Enhancing Security: Women’s Participation in the Security Forces in Latin America and the Caribbean: Part II

Dr. Karin L. Johnston, Dr. Diorella Islas, Larissa Abaunza

On October 31, 2000, the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 1325 (UNSCR 1325),
the first of ten Security Council resolutions that together comprise the Women, Peace, and Security
(WPS) Agenda to advance gender equality and women’s representation and participation in all decision-making processes in peacebuilding and conflict prevention. Its passage was the culmination of decades
of international efforts to ensure women play an active role in addressing the impacts of war and conflict
on their lives along the spectrum of conflict resolution, peacemaking, peacekeeping, post-conflict
reconstruction, and conflict prevention. Since 2005, creating National Action Plans (NAPs) within
countries worldwide has become a major vehicle for institutionalizing the WPS agenda.
The focus on peacekeeping and the participation of women in security sector forces brought renewed
attention to the process of integrating a gender perspective in military and national police operations.
In 2020, Women In International Security (WIIS) was approached by the U.S. Southern Command
(USSOUTHCOM) to establish a baseline of data and best practices to assist partner nations in Latin
America and the Caribbean in evaluating the implementation of the WPS agenda in their respective
security sector forces.
WIIS reported its first findings on 14 countries (13 countries in the USSOUTHCOM area of responsibility
(AOR) plus Mexico) in the 2020 report “Enhancing Security: Women’s Participation in Latin America
and the Caribbean.” The present report continues the work that began in 2020 to study progress in
implementing the WPS agenda in Latin America and the Caribbean. This second report examines the
remaining 15 countries in the USSOUTHCOM AOR utilizing the research questions and methodology
framing the 2020 report.
Supporting the conclusions from the 2020 report, the 2023 study shows that despite many countries
lacking national militaries or NAPs, all countries in the study have strong normative frameworks in
place to advance gender equality at the national level. There is growing momentum in integrating gender
equality in military and defense forces, police forces, and other forces responsible for public security,
though the pace and scope among the countries vary. Nevertheless, the study also underscores that
the gap between the rhetorical support of gender equality and the implementation of the WPS agenda
persists, challenging governments to apply the necessary political will and resources to advance gender
equality and the WPS agenda in the region.
The findings of our assessment examining the level of integration of gender equality and the WPS agenda
in security forces in Latin America and the Caribbean are outlined below:

  • Countries have developed a range of regional and state agencies, institutions, and agreements that
    reflect a commitment to greater advancement towards gender equality in security forces, even in the
    absence of a NAP and references to the WPS agenda;
  • A broad commitment to gender equality and gender integration both nationally and in security
    institutions has not seen consistent, transformational changes in policies and practices that can
    recruit, promote, and retain women in security forces;
  • Women’s representation in military and national police forces remains low;
  • Monitoring and evaluation mechanisms are poorly resourced, often lacking the data collection and
    civil society interaction that allow decision-makers to identify problem areas in plan implementation
    and make needed course corrections.
    Based on these findings, the report proposes the following recommendations:
    National Level:
  • Adopt a WPS NAP: A WPS NAP can be a valuable tool that supports and complements a nationallevel gender mainstreaming strategy. It induces government actors to work together at the national and
    local levels and more closely with civil society. It also creates avenues for greater gender participation
    throughout the plan’s design and implementation.
  • Ensure Civil Society Participation: Include civil society actors from the earliest stages of plan
    development and throughout the implementation, monitoring, and evaluation phases.
  • Commit Human and Financial Resources: Using a gender-responsive budgeting process, governments
    should ensure gender-equitable allocation and distribution of resources and provide sufficient staff,
    including GENADs and GFPs, to ensure a NAP’s sustainability.
  • Monitor and Evaluate Progress: An effective monitoring and evaluation mechanism should be in
    place and appropriately funded.
  • Ensure Transparency: The defense forces and public security institutions should consider
    communication strategies to publicly share their progress and challenges in advancing their gender
    integration efforts.
    Institutional Level:
  • Expand Women’s Operational or Combat Positions: Efforts should expand beyond creating gendersensitive recruitment policies and material to aim for women’s unrestricted and equal access to all
    military, police, and security forces positions. Often, restricted operational positions are pathways for
    promotion to senior ranks.
  • Evaluate Quality of Life and Force Retention Policies: Policies that provide support and incentive
    for women to remain in the force should be institutionalized, e.g., providing and designing maternity
    and paternity leave policies and available childcare facilities, extending family leave policies, and
    providing equipment and facilities that serve women’s needs.
  • Appoint a Gender Advisory Workforce: To support the effective implementation of gender
    mainstreaming and WPS principles at all levels of decision-making—strategic, tactical, and
    operational—security institutions should appoint GENADs and GFPs who have training in WPS and
    gender studies.
  • Institutionalize WPS Training: Implementing foundational training at all military service branches
    and rank levels to educate and integrate the WPS agenda and gender equality should be a high priority
    in the military and national police forces.
    Regional Level:
  • Create an Annual WPS Summit: Representatives from the defense forces, national police agencies,
    and subject matter experts (SMEs) should meet regularly to share best practices and lessons learned
    to ensure continued advancement in gender integration.
  • Create Regional Training Courses: Create a joint WPS strategy training for countries considering or
    developing a WPS strategy or that have yet to appoint a GENAD.
  • Gender and Regional Climate Cooperation: As regional cooperation increases in response to growing
    alarm about the impact of climate on security, ensure that a gender dimension is an integral part of
    any resulting regional framework for preventing, mitigating, responding, and adapting to climate
    change and environmental disasters.

Chantal de Jonge Oudraat, Ellen Haring, Diorella Islas, Ana Laura Velasco

Executive Summary

The Women, Peace and Security (WPS) agenda, launched by UN Security Council Resolution 1325 (UNSCR 1325) adopted in October 2000, brought renewed attention to the importance of the integration of a gender perspective for the effectiveness of military and police operations. It also pointed to the importance of increasing the participation of women in security (military and police) forces.[1] 

This report examines to what extent the WPS agenda, and more generally the principles of gender equality, have been integrated in the security sector (military and national police) in 14 countries in Latin America and the Caribbean.

The research was commissioned by the Women, Peace and Security Program at the US Southern Command (SOUTHCOM), with the objective: (a) to establish a baseline of data and best practices with regard to the integration of the WPS agenda in security forces in Latin America and the Caribbean; and (b) to provide a framework for future partnerships between US SOUTHCOM and security forces in the region. While US SOUTHCOM commissioned the research, the authors bear sole responsibility for the content of this report and any errors or omissions.

Our research draws on an assessment tool developed by Women In International Security (WIIS) that examines how countries have integrated the principles of gender equality and the WPS agenda in security institutions and operations. [2]  More specifically, the tool defines indicators that measure: (1) the level of political commitment to gender equality and the WPS agenda; (2) how that commitment is translated into practice; and (3) what accountability measures have been adopted—that is, how well policy and practice are monitored and evaluated.

This report is based on desk and literature research in Washington, DC and field research conducted by 14 volunteer country research teams composed of active and retired members of the police and the military, academics, government officials, policymakers, and members from civil society organizations.

The findings of our assessment examining the level of integration of the principles of gender equality and the WPS agenda in the security forces in Latin America and the Caribbean are outlined below.

Overall Regional Assessment

The overall integration of the principles of gender equality and the WPS agenda in security forces in the region (all countries combined) is robust, with an average score of 64.6 (on a scale of 1-100).

Many countries in Latin America and the Caribbean have strong normative frameworks for gender equality in place, are party to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) and have professed support to the WPS agenda. It provides a strong backdrop for the integration of the gender equality and WPS agenda in the security sector. That said, in most countries political rhetoric is often not matched by consistent implementation. In addition, most countries lack systematic monitoring and evaluation mechanisms (see Figure 1).

Figure 4: Overall

Average Regional

Scores

Of the 14 countries examined for this report, four countries scored above the average regional score.

Four countries scored around the regional average, and six countries fell below the regional average. What is common to the countries that scored high is that they have strong scores across all 3 categories of assessment. (See Table 1)

For many police and military organizations in the region, gender equality and the integration of the WPS agenda is focused on the number of women in the forces. That said, gender mainstreaming and the integration of the WPS agenda in military and national police forces requires more than just adding women; it also requires the integration of a gender perspective in operations and addressing gender norms and gender stereotypes in the organizations themselves.  Military and police organizations are highly gendered—masculine—constructs. Introducing gender perspectives and increasing the number of women does not come naturally to these institutions. Change only comes about with strong leadership from the top and continuous and systematic attention at all levels of military and police organizations.

Country Political Will Policy & Practice Monitoring Reporting   & EvaluationTotal Score 
Argentina98906890
Brazil44514849
Chile85756476
Colombia51476850
Costa Rica808810087
Dominican Republic63584858
Ecuador72566060
Guatemala78523655
Mexico60594058
Panama62636066
Paraguay67684466
Peru58576057
Trinidad & Tobago55643660
Uruguay78707672
Region Average686457.7064.60

Table 1: Average

National Scores by

Category

Main Findings by Category

All countries were assessed using simple sets of indicators that measure political will, the institutionalization of WPS principles in policy and practice, and, whether monitoring and evaluation mechanisms have been put in place.

