Gender and the Economy

Author: Salwa Iqbal

  • The Future of Work. New Report from Institute for Gender and the Economy Looks at Remote Work and the Pursuit of Equality.

    The Future of Work. New Report from Institute for Gender and the Economy Looks at Remote Work and the Pursuit of Equality.

  • Another Workplace Trend Has Emerged: ‘The Great Breakup’ Is Here

    Another Workplace Trend Has Emerged: ‘The Great Breakup’ Is Here

  • The Future of Work: Will Remote Work Help or Hinder the Pursuit of Equality?

    The Future of Work: Will Remote Work Help or Hinder the Pursuit of Equality?

    [fusion_builder_container admin_label=”” hundred_percent=”no” equal_height_columns=”no” menu_anchor=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” background_color=”” background_image=”” background_position=”center center” background_repeat=”no-repeat” fade=”no” background_parallax=”none” enable_mobile=”no” parallax_speed=”0.3″ video_mp4=”” video_webm=”” video_ogv=”” video_url=”” video_aspect_ratio=”16:9″ video_loop=”yes” video_mute=”yes” video_preview_image=”” border_color=”” border_style=”solid” margin_top=”20″ margin_bottom=”” padding_top=”” padding_right=”” padding_bottom=”” padding_left=”” type=”legacy”][fusion_builder_row][fusion_builder_column type=”3_4″ layout=”3_4″ spacing=”” center_content=”no” hover_type=”none” link=”” min_height=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” background_color=”” background_image=”” background_position=”left top” background_repeat=”no-repeat” border_color=”” border_style=”solid” border_position=”all” padding_top=”” padding_right=”” padding_bottom=”” padding_left=”” margin_top=”” margin_bottom=”” animation_type=”” animation_direction=”left” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_offset=”” last=”false” border_sizes_top=”0″ border_sizes_bottom=”0″ border_sizes_left=”0″ border_sizes_right=”0″ first=”true” spacing_right=””][fusion_text columns=”” column_min_width=”” column_spacing=”” rule_style=”” rule_size=”” rule_color=”” hue=”” saturation=”” lightness=”” alpha=”” content_alignment_medium=”” content_alignment_small=”” content_alignment=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” sticky_display=”normal,sticky” class=”” id=”” margin_top=”” margin_right=”” margin_bottom=”” margin_left=”” fusion_font_family_text_font=”” fusion_font_variant_text_font=”” font_size=”” line_height=”” letter_spacing=”” text_transform=”” text_color=”” animation_type=”” animation_direction=”left” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_offset=””]

    OVERVIEW:

    The widespread shift to remote work during the COVID-19 pandemic has brought about many questions on the future of work. A recent survey by Microsoft of 31,000 workers in 31 countries suggests that 52% of employees are somewhat or extremely likely to prefer hybrid or remote work in the year ahead, and 53% of employees are more likely to prioritize their wellbeing over work than before the pandemic. The way that people perceive and experience work has changed drastically over the last two years. But how have marginalized workers specifically been affected by the shift to working from home? And what types of work design will best facilitate equity, well-being, and opportunity for workers moving forward?

    Analyzing the dynamics of remote work with an intersectional lens allows us to understand how different groups may be experiencing this transformation in labour. Research suggests that remote and hybrid work models have improved many workers’ lives, but it has also been associated with career penalties, work-family conflict, higher stress, and other mental health challenges—particularly for those who already experience inequity. Many of these disadvantages come about not because of anything inherent about remote work but because of bias, stereotypes, and social norms surrounding paid and unpaid work. This report synthesizes key research insights, including the following:

