have been surprised by this
finding, largely because it is counterintuitive to
the social justice and equity frameworks that are
dominant within a majority of subsectors within
the nonprofit industry.
This report examines gender and leadership
within the young and maturing Native American
nonprofit sector. While national trends highlight
some distributing leadership tendencies as it
relates to gender within the sector, we know
much less about how these national trends
translate to different segments of the nonprofit
sector. Does this gendered leadership gap travel
to other subsectors of the nonprofit industry,
especially nonprofits representing different
communities of color?
To answer this question I use data from First
Nations Development Institute, one of the
nation’s largest grantmakers supporting
Native American reservation-based nonprofit
organizations. In all, I find that the Native
American nonprofit sector does not suffer from
the same gender disparity in leadership when
compared to the national nonprofit sector. In
fact, top leadership positions at Native nonprofits
tend to be dominated by women at almost all
levels of organizational budget. Then, drawing on
interviews with female Native American nonprofit
CEOs, this report provides some possible reasons
for this general trend and highlights other issues
of gender and leadership within the Native
American nonprofit sector.
Examining gender and leadership within the
Native nonprofit sector highlights the essential
need to disaggregate national trends and
understand nuances of gender and leadership
in various nonprofit subsectors. For Native
communities, these findings highlight the need to
elevate the positive, dynamic and transformative
work of Native women as they continue to be
powerful role models in Native community
development. Uplifting the dynamic and positive
contributions of Native women will help transform
historical narratives of Native women rooted in
colonial histories that have distorted the role of
women in Native communities (arguably by both
Native and non-Native societies). This report
serves as an empirical contribution to highlight
the leadership and transformative work being
done by Native women and as a call to action for
others to engage in dialogue about gender and
leadership in local communities.
This report proceeds as follows. First we provide
an overview of previous studies focused on
gender and leadership within the national
nonprofit sector. Then this report discusses
historical and contemporary portrayals of Native
women, focusing on how Native women have
been largely absent from leadership frameworks.
Then the report provides a brief discussion
about the young and maturing nonprofit sector
within Native communities. Then, using data
from First Nations Development Institute, this
report highlights the overwhelming leadership
contributions of women within the Native
American nonprofit sector. I conclude by
highlighting comments and perspectives from
Native female nonprofit leaders who share their
perspectives and challenges on issues of gender
and leadership within the Native nonprofit sector.
3
Gender and Leadership within the National Nonprofit Sector
Since the mid-1970s, public attention on women
in the labor force has ebbed and flowed,
largely following public outcry or the mounting
accumulation of evidence on the persistent
inequalities present within the labor force for
women. A majority of the existent literature has
documented the presence of a glass ceiling and
how individuals and groups have been able to
penetrate this ceiling (Glass Ceiling Commission,
1995; Goodman, Fields, & Blum, 2003; Kephart
& Schumacher, 2005; Reis, Young, & Jury, 1999).
Moreover, most of this research has focused on
gendered labor issues within government and
private sectors. Only within the past decade have
we begun to see rising attention to issues of
gender and labor inequalities within the nonprofit
sector.
A rising area of research has established that
women continue to shape the nonprofit sector
in terms of employment and volunteerism, a
trend that has remained constant since at least
the 1970s (Bradshaw, Murray, & Wolpin, 1996;
Gibelman, 2000; Leete, 2000; Nank, 2011;
Preston, 1989; Pynes, 2000; Shaiko, 1996). Still
today, research has documented that 70 percent
of individuals employed within the nonprofit
sector are women. Researchers have offered a
variety of explanations about why women are
employed within the sector at greater rates than
men.
For example, some research has suggested
that industry segregation may explain the
overrepresentation of women within the nonprofit
sector. In other words, women tend to select
work in industries that are concentrated within
the nonprofit sector like hospitals or education
rather than industries concentrated in the forprofit sector (Burbridge, 1994). Thus, the industry
an individual chooses may limit employment
choice in other sectors. Other studies have
suggested that women may be intrinsically drawn
to the sector and motivated by altruistic values
of “selfless service” and willingness to help
others (Conry & McDonald, 1994; Leete, 2000;
Themudo, 2009). These studies have tended to
suggest women may be more value or service
driven than men who tend to be motivated by
values of promotion and profit. Finally, other
studies have suggested that beyond values
4
of service, women are more likely to enter the
nonprofit sector because of structural factors
within the sector like work flexibility, availability of
part-time employment, and opportunities for skill
and talent development (DiMaggio & Anheier,
1990; Hansmann, 1987; Leete, 2000; Preston,
1989).
Regardless of motive for employment within
the sector, women still lag behind in terms of
reaching top leadership positions within the
sector. For example, the Guidestar USA, Inc.
Nonprofit Compensation Report documents
that in 2014 men once again dominate CEO
leadership positions within the sector. In this
report, Guidestar analyzes compensation data
of more than 96,000 nonprofit organizations
reported to the IRS for fiscal year 2014. This
report documents that since 2004, there have
been gains in the percentage of nonprofits led
by women. But female CEO representation
continues to decline steadily as the budget size of
organizations increases (McLean, 2016). Similarly,
data from 2013 documented that women made
up a majority of CEOs at smaller nonprofits with
budgets of less than a half-million annually. But
female leadership dipped below 50 percent (and
declined steadily) at nonprofits with budgets
greater than $500,000 (“Study: Gender gap
persists in nonprofit leadership positions,” 2015).
Why does the overrepresentation of women
within the nonprofit sector not translate into top
CEO positions? Answers to this question have
been much more elusive. Survey data has noted
that factors like time commitment and stress are
industry related factors that women commonly
cite for not aspiring to be a CEO within the sector.
But survey data has also documented that there
is significant ambition among female nonprofit
workers to be in top CEO positions. For example,
over 60% of women 18-44 who are employed
within the sector say that they aspire to be a
nonprofit CEO, and nearly 50% of women age 4554 respond the same way (DiMento, 2014). While
stress and time may be serious considerations
for women when considering career choices,
ambition seems to remain high among various
age cohorts.
Other scholars have argued that industry
selection factors by women do not help explain
the lack of female CEOs within the nonprofit
sector. These scholars have suggested that
other more discriminatory and structural factors
influence the underrepresentation of women in
top leadership positions. These scholars have
argued that a glass ceiling within the nonprofit
sector does exist and women are not only
underrepresented in top leadership positions
but also make less than men at almost all levels
within organizations. Typically discussions of glass
ceilings have been examined within the private
sector and it was only in 2000 that the term was
used to describe gendered trends within the
nonprofit sector (Gibelman, 2000; Goodman et
al., 2003; Joslyn, 2003; Sampson & Moore, 2008).
The glass ceiling is defined as discriminatory
attitudes or organizational biases that create
real barriers 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; 251).
Beyond organizational bias, glass ceilings that
impede the rise of female leaders are also
systemic and structural as these trends tend to
reinforce societal gender norms and values. That
is, trends of leadership and gender within the
nonprofit sector mirror gendered trends within
other sectors. For example, among Fortune 500
companies, women make up only 14.6 percent
of executive officers, 8.1 percent of top earners,
and 4.6 percent of CEOs (Catalyst, 2016).