Political Will

The most important measure of political will is whether countries have adopted WPS National Action Plans (NAPs).

  • Of the 14 countries surveyed in our report, five have developed WPS National Action Plans and five are in the process of developing a WPS NAP.
  • In most countries the WPS agenda and WPS NAPs are seen in the context of external engagements, most notably UN peacekeeping operations. While most countries see the WPS agenda as applicable only to armed conflict, some countries in the region have integrated human security challenges, such as human trafficking (Argentina) or rights of refugees (Brazil).

Institutionalization (Policy and Practice)

NAPs are most effective when they are accompanied by detailed implementation plans.

  • Most countries lack specific implementation plans with clearly defined goals and resources for implementation.
  • In all countries in the region, women remain under-represented in the military and the police. Even fewer women reach senior ranks. Many security forces have policies that exclude or limit (through the imposition of caps) women’s participation in the police or military. Few countries have welldefined recruitment strategies or set targets to increase women’s participation in the security forces.
  • The prevention of sexual harassment and abuse is critical to create a women-friendly work place, but few countries have programs to address harassment or abuse in the ranks.
  • Knowledge about the WPS agenda remains limited, and training on gender and the WPS agenda is ad-hoc and unsystematic.

Monitoring and Evaluation

Monitoring and reporting are critical for learning and identifying progress. Monitoring and evaluation practices must be an integral part of any NAP and implementation plan and include all stakeholders, including civil society organizations in the planning and implementation stages.

  • Few countries in the region have robust monitoring and evaluation mechanisms that involve civil society.
  • Sex-disaggregated data about women in the military and police are not systematically collected or published.

Main Recommendations

The report concludes with two sets of recommendations. One is for governments in the region and their military and police forces. The other is for the region as a whole and identifies specific actions countries in the region and the US government (including US DoD and US SOUTHCOM) can take to advance the WPS agenda and solidify partnerships in the region.

National Actions:

All countries in the region have strong normative gender equality frameworks in place. This should provide a solid basis for governments in the region to apply the political will necessary to develop WPS NAPs. The most effective NAPs are whole-of-government efforts that engage all governmental and nongovernmental stakeholders and cover the entire range of security challenges, including human security and non-military security challenges.

  • All government agencies, including military and police forces, should develop implementation plans with clear goals and benchmarks for measuring progress.
  • Governments must back up their commitment to NAPs and implementation plans by pledging the necessary resources—personnel and financial—to ensure effective implementation.
  • Legislatures must become actively involved in the development of WPS NAPs. They should require the executive to present NAP updates at regular intervals and pass budgets with dedicated funding streams for NAPs and implementation plans.
  • Monitoring and evaluation mechanisms should be transparent and include members of civil society. Civil society actors are critical to ensuring transparency and providing expertise in the effective implementation of WPS NAPs.

The increase of the number of women in police and military organizations and the integration of gender perspectives in operations require actions at different levels.

  • Military and police organizations should develop organization-specific WPS implementation plans. This can be accomplished even in the absence of a nation-wide WPS NAP. Countries, such as Argentina and Colombia, have developed and effectively implemented military implementation plans before NAPs were developed.
  • In terms of gender balance, the military and police should remove all exclusions and caps that limit women’s full participation in the security forces. They should also develop recruitment programs and establish targets to increase the number of women in the ranks. Military and police should regularly collect and publish sex-disaggregated data on women in the ranks.
  • In terms of integrating gender perspectives in operations, and more generally the development of a gender mainstreaming strategy, the military and police should appoint Gender Advisors (GENADs). GENADs help with the development of organizational gender mainstreaming strategies, make sure that police and military exercises and operations have integrated a gender analysis, and advise on the education and training of soldiers and officers with regard to the WPS agenda. To be effective, GENADs should be located at the highest command level. In addition to GENADs, military and police organizations should appoint Gender Focal Points (GFPs) at lower levels of the organization.

GFPs are key to ensuring that implementation takes place at all levels.

International and Regional Actions:

There is a great deal of expertise in Latin America and the Caribbean that should be capitalized on for the good of the entire region. Unfortunately, the exchange and learning among security forces in the region is ad-hoc, uneven, and non-systematic. Countries in the region, including the United States government (US DoD and US SOUTHCOM), should create a WPS Center of Excellence for security forces (military and police) that can support the integration of the WPS agenda throughout the region. The Center—a multilateral governmental venture—should seek to actively engage non-governmental stakeholders. The Center would function as a regional hub to support military and police forces in the region. Areas of responsibilities would include:  

  • Research: encourage national and regional collaborative research efforts and focus on topics supporting the integration of the WPS agenda into security forces, such as measures to eliminate barriers for women’s participation in military and police forces, monitoring and evaluation practices, collecting and publishing sex-disaggregated data on gender balances in the forces;
  • Education and Training: facilitate the development and delivery of WPS and gender curriculum and training for the military and police;
  • Convening of stakeholders: exchange best practices;
  • Technical support: for the development of WPS NAPs and implementation plans, particularly implementation plans for the military and police.

More specifically, the US government (US DoD and US SOUTHCOM) should embed WPS discussions in all engagements, including in all security and military senior leader engagements. They should also incentivize women’s participation in any externally funded training programs they provide to regional partners by requiring that a certain percentage of military and police women participate in the training.

Preface

The Women, Peace and Security (WPS) agenda launched in October 2000 by the adoption of UN Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1325 has been a key instrument in advancing the role of women in the peace and security arena.

The United States, including the US Department of Defense, has been engaged with the WPS agenda since 2011, when President Barack Obama launched the first National Action Plan (NAP) on WPS.[3] The US Congress adopted the WPS Act in 2017, which directed the US government to develop a national WPS Strategy.[4] The US WPS Strategy was released in 2019.[5] Subsequently, in  mid-2020, the US Department of State, the US Agency for International Development (USAID), the US Department of Homeland Security, and the US Department of Defense published agency-specific implementation plans.

In its 2020 Implementation Plan, the US Department of Defense outlined the following lines of effort: 

  • Seek and support the preparation and meaningful participation of women around the world in decision-making processes related to conflict and crises;
  • Promote the protection of women and girls’ human rights, their access to humanitarian assistance, and their safety from violence, abuse, and exploitation around the world;
  • Adjust US international programs to improve outcomes in equality for, and the empowerment of, women; and
  • Encourage partner governments to adopt policies, plans, and capacity to improve the meaningful participation of women in processes connected to peace and security and decision-making institutions.[6]

The advancement of the WPS agenda is a key objective of US military partnerships, including in the Southern Hemisphere.[7] Yet there is very little data on how military and police forces in Latin America and the Caribbean have integrated women and gender perspectives in their operations and activities. As a result, the exchange and learning among security forces in the Western Hemisphere on how best to integrate gender perspectives in operations and activities is ad-hoc and non-systematic.

In the summer of 2020, WIIS was approached by the Gender Advisor of US SOUTHCOM, Lt. Col. (USAF) Duila M. Turner, to develop a tool that would provide baseline data on where security forces in the region stand with respect to the integration of the WPS agenda. The idea was to develop a tool that could structure and frame discussions on these issues with partner nations.

In consultation with the US SOUTHCOM Gender Advisor, we defined three main objectives for the WPS assessment tool:

Learning: Numerous studies show that there is still little awareness and understanding of the WPS framework. While there is an increasing awareness within security establishments that conflict affects men and women differently, military and police establishments have a hard time determining what this reality means for them in terms of operations and how to convey this to their security forces. By collecting data and examining best practices, the assessment tool should become a powerful analytical and hence educational and learning tool that helps develop a greater understanding of gender mainstreaming within military and police structures.

PartnershipsMany security challenges require regional and international cooperation. The development of military partnerships is a key objective of the US Combatant Commands. For states to work well together they need to share common standards. By exchanging data and best practices on gender mainstreaming, states will be able to work together in a more efficient and effective way across the region.

Monitoring and evaluationThe assessment tool should encompass a simple set of indicators that will allow states to evaluate how well they are implementing the principles of gender equality and the WPS agenda in their security structures and operations.

To develop the assessment tool, WIIS drew on its experience with the 1325 NATO Scorecard project.[8] WIIS adapted the tool from the NATO project to reflect the reality in Latin America and the Caribbean. Given the broad tasks of the military and the police in most countries in the region, and the fact that police in the region are sent to UN peacekeeping operations, we decided to include the police—that is, police that work at the national level and may be called upon to respond to cases of civil unrest, to protect the borders, or deal with in-country humanitarian emergencies.[9]

We organized three workshops between August and November 2020. The objectives of the workshops were threefold:

  • Identify people in the region interested in the integration of the WPS agenda in national security forces;
  • Create volunteer research country teams; and
  • Review progress, identify gaps, and develop national and regional recommendations for how best to advance the WPS agenda in security forces.