    • Remote work policies must be matched by public and organizational policies that address gendered structures. Such structures contribute to increased work-life conflict and mental health issues for caregiving women while working from home. Public policies such as affordable childcare, adequate paid family leave, and a range of options for flexible work can facilitate more egalitarian relationships and households.
    • Both workers and organizations benefit from policies that remove stigma of remote work because it increases worker motivation and job performance. Organizations can offer these options on a regular basis and ensure that they are accessible for everyone and universally appealing to people of all genders and backgrounds.
    • Office workspaces and work design can be transformed to facilitate different forms of work. Studies indicate that some forms of work practices and routines (i.e., more traditionally bureaucratic arrangements) facilitate the use of remote work and flexible work policies more than others. Flexible work stigma can also be reduced by ensuring information is accessible online, and creating team-building opportunities for hybrid- and remote-working employees.
    • Organizational initiatives can decrease work-family conflict, such as by ensuring reliable and consistent communication to all employees, establishing that workers know they do not have to work longer hours at home, and eliminating employee monitoring.
    • Remote work needs will not have a major impact on the climate crisis unless accompanied by other policy measures, such as ensuring widespread availability of quality public and other low-carbon transportation and affordable housing in urban areas.

    DOWNLOAD THIS RESEARCH OVERVIEW IN ENGLISH/ EN FRANÇAIS

    The Future of Work: Will Remote Work Help or Hinder the Pursuit of Equality?” is co-funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council and Employment and Social Development Canada.

    [/fusion_text][fusion_separator style_type=”none” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” sep_color=”” top_margin=”20″ bottom_margin=”20″ border_size=”” icon=”” icon_circle=”” icon_circle_color=”” width=”” alignment=”center” /][fusion_button link=”https://www.gendereconomy.org/category/research-overviews/” text_transform=”” title=”” target=”_blank” link_attributes=”” alignment_medium=”” alignment_small=”” alignment=”” modal=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” sticky_display=”normal,sticky” class=”” id=”” color=”custom” button_gradient_top_color=”#62bd19″ button_gradient_bottom_color=”#62bd19″ button_gradient_top_color_hover=”#00c2e2″ button_gradient_bottom_color_hover=”#00c2e2″ accent_color=”” accent_hover_color=”” type=”” bevel_color=”” border_color=”” border_hover_color=”” size=”” stretch=”yes” margin_top=”” margin_right=”” margin_bottom=”” margin_left=”” icon=”” icon_position=”left” icon_divider=”no” animation_type=”” animation_direction=”left” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_offset=””]See more research overviews[/fusion_button][fusion_separator style_type=”none” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” sep_color=”” top_margin=”20″ bottom_margin=”20″ border_size=”” icon=”” icon_circle=”” icon_circle_color=”” width=”” alignment=”center” /][fusion_recent_posts layout=”default” hover_type=”none” columns=”3″ number_posts=”3″ offset=”0″ pull_by=”category” cat_slug=”research-briefs” exclude_cats=”” tag_slug=”” exclude_tags=”” thumbnail=”yes” title=”yes” meta=”no” meta_author=”no” meta_categories=”no” meta_date=”yes” meta_comments=”yes” meta_tags=”no” content_alignment=”” excerpt=”no” excerpt_length=”35″ strip_html=”yes” scrolling=”no” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” animation_type=”” animation_direction=”left” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_offset=”” /][/fusion_builder_column][fusion_builder_column type=”1_4″ layout=”1_4″ spacing=”” center_content=”no” hover_type=”none” link=”” min_height=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” background_color=”” background_image=”” background_position=”left top” background_repeat=”no-repeat” border_color=”” border_style=”solid” border_position=”all” padding_top=”” padding_right=”” padding_bottom=”” padding_left=”” margin_top=”” margin_bottom=”” animation_type=”” animation_direction=”left” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_offset=”” last=”true” border_sizes_top=”0″ border_sizes_bottom=”0″ border_sizes_left=”0″ border_sizes_right=”0″ first=”false”][fusion_title title_type=”text” rotation_effect=”bounceIn” display_time=”1200″ highlight_effect=”circle” loop_animation=”off” highlight_width=”9″ highlight_top_margin=”0″ before_text=”” rotation_text=”” highlight_text=”” after_text=”” title_link=”off” link_url=”” link_target=”_self” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” sticky_display=”normal,sticky” class=”briefsummary” id=”” content_align_medium=”” content_align_small=”” content_align=”left” size=”3″ animated_font_size=”” fusion_font_family_title_font=”” fusion_font_variant_title_font=”” font_size=”” line_height=”” letter_spacing=”” text_transform=”” text_color=”” hue=”” saturation=”” lightness=”” alpha=”” animated_text_color=”” text_shadow=”no” text_shadow_vertical=”” text_shadow_horizontal=”” text_shadow_blur=”0″ text_shadow_color=”” margin_top_medium=”” margin_right_medium=”” margin_bottom_medium=”” margin_left_medium=”” margin_top_small=”” margin_right_small=”” margin_bottom_small=”” margin_left_small=”” margin_top=”” margin_right=”” margin_bottom=”” margin_left=”” margin_top_mobile=”” margin_bottom_mobile=”” gradient_font=”no” gradient_start_color=”” gradient_end_color=”” gradient_start_position=”0″ gradient_end_position=”100″ gradient_type=”linear” radial_direction=”center center” linear_angle=”180″ highlight_color=”” style_type=”none” sep_color=”” link_color=”” link_hover_color=”” animation_type=”” animation_direction=”left” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_offset=””]