Moreover, women only occupy roughly 17% of
Fortune 500 board seats (Warner, 2014b). These
inequities persist despite the fact that women
make up roughly 45% of the labor force within
Fortune 500 companies (Catalyst, 2016).
Gender inequities persist in the face of evidence
that women in top leadership positions is
correlated with a variety of positive outcomes.
For example, a recent study by the Peterson
Institute for International Economics notes that
the presence of women in corporate leadership
positions is positively correlated with the
revenue size of firms globally (Noland, Moran,
& Kotschwar, 2016). Similarly, other research on
U.S firms has examined gender diversity and
corporate performance, finding that gender
equity is positively correlated with higher profits
and stock values (Barsh & Yee, 2012; Carter,
Simkins, & Simpson, 2003; Erhardt, Werbel, &
Shrader, 2003; Leete, 2000, 2000; Woetzel, 2015;
Yee, 2012).1 This trend of performance, gender
and underrepresentation holds true across other
sectors. For example, women in academia win
roughly 56% of academia’s most prestigious
awards yet only 29% of women have tenure.
Moreover, among hedge funds, research has
documented that funds managed by women
produced greater average returns than those
managed by men. But data from 2011 finds that
women only managed roughly 3% of hedge funds
in the U.S (Warner, 2014b).
Limited data exists within the nonprofit sector on
gender, race and leadership. But available data
from other sectors paint a disparaging view for
women of color and leadership. For example,
in 2014 women of color only occupied about 3
percent of all board seats among Fortune 500
companies. In terms of pay, women of color
(with the exception of Asian women) remain at
the bottom. While some theories of gender and
diversity have suggested that the scarcity of
minority women within different sectors forces
companies to pay more for talented women of
color, data has documented that women of color
“vie for last place on the earnings pyramid at
every level of education” (Deborah, 2014).
Perhaps the only documented philanthropic
subsector where women outpace men in top
leadership positions is within the foundation
philanthropic community. The D5 Coalition has
documented that women make up roughly 52%
of staff positions within foundations but occupy
about 55% of CEO positions (D5 Coalition, 2016).
Ironically the D5 Coalition also documents that
the lack of transparency within the foundation
community does not easily allow researchers
to tease out possible explanations of gender
parity when it comes to CEO and executive staff
positions (D5 Coalition, 2011). But encouraging
openness about this trend may help inform
practices that may be implemented within other
institutional settings.
1 For counter arguments, see R. B. Adams & Ferreira, 2009; Carter,
D’Souza, Simkins, & Simpson, 2010; Smith, Smith, & Verner, 2006.
5
Narratives of Native American Women and Leadership
Historically, mainstream society has viewed
Native American women on a spectrum from
“Pocahontas princess” to “sexualized drudge”
(Fryberg, Markus, Oyserman, & Stone, 2008;
Green, 1975a; Hirschfelder, Molin, Wakim, &
Dorris, 1999; LaFromboise, Heyle, & Ozer, 1990;
Stedman, 1982). These narratives and images
of Native American women emerged over time
and were largely created to dehumanize and
subjugate Native American women (and Native
people generally). Moreover, these narratives
were created and sustained to support colonial
polices that stripped Native nations of their
assets, including Native lands and cultures. Only
recently have we started to see more accurate
portrayals of Native women in scholarship,
media and other literary forms. But much work
remains to be done in terms of telling narratives
of contemporary Native women as leaders within
various sectors in Native communities.
Much of the early literature on Native American
women emerged in the journals and documents
of male European settlers and missionaries. These
Europeans were ready to create a new world
full of liberties and equalities, albeit with the
exclusion of women. Thus, Europeans drew on
their own cultural interpretations and interactions
in documenting their experiences with Native
people and women in particular (Berger, 2004;
Fryberg et al., 2008; Meranto, 2011; Oshana,
1981). On one end of the spectrum, early
narratives of Native American women focused on
Native women as beasts of burden, “the abject
slave and drudge of men in her tribe … trudging
along a trail behind her swarthy warrior husband,
who was riding a horse” (Lajimodiere, 2013). At
the other end of the spectrum, Native women
were portrayed as a Princess, an important
cultural mediator documented in the celebratory
narratives of Pocahontas and Sacagawea.2
Scholars have noted that the recognition of
Native women as “Princess” or “Drudge” has
largely been defined by her relationship with
(white) male figures (Green, 1975a).
2 Important to note, Native scholars have contested the celebratory
narratives of Pocahontas and Sacagawea as inaccurate, ahistorical
and Eurocentric. For some examples see Bird 2004; Cook-Lynn
2004; Fenelon & Defender-Wilson 2004; Green 1975b; Howe 2004.
6
These distortions of Native women in popular
culture have prevented mainstream society (and
even perhaps some segments of Native societies)
from viewing Native women as significant leaders
inside and outside of Native communities. Still
today, literature by non-Native scholars and
government agencies has focused on Native
women as victims of violence and other kinds of
traumatic events (Chester, Robin, Koss, Lopez, &
Goldman, 1994; Evans-Campbell, 2008; Norton
& Manson, 1995, 1995; Oetzel & Duran, 2004;
Smyth, 2004; Tjaden & Thoennes, 1998). These
kinds of traumatic narratives may shed light
on very real and pressing social issues within
and outside of Native communities. However,
narratives that counter these images of Native
women as merely victims of historical and
contemporary violence remain scarce and have
only recently began to emerge.
The role of Native women in Native communities
has always varied from tribe to tribe and is
dependent on a number of factors including
culture, geography, economics and social and
political institutions (Cook-Lynn, 2001; Meranto,
2011; Devon A Mihesuah, 2000). Some Native
nations organize linage along matrilineal lines,
where women held greater formal and informal
power and decision-making authority. Other
Native nations organize linage through men, but
this is not to suggest these tribes value women
less than other tribes or cultures (Allen, 1986;
Lajimodiere, 2013; Lawrence, 2003). Different
organizational structures and belief systems
conditioned very different kinds of social, cultural
and political interactions and also reinforced
different kinds of cultural and religious knowledge
systems.
Only recently have we begun to see more
literature illuminating the diverse roles and
contributions of Native American women in
sustaining local communities. Historically, most
of this knowledge was preserved through
diverse cultural or oral practices. But today we
are starting to see more and more depictions of
Native American women as community leaders
and activists who have historically sustained
Native traditions and communities. This shift has
in part been facilitated by a rise in biographical
and other empirical works unpacking Native
American women’s historic and contemporary
role in politics and policy change, education and
community activism (Denetdale, 2006, 2007;
Meranto, 2011; Devon Abbott Mihesuah, 2003;
Prindeville, 2004; Prindeville & Gomez, 1999).
This research has documented the contributions
of women to the Native American empowerment
movements of the 1970s and their work in the
creation of new organizations aimed at improving
opportunities for Native people and communities.