Our initial invitation to join this project and our first workshop led to the development of a diverse list of over 100 participants from government (military, police, defense, foreign affairs, women’s and gender equality ministries), academia, and civil society from 16 countries and the creation of 14 country research teams.

In total, over 90 people from 16 countries have participated in this project at various points. Initial findings were presented at the third workshop in November 2020. At this workshop, Ambassador Jean Manes, Foreign Policy Advisor and the Civilian Deputy to the US Southern Command Commander, made remarks. In her remarks, she signaled the strong commitment of US SOUTHCOM to this effort.

Over the course of the project, WIIS created a listserv for people involved and interested in the project. The listserv was formalized into a WIIS WPS Latin America and Caribbean network at the end of the third workshop.[10] For more information or to become a member of the network, visit: https://www. surveymonkey.com/r/GLSS6S8.

As societies and nations across the world face unprecedented challenges to gender equality, human security, and lasting peace, implementation of the WPS agenda is more important than ever. Indeed, research shows that societies are more peaceful and prosperous when women and men enjoy the same rights, liberties, dignities, and access to resources.[11]

Policymakers around the world have made gender equality a top policy priority. This WPS assessment report highlights steps Latin American and Caribbean countries have taken to implement the WPS agenda and ensure gender equality. The need is to expand these efforts in the face of growing evidence of the strategic and operational advantages such an agenda presents to military and police forces in a country. However, the report also shows that while there is much rhetoric, there is little follow-though in implementation. The time to match rhetoric to action is now.

Acknowledgements

This project would not have seen the light of day without the support and help of many people. The project directors would like to thank key people whose support has been critical for the success of this project. First, we would like to thank Lieutenant Colonel (USAF) Duilia M. Turner, the Gender Advisor for US Southern Command, who first came to WIIS with the idea of this project and provided us with support to carry it out.

We would also like to thank all the participants in our three workshops. Over 90 participants from

16 countries in Latin America and the Caribbean brought an array of perspectives from government (military, police, defense, foreign affairs, women’s and gender equality ministries), academia, and civil society. A very special thanks goes out to those who actively participated in the 14 research country teams. They were generous in sharing their expertise, time, and resources. This project would not have been possible without the dedicated support of these volunteers. They used their considerable government and non-government contacts to gather much of the data for this report. (See Annex I)

Special thanks is also due to Dr. Paula Drumond, Assistant Professor at the Pontificia Universidade

Catolica do Rio de Janeiro; Dr. Renata Giannini, Senior Researcher at the Igarapé Institute in Rio de

Janeiro; Dr. Fabiana Sofia Perera, Assistant Professor at the William J Perry Center for Hemispheric Defense Studies at the National Defense University in Washington, DC; Dr. Tamya Rebelo, Professor at the Escola Superior de Popaganda e Marketing and the Centro Universitario Belas Artes de Sao Paulo, and Dr. Cristina Rodriguez-Acosta, Assistant Director of the Jack D. Gordon Institute for Public Policy at the Steven J. Green School of International and Public Affairs at Florida International University, for their advice and support. We also thank Patricia Cepero of the Jack D. Gordon Institute for helping to navigate the administrative part of the project.

At WIIS, thanks is due to WIIS Fellows Dr. Diorella Islas and Ana Velasco. Many thanks also to Program Manager Kayla McGill and Program Assistants Allyn Anderson and Madison Beltz for their valuable research support. Lastly, thanks to WIIS member and retired Colonel Cornelia Weiss and Dr. Karin Johnston, Senior Fellow at WIIS, for their invaluable editorial support.

While this report is the product of a collective effort, we, the authors of this report, are responsible for any errors and omissions.

Dr. Chantal de Jonge Oudraat, President, WIIS

Dr. Ellen Haring, Senior Fellow and Project Director

Washington, DC, USA

November 2020

Introduction

Gender equality has been recognized as a core principle of human rights in foundational international, regional, and national legal texts. The UN Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) set human rights standards that explicitly apply to every human being “without distinction of any kind, such as (…) sex.” [12] Latin American diplomats, legal scholars, and activists have been at the forefront of the development of these global human rights frameworks.[13]

These legal instruments, as well as the 1979 Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of

Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) and the 1994 Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment and Eradication of Violence Against Women (Belem do Para Convention), have been the basis for the economic, social and political empowerment of women, including their entry in national security forces—defined here as constituting the military and the police.[14]

Support for the increased participation of women in the security sector received an important boost in 2000 when the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 1325 (UNSCR 1325). The resolution called on all UN member states to:

  • Increase the representation and participation of women in conflict prevention and conflict resolution processes, including in security institutions (military and police);
  • Integrate gender perspectives in the analysis of peace and security issues; and
  • Adopt special measures to protect women and girls from all forms of sexual and gender-based violence in conflict settings.

Since 2000, the UN Security Council has adopted nine more resolutions that have reinforced and refined what is now known as the Women, Peace and Security (WPS) agenda.[15]

Regional and security organizations as diverse as the African Union (AU), the European Union (EU), and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) have developed organizationwide policies and action plans to incorporate guidance from the WPS agenda into their deliberations and actions.[16] The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was an early adopter of the WPS agenda and issued Action Plans and Strategic Directives that committed to the WPS agenda.[17] For the Americas, the Organization of American States (OAS) has not yet formally adopted the WPS framework. However, the Inter-American Commission of Women has worked on all aspects of the WPS agenda, most notably the participation of women in political life, women’s human rights and gender violence, women’s economic empowerment, and a gendered approach to human or citizen security.[18]

At the national level, some 86 countries have developed National Action Plans (NAPs) and legislation to implement and advance the WPS agenda. In Latin America and the Caribbean, six countries (Argentina, Brazil, Chile, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Paraguay) have developed NAPs. [19] Chile was an early adopter and global leader when it published one of the world’s first NAPs in 2009 and a second NAP in 2015. Costa Rica, Ecuador, Mexico, Trinidad and Tobago, and Uruguay are in the process of developing a NAP.

Military and police security forces are important partners in the implementation of these NAPs. Indeed, the spread of NAPs in Latin America and the Caribbean has been spurred by increasing participation of countries in the region in UN Peace Operations.[20] Many countries and military leaders, particularly those who have been deployed in UN missions, have recognized that a more diverse force in terms of gender and gender perspectives increases operational effectiveness and readiness.[21] For many countries in the region, the adoption of the WPS framework has also meant greater attention to the role of women in their own security forces from both an operational and a rights points of view. In addition, many civil society organizations have advocated for NAPs that reflect a more inward-looking approach. This is particularly important in a region that no longer has traditional armed conflicts, yet faces high rates of violence, particularly against women and girls.[22]

Gender Balance, Gender Perspectives and Gender Mainstreaming

When considering gender equality and the WPS agenda within the security sector, three issues are key:

First, gender balance—that is, the equal representation of women within the force. Research has shown that more diverse organizations are more effective organizations.12 Military organizations are no different.[23] Yet, women remain grossly under-represented in security forces around the globe, including in Latin America and the Caribbean. The United Nations has repeatedly lamented the lack of women soldiers and police in its peacekeeping operations.[24] It is important to recognize the cultural and institutional barriers women may face in military and police forces.

Second, gender perspectives—that is, overlaying a lens that reveals gender differences when planning, executing, or evaluating military and police security force activities. The integration of a gender perspective involves the systematic and continuous process of assessing gender-based differences of men and women as reflected in their social roles and interactions. As explained by a commanding officer in the multi-national force deployed in Afghanistan, “a gender perspective is much more than female members in the team. It is about having and using knowledge about the gender roles and situation of both men and women in all activities of the mission.”[25] A good gender analysis before activities start will greatly enhance situational awareness that, in turn, will enhance operational effectiveness.

Third, gender mainstreaming—that is, an integrated strategy by which organizations implement the concepts of gender balancing and gender perspectives across their organizations and operations. NATO, for example, has defined gender mainstreaming as “a strategy to achieve gender equality by assessing the implications for women and men of any planned action, including legislation, policies and programs in all areas and at all levels.”[26] In other words, “gender mainstreaming is a set of specific, strategic approaches as well as technical and institutional processes adopted to achieve the goal of gender equality.”[27]

The Latin American and Caribbean WPS assessment tool helps to measure how security forces are doing along those three axes. More specifically, it measures gender balance, gender perspectives, and gender mainstreaming at two different levels: the political level and the institutional and operational level. Lastly, it measures to what extent practices of good governance—that is, monitoring and evaluation—have been integrated.

The Latin American And Caribbean WPS Assessment Tool

The Latin America and Caribbean WPS assessment tool measures progress along three main levels: political will, institutional policy and practice, and monitoring and evaluation. For each we defined a limited set of key indicators. 