    Research Overview prepared by

    Carmina Ravanera, Kim de Laat and Sarah Kaplan

    Published

    November, 2022

    [/fusion_title][fusion_widget_area name=”avada-custom-sidebar-researchbriefsidebar” title_size=”” title_color=”” background_color=”” padding_top=”” padding_right=”” padding_bottom=”” padding_left=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” /][/fusion_builder_column][/fusion_builder_row][/fusion_builder_container]

  • Care Work in the Recovery Economy: Towards a Caring Economy

    Care Work in the Recovery Economy: Towards a Caring Economy

    [fusion_builder_container admin_label=”” hundred_percent=”no” equal_height_columns=”no” menu_anchor=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” background_color=”” background_image=”” background_position=”center center” background_repeat=”no-repeat” fade=”no” background_parallax=”none” enable_mobile=”no” parallax_speed=”0.3″ video_mp4=”” video_webm=”” video_ogv=”” video_url=”” video_aspect_ratio=”16:9″ video_loop=”yes” video_mute=”yes” video_preview_image=”” border_color=”” border_style=”solid” margin_top=”20″ margin_bottom=”” padding_top=”” padding_right=”” padding_bottom=”” padding_left=”” type=”legacy”][fusion_builder_row][fusion_builder_column type=”3_4″ layout=”3_4″ spacing=”” center_content=”no” hover_type=”none” link=”” min_height=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” background_color=”” background_image=”” background_position=”left top” background_repeat=”no-repeat” border_color=”” border_style=”solid” border_position=”all” padding_top=”” padding_right=”” padding_bottom=”” padding_left=”” margin_top=”” margin_bottom=”” animation_type=”” animation_direction=”left” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_offset=”” last=”false” border_sizes_top=”0″ border_sizes_bottom=”0″ border_sizes_left=”0″ border_sizes_right=”0″ first=”true” spacing_right=””][fusion_text columns=”” column_min_width=”” column_spacing=”” rule_style=”” rule_size=”” rule_color=”” hue=”” saturation=”” lightness=”” alpha=”” content_alignment_medium=”” content_alignment_small=”” content_alignment=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” sticky_display=”normal,sticky” class=”” id=”” margin_top=”” margin_right=”” margin_bottom=”” margin_left=”” fusion_font_family_text_font=”” fusion_font_variant_text_font=”” font_size=”” line_height=”” letter_spacing=”” text_transform=”” text_color=”” animation_type=”” animation_direction=”left” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_offset=””]

    DOWNLOAD THIS RESEARCH OVERVIEW IN ENGLISH/ EN FRANÇAIS

    English cover of report- Care Work in the Recovery Economy        French cover of report- Care Work in the Recovery Economy

    OVERVIEW:

    The care economy—the economic sectors that involve paid and unpaid care, including childcare, elder care, and health care—is one of the fastest expanding economic sectors globally. A 2015 study of 45 countries by the International Labour Organization (ILO) found that there were 206 million people in care jobs such as early childhood educators and long-term care providers. But the complex work involved in this crucial sector tends to be poorly understood, undervalued, and unprioritized. The COVID-19 pandemic has brought an increased focus on care, highlighting how the lack of support for care sectors and the increasing trend of financializing access to care have placed equality and health on fragile grounds during this crisis.