Report notes that there are now roughly 153,400
Native American and Alaska Native womenowned business firms nationally, employing
roughly 57,000 workers and generating about
$10.5 billion in annual revenues. From 2007 to
2016, the number of Native American Indian/
Alaska Native owned firms increased by about 59
percent and today Native women-owned firms
account for 51 percent of all Native American/
Alaska Native-owned firms (Womenable 2016).3
Beyond increasing stories highlighting the
contributions of Native women, there has been
increasing empirical data that tells a story
of Native women as community leaders and
drivers of Native economic and community
development. Not only are Native women gaining
college and advanced degrees at greater rates
than Native men (Freeman & Fox, 2005), Native
women are also leading the way in private-sector
business development in Native communities.
The 2016 State of Women Owned Business
There are pockets of disparate data that highlight
the fact that women are leading the way in
various aspects of sustaining and growing Native
communities. But in many instances these positive
developments are not framed in the context of
Native women as leaders. Thus, we must critically
examine the existing historical narratives of Native
women and highlight the positive and continued
contributions of Native women in growing healthy
and strong Native communities and economies.
The Native Nonprofit Sector
The nonprofit sector within Native communities
is still young and emerging. The growth of the
nonprofit sector in Native communities is directly
correlated with the rise of self-governance
and empowerment movements of the 1970s
— movements that fought to increase Native
control and governance of Native assets. These
movements sought to eliminate government,
religious and corporate control over local Native
community development. Fundamentally, these
movements sought to place Native people and
nations themselves in the driver seat when it
came to local development, decision-making and
service delivery.
But most, if not all, Native nations have a
long established history of philanthropy. From
potlatches, to giveaways and feasts, Native
nations across the United States have expressed
acts of generosity and reciprocity for family and
community development since time immemorial.
But over the last 40 years, Native communities
have witnessed a significant growth in the
creation of formalized philanthropy — that is
the growth of 501(c)(3) Native-led charitable
organizations in Native communities (Berry &
Adamson, 2000).
While the history of philanthropy among
Native people predates the formation of
the U.S, European immigrants arrived to the
“new world” ready to create new networks of
voluntary association to combat against tyranny
and individualistic barbarianism (Cohen, 1999;
Gamm & Putnam, 1999; Putnam, 2007; Salamon,
1987). This history of philanthropy in the U.S. no
doubt had a direct impact on Native peoples
and communities. For example, starting in the
mid-1800s Eastern religious and charitable
groups known as the “Friends of the Indians”
sought to lift Indians from poverty and their
perceived “backward ways” by removing Indian
children from their homes and putting them
in government and religious schools (Biolsi &
Zimmerman, 1997; Deloria, 1969; Deloria & Lytle,
1984; Jones, 2006; Kelsey, 1917). These efforts
3 As noted by Womenable, “on average, firms owned by women of color are smaller than Caucasian women-owned firms. Overall, womenowned firms average $143,431 in annual revenues per firm, with non-minority women-owned firms averaging $201,948 in annual revenues
and minority women-owned firms averaging $68,982. Looking across all minority groups, average annual revenues are highest among Asian
American women-owned firms ($184,669), followed by $75,170 among Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander women-owned firms, $68,141
among Native American/ Alaska Native women-owned firms, $52,087 among Latina-owned firms, and $26,550 among African American
women-owned firms” (Womenable 2016, 5).
7
by Protestant “do-gooders” initiated a national
policy effort to assimilate and Christianize
Native people, starting with their children (D.
W. Adams, 1995; Cornell, 1988; Deloria, 1969;
Ellis, 1996; Meranto, 2014). It would take nearly
100 years for Native people to break from
the chains of these philanthropic and federal
efforts aimed at disrupting traditional social and
governing structures in Native communities and
regain control of development paths in their
communities.
In the 1960s and 1970s, Native communities
began to examine alternative models for
developing local communities and economies —
models that put development agendas directly in
the hands of Native people and nations. Available
data collected by First Nations Development
Institute identified that roughly 90% of Native
nonprofits achieved tax exemption after 1977.
Moreover, growth of the Native nonprofit sector
since the 1970s has outpaced growth in the
national nonprofit sector (Black, 2004; First
Nations Development Institute, 2007, 2016;
Salway Black, 1998). The development and
creation of nonprofits in Native communities
was seen as a means to bring essential goods
and services to Native communities, provide
mechanisms to diversify tribal economies beyond
the governmental sector, create new jobs and
career opportunities for Native people, and
create strong local institutions that could bring
millions of philanthropic dollars into Native
economies.
Recent research on Native nonprofits has focused
on the under-resourced nature of the sector.
For example, Native Americans in Philanthropy
has documented the decline of philanthropic
investment in Native American organizations and
causes (Mukai & Lawrence, 2011). This research
has also pointed out that most philanthropic
dollars that flow to Native causes flow to
universities and museums or otherwise nonNative-controlled organizations and institutions
for the perceived benefit of Native people.
Other research has documented that the Native
nonprofit sector is heavily dependent on public
sector/government contracts, and largely serve
education, arts/culture and other social service
needs within Native communities. Research
has also documented that Native organizations
may be more under-resourced when compared
to similar non-Native organizations in other
rural communities (Black, 2004; First Nations
Development Institute, 2016; Salway Black, 1998).
Beyond looking at resources, few studies exist
that document other characteristics and trends
of the Native nonprofit sector. Perhaps the most
comprehensive descriptive analysis of the Native
nonprofit sector was released by First Nations
Development Institute almost 20 years ago based
on a survey of 550 Native nonprofit organizations.
This data highlighted that women made up nearly
65 percent of the labor force in Native nonprofits.
Though this report did not touch on the dynamics
of gender and top leadership positions at Native
nonprofit organizations, it did note that men
outnumbered women in the board room. The
report documented that about 60% of Native
nonprofit board seats were occupied by men
(Salway Black, 1998).
Though dated, what this data tells us is that
Native nonprofits follow national trends in terms
of the overrepresentation of women employed
within the sector and gendered inequities in the
board room. This data did not tap dynamics of
gender and top leadership positions at Native
nonprofits. Thus the empirical question remains:
Do men outnumber women in CEO positions at
Native nonprofit organizations?
The Data
To examine the dynamics of gender and
leadership within the Native nonprofit sector,
I utilize First Nations’ grantmaking data. First
Nations is a 36-year-old Native Americancontrolled and operated national intermediary.
First Nations has been making grants to
reservation-based Native American nonprofit
organizations since 1993. Since then, First Nations
has made over 1,160 grants totaling almost $26
8
million in grant investments to Native American
nonprofits. First Nations has a prestigious
reputation as a national grantmaker to Native
communities. On average. First Nations receives
500 requests per year totaling over $13 million in
funding requests. Of these requests, First Nations
is only able to meet roughly 15% of requests
annually.
First Nations invests in Native-controlled
nonprofits within Naive American communities,
defined as nonprofits within Native communities
whose board of directors is greater than 50%
Native American. Utilizing First Nations data
allows me to examine Native-controlled
nonprofits defined as Native American 501(c)
(3) organizations in Native communities that
are governed by Native people. In total, the
parameters of First Nations’ data allow me to
examine gender and leadership in 678 U.S.
Native nonprofits. See the data appendix for
further discussion of the dataset and descriptive
statistics.