The political level is a necessary first step. Is there political will and commitment to integrate the principles of the WPS agenda in the security forces—that is, is there political will to advance gender equality and gender perspectives in military and police forces? Political will can be measured in several ways. A first indicator is whether principles of gender equality have been incorporated in a country’s laws and regulations. In addition, we can measure to what extent political leaders refer to the principles of gender equality and the WPS agenda in their speeches. For the purposes of our project, a critical indicator of political will is whether a country has adopted a WPS NAP and whether implementation plans for the security sector have been drafted.  From our research on the integration of WPS principles in NATO countries, we know that countries that mention the defense department as a principal actor and those who outline clear lines of responsibility through an action or implementation plan generally score higher on implementation than countries whose plans fail to specifically call out the military as an implementing agency. Lastly, we examine whether any resources have been allocated. Indeed, the allocation of resources is often a good measure of political intent.

The operational level is about gender mainstreaming and institutionalization, that is, how gender equality and WPS principles are integrated in institutional and bureaucratic processes. Institutionalization is critical, in that it safeguards gender equality and WPS initiatives from political turn-over and turmoil.[28]  Gender mainstreaming is about gender balance and gender perspectives. To what extent is women’s equal participation and integration in military and police forces a priority, and to what extent are institutional processes in place that are conducive to the integration of women in the military and police? This requires collecting baseline data about gender in the ranks. It also means examining measures taken to address gender imbalances, including the lifting of structural barriers and barriers related to the work environment.  Three types of indicators are particularly important in this respect: first, whether all jobs are open to women; second, the existence of policies that deal with family issues (in particular, pregnancies and child care); and third, the existence of policies that deal with harassment and abuse. To what extent gender perspectives are integrated in operational policies and plans can be measured by examining strategic operational documents, field manuals, and other similar publications. The appointment of Gender Advisors (GENADs), as well as their standing and position in the force, is an important indicator for institutional support for gender mainstreaming. From our research on gender mainstreaming in NATO militaries, we know that a Gender Advisor is a commander’s best resource for ensuring the integration of gender perspectives into the planning, execution, and evaluation of military operations.[29] Lastly, gender mainstreaming requires attention to training and education. Are soldiers and senior leaders being taught how to do a gender analysis, and are they aware of the national and international legal frameworks?

The last step in ensuring institutionalization of gender equality and WPS initiatives is monitoring and evaluating progress over time. The WPS assessment tool measures to what extent policies and operations are subject to monitoring and evaluation processes. Monitoring and evaluation are key to capturing best practices, establishing realistic benchmarks, identifying gaps in resources and structural challenges, framing strategic planning efforts, and supporting accountability measures. Two key indicators include the systematic collection of sex-disaggregated data and to what extent outside actors, including civil society organizations, are involved in assessment efforts.

The WPS assessment tool, by examining military and police forces from the political to the operational and from the strategic to the tactical levels, measures the progress of military and police organizations comprehensively. Assessments like these work best when they become part of iterative processes that allow for dialogue and learning among countries in the region.

Methodology

In early August 2020, WIIS held its first Latin America and Caribbean WPS research workshop to assess interest in applying the assessment tool to countries of Latin America and the Caribbean. The workshop also allowed us to review the draft assessment tool. Over 70 people from the region joined the workshop and eventually formed 14 volunteer research country teams. These research teams were composed of active and retired members of the security forces (military and police), government officials (foreign affairs, defense ministries, women’s agencies), the legislative branch, academics, and civil society. Each team elected a team coordinator who served as the main point of contact with WIIS.

As a result of the discussions at the workshop, the WIIS team further refined and adjusted the indicators of the assessment tool. (See Figure 1 and Annex 1) The revised assessment tool, containing 51 indicators, was subsequently sent to each of the country teams.

WPS Assessment Tool for Security Forces In Latin America and the Caribbean
Category                                                                                                      Indicators I:  National Importance and Political Will  11 II:  Institutional Policies and Practice      A.  Strategy, Plans and Policy  14   B.  Gender in the Ranks  6   C.  Training, Education and Exercises  6   D.  Work Environment  8 III:               Monitoring, Reporting and Evaluation                                             6

Figure 1: WPS Assessment 

Tool for Security Forces in Latin

America and the

Caribbean

By the end of September 2020, we had received data from 14 country teams. With that data, we were able to generate a scorecard for each country. That is, responses to the questions on the assessment tool received a predetermined numerical value following a scoring protocol.[30] These scores were then used to evaluate the relative importance attached to certain issue areas and to establish regional and national averages.

In addition to the quantitative assessment, we also prepared a qualitative assessment for each country. The qualitative assessment allowed us to contextualize the collected information. It also offers an overall assessment of where the country stands with regard to implementation of the gender equality and WPS agenda. Lastly, the qualitative reports contain a set of country specific recommendations detailing how the country and its security sector might move forward. The elaboration of quantitative and qualitative reports included many follow-up interviews with the country teams to ensure that we were accurately interpreting the data they provided. All country teams reviewed final country quantitative and qualitative reports. [31]

Figure 2: Sample Quantitative Assessment Tool        

Figure 3: Sample Qualitative Report

    Colombia – Summary Report   WPS National Action Plan (NAP) Status: Colombia has not developed a NAP. That said, the November 24, 2016 peace agreement includes many gender provisions. Additionally, in 2018 the Ministry of Defense (MoD) published its own transversal (intersectional) gender implementation plan for uniformed personnel in Colombia.   Overall Assessment: Colombia has a robust civil society network dedicated to advancing the WPS agenda, and many are lobbying the Colombian government to adopt a WPS NAP.1 Although the national government has made statements in support of gender equality and the MoD recognizes UNSCR 1325 and the WPS agenda, no NAP has been developed.   National Importance/Political Will: Gender equality is enshrined in the Colombian Constitution (See Articles 40 and 43).2 Colombia also has a Presidential Council for Women’s Equity, which collects and analyzes information related to the situation of women in Colombia. Gender equality, women’s rights, and the empowerment of women are also referred to in the 2018-2022 National Development Plan, an allinclusive policy document that addresses foreign and domestic security policies.3   In Colombia, the army, the air force, the navy, and the national police all fall under the authority of the (MoD). The MoD guidelines and policies apply to all four services. Its 2018 report, Public Policy for a Cross-Gender Approach for the Uniformed Personnel of the Public Force, explicitly refers to UNSCR 1325 and its related resolutions.4 The report, developed as a requirement of the 2016 peace agreement, is referred to as the military’s WPS implementation plan, and it includes the police under the umbrella term “public force.” It calls on the military and the police to make sure that women have equal access and opportunities. It also sets up Gender Observatories at the level of the MoD and General Command, as well as inside each military branch and the police.                                                   See Humanas Colombia, 20 Años Exigiendo que el Gobierno Colombiano se conecte con la Paz y la Seguridad de las Mujeres, Pronunciamiento (Bogotá, Colombia: Humanas, July 2020), at https://www.humanas.org.co/alfa/dat_particular/arch_contenidos/i_e_73153_q_PRONUNCIAMIENTO_R1325.pdf; Also from Humanas Colombia, see Observatorio Mujeres, Paz y Seguridad (a group actively lobbying for a WPS NAP), Cumplimiento del Estado Colombiano con la Resolución 1325 de 2000: Informe de monitoreo del año 2017 y primer semestre de 2018, (Bogotá, Colombia: Humanas, December 2018), at https://www.humanas.org.co/alfa/dat_particular/ar/ar_9042_q_R1325informe.pdf.. See Corte Constitucional, Constitución Política de Colombia 1991, Actualizada con los Actos Legislativos a 2016, (Bogota: Corte Constitutional), at https://www.corteconstitucional.gov.co/inicio/Constitucion%20politica%20de%20Colombia.pdf See Departamento Nacional de Planeación (DNP), Colombia en la Escena Global: Política Exterior Responsable, Innovadora y Constructiva, (Bogotá: DNP, May 2019) at https://www.dnp.gov.co/DNPN/Plan-Nacional-deDesarrollo/Paginas/Pilares-del-PND/Legalidad/Colombia-en-la-escena-global.aspx; and also from DNP, Plan Nacional de Desarrollo 2018-2022 at https://www.dnp.gov.co/DNPN/Paginas/Plan-Nacional-de-Desarrollo.aspx Ministerio de Defensa, Política Pública Sectorial de Transversalizacion del Enfoque de Genero para el Personal Uniformado de la Fuerza Pública 2018-2027, (Bogotá: MinDefensa 2018), at https://www.justiciamilitar.gov.co/irj/go/km/docs/Mindefensa/Documentos/descargas/Prensa/Documentos/politica_ genero.pdf   1  

WPS In Latin American And Caribbean Security Forces: 

Main Findings

In terms of the overall implementation of gender equality and WPS principles in the security forces, the region (all countries combined) had an average score of 64.6 (on a scale of 1-100). This robust showing is not surprising given the region’s strong adherence to international and regional legal human right instruments, such as CEDAW and the Belem do Para convention. The region has also been a strong supporter of the Beijing Platform of Action and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Particularly important in this regard is the Montevideo Strategy for Implementation of the Regional Gender Agenda within the Sustainable Development Framework by 2030, adopted in 2016 by countries of the region.[32] In the last five years, countries in the region have also prioritized access to political participation. Most countries in the region have instituted political quotas, which has increased women’s participation in decision-making institutions throughout the government.[33] Lastly, many countries in the region have established women’s or gender equality government agencies; in some cases, these agencies function at the ministerial level.