    As society emerges from COVID-19 into a recovery economy, questions about the future of care also emerge. What organizational and policy changes are needed to ensure that care work and caregiving is more equal and sustainable? And what research questions on the care economy remain to be investigated? To explore these lines of inquiry, the Institute for Gender and the Economy convened a virtual research roundtable on Care Work in the Recovery Economy in January and February of 2022 with support from Women and Gender Equality Canada and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. The workshop hosted over 60 scholars and practitioners from around the world who presented their cutting-edge research, identified research agendas, and discussed policy implications for the future of care. This report highlights key policy and research insights from the roundtable, including the following:

    1. Intersectional perspectives in data collection and analysis on the care economy will allow for more nuanced and complex understandings of care.
    2. Data collection and analysis should capture the complexity of the care economy by focusing on historically neglected care activities. This may include data on the value of unpaid care, on less direct forms of care work (e.g., care advocacy), and on temporary and migrant care workers and their transitions in and out of care work.
    3. Including paid and unpaid care workers’ voices in policymaking and aligning policies with communities and care workers will result in more effective policy outcomes.
    4. The toll of the COVID-19 pandemic on care workers highlights the importance of making their physical and mental wellbeing a policy and research priority, including through ensuring high-quality working conditions with labour protections.
    5. Care policy should not be seen as independent of other government policy making. Integrating care policies with immigration, economic, technology and other policies would help care workers, including temporary workers, have protection from precarity.
    6. Policymaking should take both the direct impacts on outcomes as well as “expressive” impacts that shape the culture and norms about what is acceptable into account.
    7. Measuring the value of care accurately means measuring not only economic growth and gain (e.g., GDP), but also the less visible, yet foundational, benefits of care to society, such as physical and mental well-being, capabilities, inclusion, and so on.
    8. Without stability and resilience of care systems, care responsibilities are hard to manage and can disadvantage caregivers’ careers, create gender inequity, and lead to overwork and stress.
    9. Technological “solutionism” and other short-term fixes alone will likely not lead to a sustainable and more equal care economy.
    10. For-profit models have not historically resulted in high-quality and affordable care. Non-profit and cooperative models may be better options for a higher-quality care system.
    11. Care work takes many different forms, both paid and unpaid, and is connected to all sectors. Understanding “chains” of care is important to understand who might benefit or be disadvantaged.

     Watch the research roundtable highlights

    __________________________

    This project has been funded through Women and Gender Equality Canada’s Women’s Program and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada

    [/fusion_text][fusion_separator style_type=”none” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” sep_color=”” top_margin=”20″ bottom_margin=”20″ border_size=”” icon=”” icon_circle=”” icon_circle_color=”” width=”” alignment=”center” /][fusion_button link=”https://www.gendereconomy.org/category/research-overviews/” text_transform=”” title=”” target=”_blank” link_attributes=”” alignment_medium=”” alignment_small=”” alignment=”” modal=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” sticky_display=”normal,sticky” class=”” id=”” color=”custom” button_gradient_top_color=”#62bd19″ button_gradient_bottom_color=”#62bd19″ button_gradient_top_color_hover=”#00c2e2″ button_gradient_bottom_color_hover=”#00c2e2″ accent_color=”” accent_hover_color=”” type=”” bevel_color=”” border_color=”” border_hover_color=”” size=”” stretch=”yes” margin_top=”” margin_right=”” margin_bottom=”” margin_left=”” icon=”” icon_position=”left” icon_divider=”no” animation_type=”” animation_direction=”left” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_offset=””]See more research overviews[/fusion_button][fusion_separator style_type=”none” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” sep_color=”” top_margin=”20″ bottom_margin=”20″ border_size=”” icon=”” icon_circle=”” icon_circle_color=”” width=”” alignment=”center” /][fusion_recent_posts layout=”default” hover_type=”none” columns=”3″ number_posts=”3″ offset=”0″ pull_by=”category” cat_slug=”research-briefs” exclude_cats=”” tag_slug=”” exclude_tags=”” thumbnail=”yes” title=”yes” meta=”no” meta_author=”no” meta_categories=”no” meta_date=”yes” meta_comments=”yes” meta_tags=”no” content_alignment=”” excerpt=”no” excerpt_length=”35″ strip_html=”yes” scrolling=”no” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” animation_type=”” animation_direction=”left” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_offset=”” /][/fusion_builder_column][fusion_builder_column type=”1_4″ layout=”1_4″ spacing=”” center_content=”no” hover_type=”none” link=”” min_height=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” background_color=”” background_image=”” background_position=”left top” background_repeat=”no-repeat” border_color=”” border_style=”solid” border_position=”all” padding_top=”” padding_right=”” padding_bottom=”” padding_left=”” margin_top=”” margin_bottom=”” animation_type=”” animation_direction=”left” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_offset=”” last=”true” border_sizes_top=”0″ border_sizes_bottom=”0″ border_sizes_left=”0″ border_sizes_right=”0″ first=”false”][fusion_title title_type=”text” rotation_effect=”bounceIn” display_time=”1200″ highlight_effect=”circle” loop_animation=”off” highlight_width=”9″ highlight_top_margin=”0″ before_text=”” rotation_text=”” highlight_text=”” after_text=”” title_link=”off” link_url=”” link_target=”_self” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” sticky_display=”normal,sticky” class=”briefsummary” id=”” content_align_medium=”” content_align_small=”” content_align=”left” size=”3″ animated_font_size=”” fusion_font_family_title_font=”” fusion_font_variant_title_font=”” font_size=”” line_height=”” letter_spacing=”” text_transform=”” text_color=”” hue=”” saturation=”” lightness=”” alpha=”” animated_text_color=”” text_shadow=”no” text_shadow_vertical=”” text_shadow_horizontal=”” text_shadow_blur=”0″ text_shadow_color=”” margin_top_medium=”” margin_right_medium=”” margin_bottom_medium=”” margin_left_medium=”” margin_top_small=”” margin_right_small=”” margin_bottom_small=”” margin_left_small=”” margin_top=”” margin_right=”” margin_bottom=”” margin_left=”” margin_top_mobile=”” margin_bottom_mobile=”” gradient_font=”no” gradient_start_color=”” gradient_end_color=”” gradient_start_position=”0″ gradient_end_position=”100″ gradient_type=”linear” radial_direction=”center center” linear_angle=”180″ highlight_color=”” style_type=”none” sep_color=”” link_color=”” link_hover_color=”” animation_type=”” animation_direction=”left” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_offset=””]

    Research Overview prepared by

    Laura Lam, Carmina Ravanera, and Sarah Kaplan

    Published

    May, 2022

    [/fusion_title][fusion_widget_area name=”avada-custom-sidebar-researchbriefsidebar” title_size=”” title_color=”” background_color=”” padding_top=”” padding_right=”” padding_bottom=”” padding_left=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” /][/fusion_builder_column][/fusion_builder_row][/fusion_builder_container]

  • Sarah Kaplan appears before Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology

    Sarah Kaplan appears before Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology

    On September 28, 2022, Sarah Kaplan was invited to speak before the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology regarding the role of gender-based analysis plus in the policy process.

    You can watch her full testimony, or read her opening remarks here or down below. Read the report, The Role of Gender-based Analysis Plus in the Policy Process.

    Testimony before Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology

    Good afternoon.

    It is an honor to appear before this Committee to comment on the role of gender-based analysis plus in the policy process.

    I am a Professor and Director of the Institute for Gender and the Economy at the University of Toronto’s Rotman School of Management. In this role, I promote the use of rigorous academic research to inform policy and practice. To prepare for this testimony, I reviewed the scholarly literature as well as government audits and reports on GBA+.

    I would like to start by emphasizing that the introduction of GBA+ into government policy analysis has been an essential step forward in assuring that policies, regulations and programs are advancing greater equity in Canadian society which has been further reinforced by the Canadian Gender Budgeting Act and the Gender Results Framework introduced in the 2018 Budget. Canadians can be proud that intersectional gender-based analysis is recognized by the Canadian government as a key competency in support of the development of effective programs and policies.