Results
Are there more male than female CEOs in
the Native nonprofit sector? No. Overall, First
Nations’ data shows that 61 percent of Native
nonprofits are run by women, whereas 39 percent
are run by men.
level, men outnumber women in top leadership
positions within the national nonprofit sector. The
general trend is that as budget size increases,
rates of male leadership also increase while rates
of female leadership decline.
To get a fuller picture of gender and leadership
within the Native nonprofit sector, I compare
trends in Indian Country against national data
trends taken from the 15th annual Nonprofit
Compensation Report (McLean, 2015).
Looking at the Native American nonprofit sector,
we see a trend reversal when compared to the
national nonprofit sector. This data indicates that
female CEOs outnumber men at every level when
broken down by budget size. The one exception
is at the largest Native nonprofits with budgets
ranging from $10 million to $25 million. But the
existence of Native nonprofits with budgets of
this size are so small in the dataset (only 25), this
result needs to be interpreted with some caution.
As noted in Table 1 below, within the national
nonprofit sector there is some parity in gendered
leadership in organizations that have budgets less
than $500,000. But at almost every other budget
Table 1: Percentage of Nonprofit Female CEOs
National Nonprofit Sector
Native American Nonprofit Sector
Budget Size
2003
2013
2015
<$250K
55%
55%
58%
$250K-$5000K
57%
52%
65%
$500K-$1M
52%
49%
68%
$1M-$2.5M
45%
44%
67%
$2.5M-$5M
40%
37%
68%
$5M-$10M
32%
32%
56%
$10M-$25M
26%
29%
40%
In all, what these data tell us is that women are
unequivocally leading more nonprofits in Native
communities when compared to the national
nonprofit sector. At almost every budget level
below $10 million, over 55 percent of nonprofits
in Native communities are run by women.
Native Women Leaders: Gender and the Nonprofit Sector
In an effort to expand on the empirical data
presented above, I interviewed Native women
to get their perspectives on the data, their
experiences and pathways to leadership. In
all, I was able to interview nine Native women
who represented a broad spectrum of the
Native American nonprofit sector. With such
a small sample of interviews it is hard to make
generalizations about findings. But these
interviews do provide some insight into why the
9
leadership trend outlined above exists; highlight
challenges and experiences from Native women
within the sector; and provide insights, learnings
and understandings about the Native nonprofit
sector. The discussion below is intended to
highlight trends in interview responses, not an
in-depth analysis of each individual interview.
Responses to questions are not intended
to be definitive answers or make sweeping
generalizations. These are interview data that
provide exploratory insight into these trends. For
a discussion of the interview process and a list of
Native women interviewed for this project, see
data appendix.
Should the Native nonprofit sector
be concerned about issues of gender
equity? Why or why not?
All Native female leaders who were interviewed
noted that conversations around gender do
not happen enough in Indian Country. This is
not because individuals do not see this as a
significant issue, but rather issues of gender
tend to get pushed to the side in favor of other
pressing social and community issues that
require attention. Most women noted we need
to continue to have conversations around gender
and equity at all levels in tribal communities.
This includes discussing issues of gender and
the gendered continuum when it comes to
family dynamics, tribal government leadership,
private-sector development and nonprofit sector
development.
Research on the gendered pay gap nationally
notes that women earn 20 percent less than men,
or 80 cents for every white male’s dollar. For Native
women, research notes that they earn 41 percent
less or 58 cents for every white male’s dollar. When
compared to Native men, this pay gap persists.
Native women earn 15 percent less than Native
men or 85 cents to a Native man’s dollar (AAUW,
2016). While the national gendered pay gap has
narrowed over the years, the pay gap has actually
increased for Native women. Women interviewed
noted these are the conversations we need to be
having in Native communities and we need to
try to get at the causes of these inequities. One
10
woman noted, “The bias and prejudice against
Native women in and outside her homeland is
apparent, and this needs to be recognized and
we need to have more conversations about this
where we live and work.”
Moreover, most women noted that the issue of
gender and equity is important because we need
to have critical conversations about what we
mean by leadership and how we define it. Most
women noted that leadership in the nonprofit
sector is not necessarily valued when compared
to other sectors in Native communities. Nonprofit
institutions in Native communities bring millions
of dollars into local economies to provide goods
and services to Native people that otherwise
might not be provided or the expense for which
might fall into the hands of tribal government.
Many of the Native women noted Native
communities need to engage in cross-sector
conversations of leadership, gender equity and
community development.
Finally, almost all women noted that
conversations of gender and equality are needed
because we need to ask: Where are the Native
men? It may be that Native men are employed
in other sectors within Native communities.
But the lack of Native men in the nonprofit
sector raises the question of what are the career
trajectories being created for Native men in
Native communities? And where are those points
of engagement and recruitment into the nonprofit
sector for Native men? All women acknowledged
that gender balance within organizations is ideal,
so there is a demand and a place for men in the
nonprofit sector. But finding out why they may
choose other career paths or otherwise not enter
the sector are critical questions that need to be
asked.
What are some possible explanations
for the Native nonprofit sector having
more female CEOs than men?
Education: Since the mid-1970s, Native women
have outpaced Native men in higher education
attendance and attainment (a trend that mirrors
national education statistics). For example,
from 1976 and 2006, enrollment in colleges
and universities by Native women increased
by nearly 200 percent. Still today, roughly 60
percent of Native Americans enrolled in college
are women (Freeman & Fox, 2005; National
Congress of American Indians, 2015). Moreover,
when looking at education data by college
major, these data note that business-related
fields are the top undergraduate majors for
Native women (followed by health and education
related fields) (U.S. Department of Education,
2010). Collectively, what these data suggest is
that Native women are earning degrees at faster
rates than Native men and, as a result, have more
options for employment and are also sought after
in local reservation communities.
Reservation Household Economics: Over
30 percent of all family households in Native
communities are female-headed households
and roughly six percent of Native households
are multigenerational (Vespa, Lewis, & Kreider,
2013). What these statistics suggest is that in
Native communities, the burden of rearing
children and also caring for other family members
falls on women. As a result, women must enter
the workforce and be breadwinners for their
families. One outlet for employment in Native
communities is the young and emerging nonprofit
sector. Over time, the young and emerging
nonprofit sector offers a career path for Native
women who then either rise through the ranks
of existing organizations or create their own
organizations.
History and Cultural Beliefs: Many of the women
interviewed connected leadership within the
Native nonprofit sector to the history of Native
women as caretakers of land, culture, family
and communities. Many interviewees noted
that women have always been concerned with
sustaining Native nations and communities and,
today, the nonprofit sector may be an additional
outlet for continuing this important work of Native
nation survival. One interviewee noted that Native
women have always been entrepreneurial. They
have always looked for new and creative ways to
sustain Native people, families and communities.
Therefore we should not be surprised that the
nonprofit sector is another tool or weapon in that
arsenal of community survival.
Similarly, some Native women interviewed
recalled histories of American Indian activists and
the role women played within those movements.