Despite a relatively strong score overall, many challenges remain. Indeed, this is a region where “patriarchal, discriminatory and violent cultural patterns remain in place, with gender stereotypes persisting in the education system, the media and political and cultural institutions.”[34] The security sector is, of course, not devoid of these stereotypes. As Ellen Haring has noted in a recent publication, “national military organization are quintessentially masculine constructs that rely on notions of men as warrior-protectors and women as the protected. (…) National militaries are set up to optimize men’s participation and rely on patriarchal social structures where women perform traditional family duties centered around caregiving while men go to war.”[35] Nicole Jenne and Fiorella Ulloa Bisshopp, in their study on the effectiveness of Chile’s efforts to promote a gender perspective in the military, emphasize how “resilient” gender stereotypes are in military organizations. For example, Chilean forces deployed in the UN peacekeeping operation in Haiti had a fair number of women. That said, the tasks these women were assigned hewed closely to traditional gender stereotypes: “Instead of performing the full range of peacekeeping tasks, women were often delegated to deal with issues concerning women and children and prevented from joining activities that were deemed to involve security risks.”[36] Gender mainstreaming in security forces requires more than just adding women; it also requires cultural and organizational change.[37]

When we examine the average performance of the region as a whole at the different levels of our assessment tool, the region scores highest at the political commitment level, with a score of 68. The score drops at the implementation level to 64 and at the monitoring and evaluation level to 57.7. 

(See Figure 4)

Figure 4: Overall

Average Regional

Scores

Figure 5: Overall

         
         49  76
         
                              50                            
         
       58      60  5866 66        72 4.4
                        
                        
                      55
                        
                                     
                                      57      60
                        
                        
                                                                    6
                                        

      Average National                             Argentina                                                                                                                         90

      Scores                                       Brazil

                                                        Chile

                                                  Colombia

  Costa Rica                                                                               87  Dominican Republic

  Ecuador             Guatemala

  Mexico  Panama

                                                   Paraguay

                                                         Peru

                                      Trinidad & Tobago

                                                    Uruguay

                                                    Average    

When we examine the overall performance of individual countries in the region, four countries scored above the average regional score. Four countries scored around the regional average, and six countries fell below the regional average. On the high side, Argentina, Chile, Costa Rica and Uruguay significantly outperformed other countries. What is common to these countries is that they have strong scores across all levels. (See Table 1)

Country            Political Will      Policy & Practice           Monitoring Reporting     Total Score                            & Evaluation      
 
Argentina                    98                         90                             68                        90 Brazil 44 51 48 49 Chile 85 75 64 76 Colombia 51 47 68 50 Costa Rica 80 88 100 87 Dominican Republic 63 58 48 58 Ecuador 72 56 60 60 Guatemala 78 52 36 55 Mexico 60 59 40 58 Panama 62 63 60 66 Paraguay 67 68 44 66 Peru 58 57 60 57 Trinidad & Tobago 55 64 36 60 Uruguay 78 70 76 72 Region Average           68                         64                           57.70                    64.60

Table 1: Average

National Scores by

Category

Lastly, it may be noted that our results closely align with the scores of these countries in other gender equality indexes, such as the Women, Peace and Security Index published by the Georgetown University Institute on Women, Peace and Security (GIWPS) and the Fighting Inequality in the Time of

Covid-19: The Commitment to Reducing Inequality Index 2020, published by Oxfam and Development

Finance International.[38] (See Table 2)

GIWPS Rank             Country                                                             Oxfam Rank
41 Trinidad & Tobago 16 45 Costa Rica 3 48 Argentina 2 49 Ecuador 8 55 Chile 1 58 Uruguay 11 68 Paraguay 15 69 Peru 18 70 Panama 22 74 Dominican Republic 23 98 Brazil 13 103 Mexico 14 104 Colombia 10 106                           Guatemala                                                                  24

Table 2: GIWPS and Oxfam Rankings

In sum, while there is broad regional commitment to the principles and ideas of the WPS agenda, commitment to actual implementation and monitoring and evaluation is considerably less robust. Rhetoric, generally, does not match action.

National Importance/Political Will

National importance and political will measures three main issues: (1) whether gender equality is recognized in a country’s main laws and regulations; (2) whether a country has adopted a WPS NAP; and (3) whether political leaders in their statements provide strong support to the principles of gender equality and the WPS agenda.

All countries in the region have enshrined gender equality in their constitutions, and many have also established gender equality and women’s empowerment agencies. That said, an important indicator of political commitment is whether a country has adopted a WPS NAP. (See Table 3)

 Countries with NAPs     Countries with NAPs      Countries without NAPs                           under development
           Argentina Costa Rica Colombia              Brazil Ecuador Dominican Republic               Chile Mexico Panama           Guatemala Trinidad & Tobago Peru            Paraguay                                 Uruguay

Table 3: National

Action Plans –

Status

Argentina and Chile—both with top scores overall and at this level—have developed and implemented WPS NAPs. However, the presence or absence of a NAP is not necessary or sufficient to score high. For example, Costa Rica, despite not having a NAP, scored high overall due to the government’s strong political commitment to advancing gender equality across the country and within its institutions.[39]On the other hand, Brazil fell below the regional average. Indeed, in the case of Brazil, a change in national level political leadership in 2019 resulted in diminished political will and commitment to gender equality and the WPS agenda.

The NAPs of the countries in the region have many similarities, but also significant differences. For most countries in the region, the WPS agenda is an external, rather than an internal, agenda. In most cases, the ministries of foreign affairs have lead responsibilities for the implementation of a NAP.[40] The extensive gender equality machinery established under CEDAW, the SDGs, or regional gender equality commitments is often seen as distinct from the WPS agenda. Guatemala is the exception and has adopted a whole-of-government approach. In Guatemala, the Women’s Ministry plays an important role in the development of a new NAP. In Costa Rica, the development of a NAP involves many government agencies, not just in the security sector, but also in the legislature. In addition, its National Institute for Women works at a ministerial level and has taken innovative steps to tackle structural gender inequalities at home, including machismo culture.

Most civil society organizations in the region advocate for whole-of-government efforts as well as a broadening of the agenda beyond traditional armed conflict.[41] They argue that the region grapples with many “gendered consequences of non-conventional armed violence,” and they point to high rates of femicide in the region.32 While several Latin American NAPs have integrated demands for a broader agenda, most remain very externally focused. Paula Drumond and Tamya Rebelo note that the Paraguayan NAP stands out with ambitious and long-term goals. The Paraguayan NAP defines one of its goals as “the elimination of cultural barriers that hinder the full participation of women in all areas of human society.”[42] The Argentinian NAP includes issues related to human trafficking. The Brazilian NAP includes gender-sensitive initiatives focused on the rights of refugees and refugee seekers in the country. The Chilean NAP expanded the principle of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) to include the protection of women and girls from sexual and gender-based violence.[43] The Argentinian, Brazilian, and Chilean NAPs all define protection as meaning not just physical security but also access to sexual and reproductive health.

                                        UN Ranking                  Total                    Male                  Female
  Uruguay 17 1,138 1,055 83 Argentina 42 304 276 28 El Salvador 45 292 263 29 Brazil 47 282 270 12 Peru 52 233 198 35 Guatemala 57 176 155 21 Paraguay 80 31 28 3 Chile 82 30 27 3 Bolivia 83 27 20 7 Mexico 94 13 6 7 Honduras 97 11 7 4 Ecuador 98 10 4 6 Dominican Republic 107 5 3 2 Colombia 108 4 3 1           Totals Region   2,556 2,315 241 Global Totals   81,820 76,596 5,328 Source: United Nations

Another positive driver for gender equality and the WPS agenda, including the development of a WPS NAP, is the extent of global—UN—engagements a country has. The participation in peacekeeping operations is particularly important in this regard. (See Table 4) For example, the Brazilian NAP expired at the end of 2018. Gender equality and the WPS agenda were not a priority for the new Brazilian administration that came to power in January 2019. Yet the administration decided to extend the NAP (developed under the previous administration) in March of 2019 for four years. Indeed, Brazil’s participation in UN peacekeeping operations was considered important and, in that context, the continuation of a NAP became significant.[44]Table 4: Participation in UN Peacekeeping Operations by Countries from Latin America and the Caribbean-Military and Police Combined – August 2020

However, while UN peacekeeping involvement is positively impacting the military, it does not appear to have a similar impact on the national police. Indeed, the police generally scored lower in most countries than did the military regarding implementation of the WPS agenda.