    The promise of GBA+ is that it can not only measure and evaluate policy impacts but also inform policy priorities, shape policy and program design, and guide implementation. Yet, despite considered attention to GBA+, there continue to be opportunities for improvement as it has yet to achieve its promise.

    My review of the literature and audits suggests that although GBA+ is supposed to be used across all government departments and agencies, it is inconsistently applied (with 40% of departments not having a formal GBA+ policy), and often used only late in policy design and evaluation. Only 39% of departments perform it at the critical problem definition stage more than 60% of the time. By only applying GBA+ late in the process, policy makers miss out on opportunities to use intersectional gender-based insights to identify policy priorities and shape policy design. Instead, GBA+ tends to be used to identify impacts after the priorities and policies are established and then to suggest some incremental modifications around the margins that could mitigate gendered, racial or other impacts. Thus, the true potential of GBA+ is missed.

    Why might this be?

    First, the staff charged with GBA+ may not have the skills or the time to use GBA+ in the most appropriate ways, and there is a lack of oversight and engagement by senior staff. While the government and the Canadian College have augmented training, tools and guidance since 2015, the capacity of departments to do GBA+ has still remained a challenge. Much of the training is focused on the technical and administrative processes for GBA+ such as how to fill out the appropriate forms for budget submissions but not on how to engage in GBA+ for policy prioritization and design. At the Institute for Gender and the Economy, we conducted a stakeholder analysis associated with the development of our own Gender Analytics training program and found that many people within the government did not have the knowledge about how to undertake GBA+.

    Second, some of the challenge in assuring effective GBA+ is in the lack of quantified data. The collection of disaggregated data on diverse groups has been slow. However, getting better quantitative data will not automatically lead to better policy. Scholars who have studied GBA+ have pointed out that the current implementation of GBA+ does not include a process for a critical reading of policy or a consideration of how problems are defined. A focus only on numbers may divert attention from consultations with and support of feminist, community, Indigenous and social justice organizations who have originated—and are keepers of—GBA+ knowledge. It risks turning GBA+ into a seemingly “neutral” and bureaucratic methodology without recognizing the ways that power is embedded in the process.

    Third, intersectionality is not yet effectively applied. The “plus” focuses on adding race or income or disability or Indigeneity to gender rather than considering them simultaneously to understand the ways policy impacts (either negative or positive) can be amplified or dampened because of these intersections. Further, gender is often treated as a binary without recognizing the diversity of gender in nonbinary, Two-Spirit, intersex and transgender peoples.

    So, what could be done to improve? Some recommendations that come from this overview include:

    First, reframing GBA+ as central to policy and program planning rather than an add on requirement and monitoring departments and agencies in their appropriate use of GBA+, including making sure the “plus” of intersectionality is foregrounded.

    Second, building capacity in GBA+ including at the most senior levels, not just in service of administrative procedures for completing budget submissions but in how to use GBA+ to set priorities, question assumptions, design policies and programs, and monitor impact.

    Third, engaging more deeply with—and financially supporting—grassroots and academic organizations that hold GBA+ knowledge, involving them in both data collection and the co- design of policies and programs.

    Finally, investing in better collection of intersectional data through Statistics Canada and other mechanisms, while at the same time recognizing that quantified data is not the only important input to a good GBA+ analysis.

    In conclusion, GBA+ holds great promise, but it will be least effective if it is only used as a policy evaluation tool. Its true power will come when the insights generated lead to innovative policies that can overcome many of the impasses faced by efforts to achieve greater equity in society to date.

    Thank you very much. Merci beaucoup.

  • Gender Equality & Opportunity for Leadership Roles | SpyderWorks

    Gender Equality & Opportunity for Leadership Roles | SpyderWorks

  • October 2022

    October 2022

  • Research Reveals The Reason For The Class-Based Pay Gap

    Research Reveals The Reason For The Class-Based Pay Gap

  • Working together apart: How to make flex work work for you:

    Working together apart: How to make flex work work for you:

  • A tech company pledged to make “anti-racist” layoffs. What does that mean?

    A tech company pledged to make “anti-racist” layoffs. What does that mean?