Many of the women interviewed noted that
many female activists of the 1970s entered the
nonprofit sector and also served as important
recruiters and role models for current generations
of nonprofit leaders.
Did you participate in any formal
leadership development programs?
How did you grow leadership skills
and capacity?
None of the Native women interviewed had
participated in any formal leadership program
before entering their leadership role. Only one
of the women interviewed had participated in
a formal leadership program after assuming
her leadership role. Each of the women,
who have varying degrees of tenure at their
organizations, could recount some programs
that foundations created or supported
targeting different sectors, but most noted
that these program interventions were not
sustained investments, so they were not able
to capitalize on these leadership program
investments.
When asked to recall their own leadership paths,
a few common themes emerged:
• Seizing leadership opportunities at a young
age and in diverse environments. A few of the
women interviewed commented on how their
leadership ambitions emerged in college and
this experience served as a breeding ground
for them to explore new ideas, take risks and
engage community. These women noted that
college has different opportunities for women
to explore leadership, be it in activism,
college clubs or other activities, and these
experiences helped them later in their careers.
Similarly, other women noted that they
took advantage of creating leadership
opportunities early in their careers. Many
of the women interviewed served in various
positions at their current or other nonprofit
organizations. These women commented
11
that the under-resourced nature of the Native
nonprofit sector allowed them to really take
initiative and lead new ideas, projects and
teams — experience they may not have
gained in other sectors. Many women noted
that early in their careers, their ambitions to
take on more and varied work were rewarded
by both men and women leaders, and
these leaders served as mentors in helping
them develop new skills and pursue new
opportunities.
• Informal Mentoring: In the absence of formal
leadership programs, where peer networks
can be developed and last over a lifetime,
many of the women interviewed noted
that they had to create their own informal
networks for mentoring. One woman noted
that developing these informal mentoring
networks occurred at conferences and other
professional events. She noted, “I would
target women that I thought were doing
exceptional work or leading exceptional
organizations. I would talk to them
professionally, collegially and then friendships
developed.” Almost all the women mentioned
how these self-developed mentoring networks
have helped them to call other women within
the sector and ask them questions about
challenges or opportunities that they may
face, or seek direction and advice in their own
setting.
While this data suggests that women
outnumber men in terms of CEO
positions within the Native nonprofit
sector, there is some limited data
that suggests this trend is not true for
Native nonprofit boards of directors.
In other words, board rooms tend
to be dominated by men. What
are some factors that influence this
trend?
Many of the women noted that there is more work
to be done in terms of how we conceptualize
leadership in Native communities. Many of the
women interviewed noted that when we think of
leadership in Native communities, we typically
associate leadership with tribal leadership and
12
tribal government. But many questioned if this
was a construct of leadership that was defined
by Native people themselves or rather imposed
by outsiders (perhaps infiltrated as a result of
interactions between Native nations and the U.S.
government). Thus, many women noted that the
overrepresentation of men may be influenced
by how we as Native communities conceptualize
leadership.
This suggests that Native women who run Native
nonprofit organizations must make valuable and
strategic partnerships with various community
constituents and stakeholders within Native
communities. For example, many women noted
that one reality of developing and sustaining
nonprofit organizations in Native communities is
engagement with tribal governments. While there
is an increasing presence of Native women in
tribal governments, the women interviewed agree
that men tend to dominate tribal government
positions. This can be extended to other
community based cultural or business leaders.
What can mainstream philanthropy
and the larger nonprofit sector learn
from this gendered leadership trend
in Indian Country?
There is value to investing in women and
women-led organizations. The women I
interviewed noted that people should know that
Indian Country is really a model for how women
can and do lead the way in terms of community
development. Women in Native communities
have created and are leading nonprofit
organizations that are thriving — in communities
that otherwise have other negative economic and
social statistics. Thus, when we invest in women,
we really invest in prosperity and growth.
We need to invest more in trying to understand
why national gendered leadership trends do
not travel to the nonprofit sector in Indian
Country. Many of the women interviewed
noted that we need to disaggregate national
trends and data. When thinking about gender
and leadership, understanding where equity
is happening and not happening may help
understand various programmatic supports
or interventions that may be needed to lift up
gender equity within the broader sector. If Indian
Country seems to reverse national trends, we
need to investigate why women enter the sector,
when they enter the sector, and examine support
systems that nature their development and
growth.
Previous research has documented
that three-tenths of one percent of
foundation philanthropic investments
go to Native organizations and
causes (Mukai & Lawrence, 2011).
Do you think that gender affects
funding for the Native nonprofit
sector? Do women face different
challenges than men when raising
funds for their organizations?
All women interviewed noted that they
thought gender did have both intentional and
unintentional effects on funding. Most did not
discuss specific instances where they felt that
gender affected funding. However, many did note
that at different times in their careers funders
were captivated by their passion and dedication,
but they often felt that funders treated their
organizational work as “cute” community based
projects — not projects looking to transform
Native people and communities. All interviewees
acknowledged that other factors may influence
this kind of interaction, including communication
with funders, project and organizational
readiness, etc. But interviewees also noted that
with relationship-based funders, you always
have to raise the question of how things like
gender, race and class may influence interactions,
reinforce or challenge assumptions, and also
further or stall relationships.
Most noted that the effect of gender on
fundraising may vary by type of funder or who
they interact with at a funding organization/
agency. For example, most women felt that
gender mattered the least with federal grant
agencies and individual donors. Most noted that
with federal agencies and individuals, grantor
and grantee relationships are formed around the
organizational work or program goals. In many
instances these relationships are also formed in
advance of meetings with individual donors who
tend to support organizations because of other
forms of interaction and communication (e.g.
mail as a touch point). Moreover, federal grant
decisions are often formulated by committees
that make recommendations for funding. All
women felt that this question is one that needs
further exploration.
Conclusion
This report is but one attempt to disaggregate
national trends and examine the relationship
between gender and leadership within one
specific nonprofit subsector — the Native
American nonprofit sector. While data on the
national nonprofit sector notes that men occupy
top leadership positions at greater rates then
women, the Native nonprofit sector offers hope
for gender parity within the sector. What data in
this report notes is that scholars and practitioners
need to further disaggregate national data trends
to further understand variation of leadership
within the sector. Understanding nuance can
help the sector tease out where gender parity
occurs and where subsectors struggle. This will
not only help understand programmatic or other
community dynamics that facilitate leadership
inclusivity, but also where structural and
institutional barriers persist for issues of equity.
This research also suggests that we need to
further understand the historical evolution
of patriarchy. The infiltration of patriarchal
systems varied over time and understanding
variation in this historical evolution may help
further understand contemporary behaviors and
outcomes in different communities.
Examining the Native nonprofit subsector
demonstrates that while women may rise to top
leadership positions at greater rates than the
national sector, other issues around issues of
gender equality remain. As the female leaders
noted in interviews, we need more conversations
to occur in Native communities around gender
and how gender issues affect different community
dynamics. Moreover, Native communities may
need to question how they define and talk about
contemporary notions of leadership (and ask if
current conceptions of leadership exclude or
13
diminish the contributions of women). The Native
nonprofit sector may also have to examine the
tendency of men to dominate Native nonprofit
boardrooms. Finally, there is also opportunity to
further explore how and why women enter and
thrive in the Native nonprofit sector.