The engagement of international actors in the Colombia peace agreements has also been an important factor in pushing forward a gender equality and WPS agenda. For example, the 2018 Colombian Ministry of Defense’s report Public Policy for a Cross-Gender Approach for the Uniformed Personnel of the Public Force was developed as a requirement of the 2016 peace agreement. It is considered the military’s WPS implementation plan. It calls on the military and the police to make sure that women have equal access and opportunities. It also sets up Gender Observatories at the level of the Ministry of Defense and General Command, as well as inside each military branch and the police.

Other examples of international engagements and commitments that advance a gender equality and WPS agenda at home include: Uruguay, which co-chairs, with Canada, the United Nations GFP Network and is currently working on a WPS NAP; the Dominican Republic, which during 2020, together with Germany, co-chaired the UN Security Council Informal Expert Group (IEG) on WPS; or Mexico, which, since 2019, co-chairs with France the Generation Equality Forum—a global civil society-centered gathering for gender equality. Its work on the Generation Equality Forum, and the fact that Mexico launched a Feminist Foreign Policy in January 2020 and is currently developing a WPS NAP, are certainly not unrelated. High-level international engagements also help civil society organizations at home to press their governments to progress on the gender equality and WPS agendas.

Policy and Practice

Policy and practice examines how political commitment to gender equality and WPS principles is translated into practical action in the security sector. We distinguish four main areas: (1) policy, planning, and staffing, in particular the appointment of GENADs and GFPs; (2) women’s participation in the security forces (gender in the ranks); (3) policies and programs that support women’s participation in the security forces; and (4) training and education on WPS principles.

Policy, Planning and Staffing

Although national level commitment is critical in advancing the WPS agenda, it is not sufficient to realizing better outcomes in terms of gender mainstreaming. Even in countries that have published NAPs, these NAPs do not always require the participating ministries and departments to develop detailed implementation plans. Without such plans, including bureaucratic procedures and processes that mainstream gender in security institutions, change will be fleeting and easily reversible with changing political leadership.

Our analysis found that countries that developed military implementation plans even before or in the absence of a NAP have generally made significant progress in terms of gender mainstreaming. For example, in 2008 the Argentine Ministry of Defense adopted a WPS Action Plan (long before their 2015 NAP was published). It was developed in response to Argentina’s participation in UN peacekeeping operations and led to many “policy reforms in the field of defense and the armed forces.”[45] Participation in UN peacekeeping operations helped to strengthen pre-deployment training on gender issues. It also required the military to establish GENADs and GFPs.37

Indeed, a major indicator of progress with regard to the integration of gender equality and WPS principles is the appointment of GENADs and GFPs. They are critical in helping to mainstream the principles of the WPS agenda in all aspects of the operations of security forces. The role of a GENAD is to provide guidance and advice to senior level commanders on how to integrate gender perspectives into operations and missions, crisis and conflict analysis, concepts, doctrine, procedures, and education and training. GFPs are similarly trained but work at lower levels in the organization to mainstream the WPS agenda across occupational positions.[46]

Only a few countries in the region are systematically appointing, training and employing GENADs and GFPs. (See Table 5) Argentina has a robust GENAD and GFP program. It also provides gender training through its regional peacekeeping center—trainings that are open to other countries in the region as well. Uruguay, a top regional UN troop contributor, co-hosts, with Canada, the UN GFP network. It has appointed GFPs in both the military and the police, but these GENADs are all double-hatted—that is, they have other responsibilities as well. Neither the military nor the police have appointed full-time GENADS. In some countries, for example in Mexico and Peru, the security institutions have established gender equality institutions that have certain GENAD functions. However, most often these institutions work more in the human resources sphere, rather than the policy and planning spheres. Most often, they do not report directly to the highest command levels.

Gender in the Ranks: Women’s Participation in the Security Forces

All countries in our survey have low women’s participation rates in their military and police forces. (See Table 6) The promotion rates for women are even lower. In general, women have made greater inroads in the police than in the military. In the national police forces, all positions are officially open to women. That said, some of our investigators also reported that the practice does not always align with the formal rules. In some countries, women are not assigned to work “on the streets.” In addition, as women have made inroads within the police, some countries have begun to impose caps, thereby limiting women’s access. Such is the case in Trinidad and Tobago, where no more than 30% of the force is allowed to be women. There is also a waiting list for women who want to join the police.

In four out of 14 countries, women continue to be officially barred from some military occupations. (See Table 7) In addition, even if in theory all positions are open, women often face restrictions in practice, particularly in terms of where they are utilized. Many teams reported that data on military deployments reveal that women are far less likely to be deployed on operational missions.

Country            The country       The country       GENADs are     The country       has  appointed          has appointed    assigned for       has gender                             Gender Advisors         gender focal              pecific                 equality                                 (GENAD).            points (GFP).            missions.             offices/units.
Argentina                        Yes                        Yes                                                  Yes Brazil                                     Yes   Chile                                    Yes Yes Yes Colombia                                  Yes Costa Rica                                Yes Dominican Republic                 Yes Yes Ecuador                                    Yes Guatemala                                Yes Mexico                                     Yes Panama                                    Yes Paraguay                                  Yes Peru                                         Yes Trinidad and Tobago                   Yes Uruguay                                                       Yes                       Yes                       Yes

Table 5: Gender Advisors and

Gender Equity

Offices

Country                  Military        Percent of          Senior            Police             Senior                                                     Women          Military                                Police                                                   Deployed         Women                               Women
Argentina 17.3% 8% nd nd nd Brazil 7.6% 8% nd 9% nd Chile 10% 10% nd 34% 15% Colombia 6% 1.5% 1% 9% 2% Costa Rica na na na 18.7% di Dominican Republic 20.8% 5.1%-8% 4% 15% 4.7% Ecuador 2.7% di nd 15% di Guatemala nd 8% nd 16% nd Panama na na na 16.2% 14.9% Peru 10% di .5% 18% .4% Paraguay nd 10% nd Nd nd Mexico 12.4% 1-3% 2.5% 10% 19% Trinidad & Tobago 14.3% na nd 29% nd Uruguay                     11%                7%                1.7%             25.6%               3% nd=no data (data not provided or data not available) na=not applicable (these countries have no military forces or they do not deploy) di=data incomplete (not enough data to calculate percentage)

Table 6: Women’s

Participation as a Percentage of the

Total Force

Working on “the streets” and military deployments are generally career enhancing assignments;  the restrictions women face in this regard likely contributes to them being less competitive for promotions. These restrictions may explain why few women are represented at the highest levels in  the military or police.

Lastly, in terms of long-term policy and planning, we found that only four countries have active recruitment programs or set targets to raise the number of women in the force.

Table 7: Policy and Practice

Country Are all  Are there  Do they How much Is WPS Is  positions  recruitment  provide paid gender Monitoring  open to targets? uniforms &   maternity/ training & Evaluation  women (military/ equipment paternity provided ? conducted?  in the  police) adapted to leave  military?  women? is provided?   
Argentina Yes Yes/UNK Yes 90 days/10 days Yes Yes Brazil       No       No. There are  some caps/No.  There are local  caps No 180 days/5 days Yes No Chile No No/No Yes 126 days/UNK Yes Yes Colombia No No/No Yes 126 days/8 days Yes Yes Costa Rica Yes NA/No Yes 120 days/2 days Yes Yes Dominican Republic   Yes   Yes/Yes, but there are local caps No 98 days/7 days Yes Yes  Ecuador Yes No/No No 80 days/15 days Yes Yes Guatemala Yes No/No No 84 days/UNK Yes No Mexico Yes Yes/No No 90 days/10 days No No Panama Yes NA/ No Yes 98 days/3 days Yes Yes Paraguay No No/No Yes 126 days/UNK Yes Yes Peru Yes No/No No 98 days/UNK No Yes Trinidad and Tobago   Yes   No, there is a  30% cap Yes 90 days/3 days Yes No Uruguay                      Yes                 Yes/Yes                No             91 days/10 days            Yes                Yes NA=not applicable because they have no military forces UNK=unknown-data was not provided during data collection

More generally, it must be noted that data on women’s participation and promotion rates were elusive in many countries. Either the data are not being collected and tracked over time, or the country refuses to publish the data. One country indicated that data on women in the military were considered confidential and not publicly releasable.

Many organizations that track numbers and the composition of armed forces around the world, such as the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies, generally do not collect sexdisaggregated data. The only known detailed survey of women in the armed forces and the police dates from 2010 and was carried out by the Argentine think tank RESDAL.[47]

Women-Friendly Policies and Programs

To increase women’s participation in the security forces, it is also important to have policies and programs that make military and police service possible on a personal level. Women tend to leave the military and police at higher rates than men when they have children or encounter a hostile work environment. Therefore, it is imperative that the military and police implement policies that make it possible for women to have a fulfilling career by ensuring that their organizations are inclusive, free of harassment, and accommodate family needs for women who often remain primary caregivers.

In all countries reviewed, both the military and police provide paid maternity leave for women, although the length of time varies greatly—from 80 days to 18 weeks. Many countries also provide a few days of paid paternity leave. Some countries offer varying levels of childcare and family leave, while others offer none.

A healthy and productive work environment also requires that sexual harassment and abuse is not tolerated, that it is strictly monitored, and that offenders are prosecuted. Most countries, particularly those involved in peacekeeping, provide basic human rights training, with a portion of the training directed specifically toward preventing sexual and gender-based violence in the areas of operations. However, the same level of training and attention is not being given to eradicating sexual harassment and abuse within a country’s own ranks. Data from countries that track and address harassment, including the US, Canada and Australia, show that sexual harassment and abuse of women in the ranks is pervasive in military organizations around the world.[48] Therefore, it is critical that military and police organizations address this behavior if they want to keep women in their organizations.

Finally, uniforms, equipment, and facilities must be adapted to accommodate women to optimize women’s performance and retention. Only half of the countries in our survey provide women-specific equipment. (Table 7 above). Requiring women to perform in uniforms and equipment designed by and for men degrades women’s performance, causes injuries, and can result in safety hazards. Furthermore, failing to provide bathrooms and safe billets also drives women out of military and police organizations.

In sum, security forces seeking to increase women’s participation must ensure that there are familyfriendly programs available to support women’s long-term participation, address sexual harassment and abuse within the ranks, and provide uniforms, equipment, and billets for women. While countries in the region score well in terms of maternity and paternity leave policies, much work remains to be accomplished in the other areas.

WPS Training and Education

Applying a gender lens to military and police organizations and operations requires training and education. It is not an intuitive process. The countries that participate in UN peacekeeping operations receive human rights and WPS training during pre-deployment training. Indeed, when countries engage with the UN, particularly in the context of contributing troops to UN peacekeeping operations, they are expected to meet certain UN WPS training requirements. However, for many countries, gender and WPS training ends with UN missions.

Some countries have more systematically integrated gender training into their entry, mid- and senior-level training and education programs. That said, this training is more likely to be found in the military than the police. Police training generally focuses on responding to and preventing domestic, sexual, and genderbased violence.

GENADs and GFPs require specialized training. Such training remains limited. A few countries like Argentina provide WPS training for the military. Costa Rica has mainstreamed gender throughout police training programs. Costa Rica is unique in the region for creating a gender training program that addresses masculinity and machismo culture.

Figure 6:

Masculinity Flyer

Eleven countries in the region host peacekeeping training centers. Many of these centers have not integrated gender and the WPS agenda in their curriculum in a systematic manner.[49] Helping these centers build up their WPS and gender equality curriculum and provide specialized courses for GENADs would be an obvious first step towards more robust training on WPS and gender equality  in the region.

Monitoring, Reporting, and Evaluation

Monitoring and evaluation are critical for learning and understanding whether progress is being made in implementing the WPS agenda. Monitoring and evaluation also had the lowest average scores. There are three main reasons for the low scores. First, even when countries have developed NAPs, strategies or implementation plans, they are often written without clearly defined and measurable goals and benchmarks. Second, countries generally do not appoint or support independent oversight bodies. Most governments are wary of such bodies and/or the involvement of civil society in the oversight of policies. Third, there is a dearth of sex-disaggregated data being collected or made available for evaluation.

The best monitoring and evaluation programs are independent, transparent, and involve civil society. Some country teams reported that monitoring and evaluation does occur, but the reports and data produced by entities in these countries can only be accessed by requesting them through government transparency programs, or they may not be available at all.

Costa Rica has the most robust monitoring and evaluating systems in the region. They are provided by Costa Rica’s National Institute for Women, which functions as a ministry. This ministry-level Institute has a national council responsible for decision-making at the national level. Furthermore, the Institute provides advice and has oversight over gender mainstreaming in all of the government ministries, including the Ministry of Public Security.

Some countries have robust independent civil society networks that provide some external monitoring and evaluation functions and keep pressure on governments to advance gender equality and the WPS agenda. For example, Colombia has a robust civil society network with 57 distinct organizations that promote the principles of UNSCR 1325 and the WPS agenda. It also has a Women Peace and Security Observatory, a coalition of civil society organizations that is actively lobbying the government to adopt a WPS NAP.[50] In some countries, the think tank and academic community are important players. For example, in Brazil, the Igarapé Institute has a considerable amount of expertise with regard to the WPS agenda and women in the military. Similarly, in Argentina, RESDAL has undertaken important work in this regard. The analysis by these institutions are important in collecting best practices and advancing the WPS agenda in the region. More generally, the Gender Division of the UN’s Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC or CEPAL in Spanish) plays an important role in gender mainstreaming in the region and collecting data.

Recommendations and Concluding Remarks

To advance the gender equality and WPS agenda in the security forces in the region, the following actions should be taken at the national and regional levels.

National Actions

All countries in the region have strong normative gender equality frameworks in place. This should provide a solid basis for governments in the region to apply the political will necessary to develop WPS NAPs. The most effective NAPs are whole-of-government efforts that engage all governmental and  non-governmental stakeholders and cover the entire range of security challenges, including human security and non-military security challenges. More specifically:

  • All government agencies, including military and police forces, should develop implementation plans with clear goals and benchmarks for measuring progress;
  • Governments must back up their commitment to NAPs and implementation plans by pledging the necessary resources—personnel and financial—to ensure effective implementation;
  • Legislatures must become actively involved in the development of WPS NAPs. They should require the executive to present NAP updates at regular intervals and pass budgets with dedicated funding streams for NAPs and implementation plans;
  • Monitoring and evaluation mechanisms should be transparent and include members of civil society. Civil society actors are critical to ensuring transparency and providing expertise in the effective implementation of WPS NAPs.

The increase of the number of women in police and military organizations and the integration of gender perspectives in operations require actions at different levels.

  • Military and police organizations should develop organization-specific WPS implementation plans. This can be accomplished even in the absence of a nation-wide WPS NAP. Countries, such as Argentina and Colombia, have developed and effectively implemented military implementation plans before NAPs were developed.
  • In terms of gender balance, the military and police should remove all exclusions and caps that limit women’s full participation in the security forces. They should also develop recruitment programs and establish targets to increase the number of women in the ranks. Military and police should regularly collect and publish sex-disaggregated data on women in the ranks.
  • In terms of integrating gender perspectives in operations and more generally the development of a gender mainstreaming strategy, the military and police should appoint Gender Advisors (GENADs). GENADs help with the development of organizational gender mainstreaming strategies, make sure that police and military exercises and operations have integrated a gender analysis, and advise on the education and training of soldiers and officers with regard to the WPS agenda. To be effective GENADs should be located at the highest command level. In addition to GENADs, military and police organizations should appoint Gender Focal Points (GFPs) at lower levels of the organization.

GFPs are key to ensuring that implementation takes place at all levels.

International and Regional Actions

There is a great deal of expertise in Latin America and the Caribbean that should be capitalized on for the good of the entire region. Unfortunately, the exchange and learning among security forces in the region is ad-hoc, uneven, and non-systematic. Countries in the region, including the United States government (US DoD and US SOUTHCOM), should create a WPS Center of Excellence for military and police security forces that can support the integration of the WPS agenda throughout the region. The Center—a multilateral governmental venture—should seek to actively engage non-governmental stakeholders. The Center would function as a regional hub to support military and police forces in the region. Areas of responsibilities would include:  

  • Research: encourage national and regional collaborative research efforts and focus on topics supporting the integration of the WPS agenda into security forces, such as measures to eliminate barriers for women’s participation in military and police forces, monitoring and evaluation practices, collecting and publishing sex-disaggregated data on gender balances in the forces.
  • Education and Training: facilitate the development and delivery of WPS and gender curriculum and training for the military and police.
  • Convening of stakeholders:exchange best practices.
  • Technical support: for the development of WPS NAPs and implementation plans, particularly implementation plans for the military and police.

More specifically, the US Government (US DoD and US SOUTHCOM) should embed WPS discussions in all engagements, including in all security and military senior leader engagements. They should also incentivize women’s participation in any externally funded training programs they provide to regional partners by requiring that a certain percentage of military and police women participate in the training.

Concluding Remarks

It has been twenty years since UNSCR 1325 was unanimously adopted by the UN Security Council.

In the subsequent years, there has been slow but steady progress in realizing the purpose and intent of 1325. Many nations around the world, and six in Latin America and the Caribbean, have adopted WPS National Action Plans.

The concepts and terms gender balance, gender perspective and gender mainstreaming are better understood and becoming embedded within the operational activities of security institutions. Nations that are further along with gender mainstreaming have begun to realize the value of adopting a gender perspective to achieve better security outcomes. That said, normative thinking and behavior on complex social issues is slow to change, but change does happen. It requires concerted, continuous and systematic efforts by all.

Lastly, the success of gender mainstreaming efforts is closely related to the involvement of civil society. Global studies have shown that the most successful WPS NAPs are those that have the active involvement of civil society organization at every step of the way. This finding is not surprising, since gender mainstreaming is ultimately about debunking regressive gender stereotypes that exist within  our societies.