Data Appendix
First Nations funds Native community-led and
developed initiatives focused on Native financial
empowerment, asset-based development
strategies, Native youth, food systems and
institutional development. First Nations funds
Native-led 501(c)(3) organization, Native nations
and grassroots community organizations without
501(c)(3) status. For this analysis, only Nativecontrolled 501(c)(3) organizations were included,
and Native nations and community groups were
excluded. I also did a check to exclude groups
that were not Native controlled but may have
applied for First Nations funding. First Nations
defines Native-controlled organizations as an
organization serving Native communities where
over 50% of its board of directors identify as
Native American with a tribal affiliation.
First Nations provided data on all Native
controlled 501(c)(3) organizations that have
applied for a First Nations grant since 2012.
This included information on organization name,
executive director name and self-selected prefix
(Mrs., Ms., Mr. or Dr.) and organizational budget.
This yielded 1,207 organization observations.
The yearly data really allow for two research
strategies: 1) I could examine the data year by
year and examine gendered leadership and
organizational budget; or 2) I could combine the
data from 2012-2015 and examine trends as it
relates to gendered leadership and organizational
budget within the Native nonprofit sector. For
ease of interpretation, the results herein are
combined data from 2012-2015. For each year,
duplicate organizational observations were
deleted. However, if there was a change in
executive director identification, I did keep the
most recent data record in the data set (this
occurred less than five times). This strategy cut
the data set in half, leaving a total of 678 unique
organization observations.
Limitations of First Nations Data: Existing
literature has documented the extreme
difficulties in collecting data within American
Indian communities (Mihesuah, 1998; National
Congress of American Indians, 2010; United
14
Nations, 2004). This persistent problem is not
only an issue of access given the rural and ultrarural nature of Native American life, but also an
issue of capacity, infrastructure and technology.
Moreover, complicating data issues in reservation
communities is the increasing movement
of Native tribes and organizations exerting
sovereignty rights over ownership of data,
especially when it comes to individual data and
data examining culturally-specific contexts within
Native communities.4 All this is to say that data
access to this sector is difficult.
There are other data sets that may allow for
exploring these dynamics, like the charitable
statistics data form the IRS. But these data may
lead to some biased results. Within the Native
nonprofit sector, Native community-based
organizations make distinctions between Native
service organizations and Native-controlled
nonprofits. Native service organizations are
organizations that provide services to Native
communities but are not Native controlled or
operated. As previously discussed, the nonprofit
sector in Native communities emerged after
the 1970s and the need to develop culturallyappropriate models for community and economic
development that was led and controlled by
Native people. But within Native communities,
nonprofits controlled by (perhaps) wellintentioned do-gooders still exist, but these
nonprofits do not necessarily reflect Native
goals, needs and intentions when it comes
4 In many ways this movement for data sovereignty is a reaction
to the highly-publicized case Havasupai Tribe of the Havasupai
Reservation v. Arizona Board of Regents and Therese Ann Markow,
2004. In 1989, researchers from Arizona State University (ASU) and
the Havasupai Tribe collaborated on The Diabetes Project, a project
that would collect and test blood samples and genetic association to
search for links between genes and diabetes risk among Havasupai
tribal members. No links were found, but in 2003 a member of the
Havasupai Tribe and a participant in The Diabetes Project attended
a lecture at ASU where it was discovered that collected blood
samples were used for later studies on unrelated research topics,
including schizophrenia, migration and inbreeding – all without
informed consent of project participants. The tribe successfully
filed and won a suit against ASU and researchers in 2004 for misuse
of DNA samples, violating the informed-consent research clause
and unapproved use of data, violating medical confidentiality and
violating the civil rights of project participants (Madsen, 2008; Rubin,
2004; Santos, 2008).
to local development. These groups include
religiously-affiliated organizations, organizations
that do not have a majority of Native board
members, organizations not located within
Native communities, or with limited Native staff
members and leadership. Moreover, many of
these groups have been criticized for raising
money in the name of Native people and
communities but not investing in community
needs and community capacity. Thus, other data
would not make Native service and Native-led
organizations distinguishable and would bias the
data and results.
Interviews
One-hour interviews were conducted with the female Native leaders below. Each individual was
contacted via email and given the list of questions in advance. All interviews were semi-structured.
Name
Title and Organization
Cheryl Crazy Bull
President & CEO, American Indian College Fund
Corrine Sanchez
Executive Director, Tewa Women United
Crystal Echo Hawk
President & CEO, Echo Hawk Consulting, and Former Executive
Director, Notah Begay III Foundation.
Julie Garreau
Executive Director, Cheyenne River Youth Project
Mary LaGarde
Executive Director, Minneapolis American Indian Center
Sarah Echohawk
President & CEO, American Indian Science and Engineering Society
Sarah Kastelic
Executive Director, National Indian Child Welfare Association
Retired, Former Director of the Partnership for Tribal Governance
Sherry Salway Black at the National Congress of American Indians, and Former Vice
President, First Nations Development Institute
Trisha Moquino
Co-Founder, Keres Children’s Learning Center
15
Bibliography
Adams, David Wallace. 1995. Education for Extinction: American Indians and the Boarding School Experience, 1875-1928. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
Adams, Renée B, and Daniel Ferreira. 2009. “Women in the Boardroom and Their Impact on Governance and Performance.” Journal of Financial Economics 94 (2): 291–309.
Allen, Paula Gunn. 1986. The Sacred Hoop: Recovering the Feminine in American Indian Traditions: With a New Preface. Boston: Beacon Press.
American Association of University Women. 2016. “The Simple Truth about the Gender Pay Gap.” American Association of University Women.
Barsh, Joanna, and Lareina Yee. 2012. “Unlocking the Full Potential of Women at Work.” McKinsey & Company/Wall Street Journal.
Berger, Bethany. 2004. “Indian Policy and the Imagined Indian Woman.” Kansas Journal of Law & Public Policy 14: 103.
Berry, Mindy, and Rebecca Adamson. 2000. “The Wisdom of the Giveaway: A Guide to Growing Native American Philanthropy.”
Biolsi, Thomas, and Larry J. Zimmerman. 1997. Indians and Anthropologists: Vine Deloria, Jr., and the Critique of Anthropology. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
Bird, Loren Yellow. 2004. “Now I Will Speak (Nawah Ti Waako’): A Sahnish Perspective on What the Lewis and Clark Expedition and Others Missed.” Wicazo Sa Review 19 (1):
73–84.
Black, Sherry Salway. 2004. “Native American Philanthropy.” Philanthropy in Communities of Color: Traditions and Challenges.
Bradshaw, Pat, Vic Murray, and Jacob Wolpin. 1996. “Women on Boards of Nonprofits: What Difference Do They Make?” Nonprofit Management and Leadership 6 (3): 241–54.
Burbridge, Lynn C. 1994. “The Occupational Structure of Nonprofit Industries: Implications for Women.” Women and Power in the Nonprofit Sector, 121–54.
Carter, David A, Frank D’Souza, Betty J Simkins, and W Gary Simpson. 2010. “The Gender and Ethnic Diversity of US Boards and Board Committees and Firm Financial Performance.” Corporate Governance: An International Review 18 (5): 396–414.
Carter, David A, Betty J Simkins, and W Gary Simpson. 2003. “Corporate Governance, Board Diversity, and Firm Value.” Financial Review 38 (1): 33–53.
Catalyst. 2016. “Women CEOs of the S&P 500.” Catalyst, June 14. http://www.catalyst.org/knowledge/women-sp-500-companies.
Chester, Barbara, Robert W Robin, Mary P Koss, Joyce Lopez, and David Goldman. 1994. “Grandmother Dishonored: Violence against Women by Male Partners in American Indian
Communities.” Violence and Victims 9 (3): 249–58.
Cohen, Jean. 1999. “‘Trust, Voluntary Association and Workable Democracy: The Contemporary American Discourse of Civil Society.” in Mark E. Warren (ed.) Democracy and Trust.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 208-248.
Conry, Julie C, and Janette E McDonald. 1994. “Moving toward a Matrix: Gender and the Nonprofit Culture of the Nineties.” New Directions for Philanthropic Fundraising 1994
(5): 45–53.
Cook-Lynn, Elizabeth. 2001. Anti-Indianism in Modern America: A Voice from Tatekeya’s Earth. Chicago: University of Illinois Press.
———. 2004. “The Lewis and Clark Story, the Captive Narrative, and the Pitfalls of Indian History.” Wicazo Sa Review 19 (1): 21–33.
Cornell, Stephen Ellicott. 1988. The Return of the Native: American Indian Political Resurgence. Oxford University Press New York.
D5 Coalition. 2016. “D5 State of the Work, 2016.” D5 Coalition.
———. 2011. State of the Work: Mapping the Landscape and D5’s Path Forward on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in Philanthropy. Chicago: D5 Coalition. http://www.d5coalition.
org/tools/state-of-the-work-2011.
Deborah, Ashton. 2014. “Does Race or Gender Matter More to Your Paycheck?” Harvard Business Review.
16
Deloria, Vine. 1969. Custer Died for Your Sins: An Indian Manifesto. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
Deloria, Vine, and Clifford M. Lytle. 1984. The Nations Within: The Past and Future of American Indian Sovereignty. New York: Pantheon Books.
Denetdale, Jennifer. 2006. “Chairmen, Presidents, and Princesses: The Navajo Nation, Gender, and the Politics of Tradition.” Wicazo Sa Review 21 (1): 9–28.
———. 2007. Reclaiming Diné History: Legacies of Navajo Chief Manuelito and Juani. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
DiMaggio, Paul J, and Helmut K Anheier. 1990. “The Sociology of Nonprofit Organizations and Sectors.” Annual Review of Sociology, 137–59.
DiMento, Maria. 2014. Lack of Women in Top Roles Hinders Nonprofits, Women Say. Chronicle of Philanthropy. https://www.philanthropy.com/article/Lack-of-Women-in-TopRoles/153197.
Ellis, Clyde. 1996. To Change Them Forever: Indian Education at the Rainy Mountain Boarding School, 1893-1920. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
Erhardt, Niclas L, James D Werbel, and Charles B Shrader. 2003. “Board of Director Diversity and Firm Financial Performance.” Corporate Governance: An International Review 11
(2): 102–11.
Evans-Campbell, Teresa. 2008. “Historical Trauma in American Indian/Native Alaska Communities a Multilevel Framework for Exploring Impacts on Individuals, Families, and
Communities.” Journal of Interpersonal Violence 23 (3): 316–38.
Fenelon, James V, and Mary Louise Defender-Wilson. 2004. “Voyage of Domination, ‘Purchase’ as Conquest, Sakakawea for Savagery: Distorted Icons from Misrepresentations of
the Lewis and Clark Expedition.” Wicazo Sa Review 19 (1): 85–104.
First Nations Development Institute. 2007. Integrated Asset-Building Strategies for Reservation-Based Communities: A 27-Year Retrospective of First Nations Development Institute.
Longmont, CO: First Nations Development Institute.
———. 2016. A Case for the Native Nonprofit Sector: Advocating for Cultural, Economic and Community Change. Longmont, CO: First Nations Development Institute.
Freeman, Catherine, and Mary Ann Fox. 2005. “Status And Trends In The Education Of American Indians And Alaska Natives. NCES 2005-108.” National Center for Education
Statistics.
Fryberg, Stephanie A, Hazel Rose Markus, Daphna Oyserman, and Joseph M Stone. 2008. “Of Warrior Chiefs and Indian Princesses: The Psychological Consequences of American
Indian Mascots.” Basic and Applied Social Psychology 30 (3): 208–18.
Gamm, Gerald, and Robert D Putnam. 1999. “The Growth of Voluntary Associations in America, 1840–1940.” Journal of Interdisciplinary History 29 (4): 511–57.
Gibelman, Margaret. 2000. “The Nonprofit Sector and Gender Discrimination.” Nonprofit Management and Leadership 10 (3): 251–69.
Glass Ceiling Commission. 1995. “Glass Ceiling Commission-A Solid Investment: Making Full Use of the Nation’s Human Capital.” Federal Publications, 120.
Goodman, Jodi S, Dail L Fields, and Terry C Blum. 2003. “Cracks in the Glass Ceiling In What Kinds of Organizations Do Women Make It to the Top?” Group & Organization
Management 28 (4): 475–501.
Green, Rayna. 1975a. “The Pocahontas Perplex: The Image of Indian Women in American Culture.” The Massachusetts Review 16 (4): 698–714.
———. 1975b. “The Pocahontas Perplex: The Image of Indian Women in American Culture.” The Massachusetts Review 16 (4): 698–714.
Hansmann, Henry. 1987. “Economic Theories of Nonprofit Organization.” The Nonprofit Sector: A Research Handbook 1: 27–42.
Hirschfelder, Arlene, Paulette F Molin, Yvonne Wakim, and Michael A Dorris. 1999. American Indian Stereotypes in the World of Children: A Reader and Bibliography. Scarecrow
Press.
Howe, Craig. 2004. “Lewis and Clark among the Tetons: Smoking Out What Really Happened.” Wicazo Sa Review 19 (1): 47–72.
17
Bibliography Continued
National Congress of American Indians. 2010. Research That Benefits Native People: A Guide for Tribal Leaders. Washington D.C: National Congress of American Indians.
Jones, Rufus M. 2006. The Quakers in the American Colonies. Kessinger Publishing.
Joslyn, H. 2003. “Charity’s Glass Ceiling.” Chronicle of Philanthropy 15 (11): 47–47.
Kelsey, Rayner Wickersham. 1917. Friends and the Indians, 1655-1917. Associated Executive Committee of Friends on Indian Affairs.
Kephart, Pamela, and Lillian Schumacher. 2005. “Has the Glass Ceiling Cracked? An Exploration of Women Entrepreneurship.” Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 12
(1): 2–15.
LaFromboise, Teresa D, Anneliese M Heyle, and Emily J Ozer. 1990. “Changing and Diverse Roles of Women in American Indian Cultures.” Sex Roles 22 (7–8): 455–76.
Lajimodiere, Denise K. 2013. “American Indian Females and Stereotypes: Warriors, Leaders, Healers, Feminists; Not Drudges, Princesses, Prostitutes.” Multicultural Perspectives
15 (2): 104–9.
Lawrence, Bonita. 2003. “Gender, Race, and the Regulation of Native Identity in Canada and the United States: An Overview.” Hypatia 18 (2): 3–31.
Leete, Laura. 2000. “Wage Equity and Employee Motivation in Nonprofit and for-Profit Organizations.” Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 43 (4): 423–46.
Madsen, Kenneth. 2008. “Indigenous Research, Publishing, and Intellectual Property.” American Indian Culture and Research Journal 32 (3): 89–106.
McLean, Chuck. 2015. 2015 GuideStar Nonprofit Compensation Report. Guidestar.
———. 2016. 2016 GuideStar Nonprofit Compensation Report. GuideStar.
Meranto, Oneida. 2014. The Other American Governments: Tribal Governments in Transition from Dependency to Sovereignty. Kendall Hunt Publishing Company.
Meranto, Oneida J. 2011. “From Buckskin to Calico and Back Again: An Historical Interpretation of American Indian Feminism.” New Political Science 23 (3): 333–49.
Mihesuah, Devon A. 2000. “A Few Cautions at the Millennium on the Merging of Feminist Studies with American Indian Women’s Studies.” Signs 25 (4): 1247–51.
———. 1998. Natives and Academics: Researching and Writing about American Indians. U of Nebraska Press.
———. 2003. Indigenous American Women: Decolonization, Empowerment, Activism. U of Nebraska Press.
Mukai, R, and S Lawrence. 2011. “Foundation Funding for Native American Issues and Peoples.” The Foundation Center, New York, NY.
Nank, Renee. 2011. “Women and the Nonprofit Sector.” Women in Public Administration: Theory and Practice, 285–96.
National Congress of American Indians. 2015. A Spotlight on Native Women and Girls. Washington D.C. http://www.ncai.org/policy-research-center/research-data/prc-publications/A_Spotlight_on_Native_Women_-_Girls.pdf.
Noland, Marcus, Tyler Moran, and Barbara Kotschwar. 2006. “Working Paper: Is Gender Diversity Profitable? Evidence from a Global Survey.” Peterson Institute for International
Economics.
Norton, Ilena M, and Spero M Manson. 1995. “A Silent Minority: Battered American Indian Women.” Journal of Family Violence 10 (3): 307–18.
Oetzel, John, and Bonnie Duran. 2004. “Intimate Partner Violence in American Indian And/Or Alaska Native Communities: A Social Ecological Framework of Determinants and
Interventions.” American Indian and Alaska Native Mental Health Research (Online) 11 (3): 49.
Oshana, Maryann. 1981. “Native American Women in Westerns: Reality and Myth.” Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies, 46–50.
Preston, Anne E. 1989. “The Nonprofit Worker in a for-Profit World.” Journal of Labor Economics, 438–63.
Prindeville, Diane-Michele. 2004. “Feminist Nations? A Study of Native American Women in Southwestern Tribal Politics.” Political Research Quarterly 57 (1): 101–12.
18
Prindeville, Diane-Michele, and Teresa Braley Gomez. 1999. “American Indian Women Leaders, Public Policy, and the Importance of Gender and Ethnic Identity.” Women & Politics
20 (2): 17–32.
Putnam, Robert D. 2007. “E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the Twenty‐first Century the 2006 Johan Skytte Prize Lecture.” Scandinavian Political Studies 30 (2):
137–74.
Pynes, Joan E. 2000. “Are Women Underrepresented as Leaders of Nonprofit Organizations?” Review of Public Personnel Administration 20 (2): 35–49.
Reis, Susan Bon, I Phillip Young, and James C Jury. 1999. “Female Administrators: A Crack in the Glass Ceiling.” Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education 13 (1): 71–82.
Rubin, Paul. 2004. “Indian Givers: The Havasupai Trusted the White Man to Help with a Diabetes Epidemic. Instead, ASU Tricked Them into Bleeding for Academia.”
Salamon, Lester M. 1987. “Of Market Failure, Voluntary Failure, and Third-Party Government: Toward a Theory of Government-Nonprofit Relations in the Modern Welfare State.”
Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 16 (1–2): 29–49.
Salway Black, Sherry. 1998. The Emerging Sector: Nonprofits in Indian Country. Fredericksburg: First Nations Development Institute.
Sampson, Susan D, and Lynda L Moore. 2008. “Is There a Glass Ceiling for Women in Development?” Nonprofit Management and Leadership 18 (3): 321–39.
Santos, LorrieAnn. 2008. “Genetic Research in Native Communities.” Progress in Community Health Partnerships: Research, Education, and Action 2 (4): 321.
Shaiko, Ronald G. 1996. “Female Participation in Public Interest Nonprofit Governance: Yet Another Glass Ceiling?” Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 25 (3): 302–20.
Smith, Nina, Valdemar Smith, and Mette Verner. 2006. “Do Women in Top Management Affect Firm Performance? A Panel Study of 2,500 Danish Firms.” International Journal of
Productivity and Performance Management 55 (7): 569–93.
Smyth, Nancy J. 2004. “Introduction.” Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment 7 (3–4): 1–4.
Stedman, Raymond William. 1982. Shadows of the Indian: Stereotypes in American Culture. University of Oklahoma Press.
“Study: Gender Gap Persists in Nonprofit Leadership Positions.” 2015. Nonprofit Business Advisor 2015 (314): 7.
Themudo, Nuno S. 2009. “Gender and the Nonprofit Sector.” Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 38 (4): 663–83.
Tjaden, Patricia, and Nancy Thoennes. 1998. “Prevalence, Incidence, and Consequences of Violence against Women: Findings from the National Violence against Women Survey.
Research in Brief.”
United Nations. 2004. Report of the Workshop on Data Collection and Disaggregation for Indigenous Peoples. Vol. E/c.19/2004/2. New York: United Nations.
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. 2010. Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS). Washington D.C: National Center for
Education Statistics.
Vespa, Jonathan, Jamie M Lewis, and Rose M Kreider. 2013. “America’s Families and Living Arrangements: 2012.” Current Population Reports 20 (2013): P570.
Warner, Judith. 2014. “The Women’s Leadership Gap: Women’s Leadership by the Numbers.” Washington, DC: Center of American Progress. (December 1, 2014).
Woetzel, Jonathan. 2015. “The Power of Parity: How Advancing Women’s Equality Can Add $12 Trillion to Global Growth.” eSocialSciences.
Womenable. 2016. The State of Women Owned Businesses, 2016. New York: Womenable and American Express.
Yee, Lareina. 2012. “Unlocking the Full Potential of Women at Work.” McKinsey & Company, April.
19
First Nations Development Institute
2432 Main Street, 2nd Floor
Longmont, CO 80501
303.774.7836
www.firstnations.org