References

1. Gender Equality, WPS and NAPs

Boutron, Camille, “Engendering Peacebuilding: The International Gender Nomenclature of Peace Politics and Women’s Participation in the Columbian Peace Process,” Journal of Peacebuilding and Development, Vol. 13, No. 2 (2018), pp. 115 – 121.

Davies, Sara E. and Jacqui True, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Women, Peace and Security (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019).

De Jonge Oudraat, Chantal and Michael E. Brown, The Gender and Security Agenda: Strategies for the 21st Century (London: Routledge, 2020).

Drumond, Paula and Tamya Rebelo, 1325 and Beyond: Moving Forward the WPS Agenda in Latin America, WIIS Policy Brief (July 2020).

Drumond, Paula and Tamya Rebelo, “Global Pathways or Local Spins? National Action Plans in South America,” International Feminist Journal of Politics, Vol. 22, No. 4 (2020), pp. 462 – 484.

Drumond, Paula and Tamya Rebelo, Implementing the “Women, Peace and Security” Agenda in Brazil: An Assessment of the National Action Plan, Strategic Paper 31 (Rio de Janeiro: Igarapé Institute, August 2019).

Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), Regional Report on the Review of the Beijing Declaration and Platform of Action in Latin American and Caribbean Countries (Santiago: United Nations, 2019).

Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), Gender Equality Observatory for Latin America and the Caribbean, Gender Equality Plans in Latin America and the Caribbean: Road Maps for Development, Studies 1 (Santiago: United Nations January 2019).

Folly, Maiara and Giannini Renata, Achieving Gender Equality: Best Practices for the Implementation of the Women, Peace and Security Agenda, Igarapé Institute Strategic Note (Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: Igarapé, March 2017).

Georgetown Institute for Women, Peace and Security and Peace Research Institute Oslo, Women, Peace and Security Index 2019/2020: Tracking Sustainable Peace Through Inclusion, Justice, and Security for Women, (Washington D.C., USA; GIWPS and PRIO, 2019).

Giannini, Renata and Perola Pereira, Building Brazil’s National Action Plan: Lessons Learned and Opportunities, LSE Centre for Women, Peace and Security Working Paper Series, (London, UK; London School of Economics and Political Science, 2020).

Giannini, Renata et al., A agenda sobre mulheres, paz e segurança no contexto latino-americano: desafios e oportunidades, Igarapé Institute Strategic Article (Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: Igarapé, March 2018).

Hamilton, Caitlin et al, Twenty Years of Women, Peace and Security National Action Pland: Analysis and Lessons Learned (Sydney: University of Sydney, March 2020).

Humanas Colombia, 20 Años Exigiendo que el Gobierno Colombiano se conecte con la Paz y la Seguridad de las Mujeres, (Bogotá, Colombia: Humanas, July 2020).

Jacevic, Mirsad Niki, “WPS, States and the National Action Plans,” in Sara E. Davies and Jacqui True, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Women, Peace and Security (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019), pp. 273 – 292.

Kurtenbach, Sabine, “The Limits of Peace in Latin America,” Peacebuilding, Vol. 7, No. 3, (2019),  pp. 283 – 296.

Marchetti, Ximena Gauche, “Planes de Acción Nacional sobre Mujeres, Paz y Seguridad: Experiencias Comparadas y Proyecciones para el Caso Chileno,” Revista de Derecho, Vol. 30 No. 2 (2017),  pp. 203 – 223.

Marín Carvajal, Isabela and Eduardo Álvarez-Vanegas, “Securing Participation and Protection in Peace Agreements: The Case of Colombia”, in Sara E. Davies and Jacqui True, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Women, Peace and Security (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019), pp. 461 – 474.

Meyer Mcaleese, Mary K., “WPS and the Organization of American States,” in Sara E. Davies and Jacqui True, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Women, Peace and Security (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019), pp. 413 – 427.

Swaine, Aisling, “Globalising Women, Peace and Security: Trends in National Action,” in Rethinking National Action Plans on Women, Peace and Security, edited by Sahla Aroussi (Amsterdam: IOS Press, 2017), pp. 7 – 27.

Urrutia Arestizábal, Pamela; Ana Villelas Ariño y María Villegas Ariño, Seguridad Feminista: Aportaciones Conceptuales y Desarrollo Actual, (Barcelona: Institut Catalá Internacional per la Pau, 2020).

Unión Nacional de Mujeres Guatemaltecas, Por una Vida Plena con Libertad, Justicia y Paz: Consulta Latinoamericana para el Estudio Mundial sobre la Implementación de la Resolución 1325, (Ciudad de Guatemala, Guatemala; UNAMG, May 2015).

Velasco Ugalde, Ana Laura, UNSCR1325 and the WPS Agenda: A Feminist Response to Authoritarianism, WIIS Policy Brief (June 2020).

Women In International Security, 1325 and Beyond: Winning Essays, (Washington, DC: WIIS, 2020)

NAPs can be accessed at https://wwww.peacewomen.org and https:// www.wpsnaps.org

2. Women in the Military and Peacekeeping

Abdenur, Adrina Erthal, Enhancing Peacekeeping Training Through Cooperation: Lessons from Latin America, Policy Brief (Rio de Janeiro: Igarape Institute, June 2018).

Baldwin, Gretchen and Sarah Taylor, Uniformed Women in Peace Operations: challenging Assumptions and Transforming Approaches (New York: International Peace Institute, June 2020).

De Jonge Oudraat, Chantal, et al, Gender Mainstreaming: Indicators for the Implementation of UNSCR

1325 and its Related Resolutions – The 1325 Scorecard: Preliminary Findings (Brussels: NATO, 2015). For a description of the NATO project and the country scorecard reports see https://www.wiisglobal. org/programs/unscr-1325-nato/

Donadio, Marcela and Cecilia Mazzota, La Mujer en las instituciones armadas y policiales: Resolución 1325 y Operaciones de Paz en América Latina, (Buenos Aires: RESDAL, 2009).

Donadio, Marcela et al, Women in the Armed Forces and Police Forces: Resolution 1325 and Peace Operations in Latin America (Buenos Aires: RESDAL, 2010).

Egnell, Robert, et al, Gender, Military Effectiveness and Organizational Change: The Swedish Model (New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2014).

Esparza, Diego; Santiago Arca Henon & Hope Dewell Gentry, “Peacekeeping and civil–military relations in Uruguay,” Defense & Security Analysis, Vol. 36 No. 3 (2020), pp. 314-334.

Ghittoni, Marta, Lea Lehouck and Callum Watson, Elsie Initiative for Women in Peace Operations:

Baseline Study ( Geneva: DECAF, July 2018).

Giannini, Renata; Maiara Folly and Mariana Lima, Situações Extraordinárias: a inclusão de mulheres na linha de frente das forças armadas, Igarapé Institute Strategic Article (Rio de Janeiro: Igarape Institute, August 2017).

Hardt, Heidi and Stefanie von Hlatky, “NATO’s About-Face: Adaptation to Gender mainstreaming in an Alliance Setting,” Journal of Global Security Studies, Vol. 5, No.1 (2020), pp. 136-159.

Haring, Ellen, “Gender and Military Organizations” in Chantal de Jonge Oudraat and Michael E. Brown, eds., The Gender and Security Agenda: Strategies for the 21st Century (London: Routledge, 2020), pp. 90 – 112.

Hurley, Matthew, “Watermelons and Weddings: Making Women, Peace and Security ‘Relevant: at NATO Through (Re)Telling Stories of Success,” Global Society, Vol. 32, No. 4 (2018), pp. 436-456.

Jenne, Nicole, “Civilianizing the armed forces? Peacekeeping, a traditional mission for the military,” Defence Studies, Vol. 20 No. 2 (2020), pp. 105 – 122.

Jenne, Nicole and Fiorella Ulloa Bisshopp, “Female Peacekeepers: UNSC Resolution 1325 and the Persistence of Gender Stereotypes in the Chilean Armed Forces,” International Peacekeeping (October 14, 2020).

Karim, Sabrina and Kyle Beardsley, Equal Opportunity Peacekeeping: Women, Peace and Security in PostConflict States (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017).

Perera, Fabiana Sofia; and Lieutenant Colonel Duilia Mora Turner, eds., Twenty Years, Twenty Stories: Women, Peace and Security in the Western Hemisphere (Washington, DC: William J. Perry Center for Hemispheric Defense Studies, 2020).

Masson, Laura, Militares Argentinas: Evaluación de Políticas de Género en el Ámbito de la Defensa, (Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires: Universidad de la Defensa Nacional, 2020)

Newby, Vanessa F and Clotilde Sebag, “Gender Sidestreaming? Analyzing Gender Mainstreaming in National Militaries and International Peacekeeping,” European Journal of International Security (November, 2020), pp. 1-23.

Nordic Centre for Gender in Military Operations (NCGM), A Military Guide to the United Nations Security Council Resolutions on Women, Peace and Security, (Stockholm, Sweden; NCGM,  April 2020)

Nordic Centre for Gender in Military Operations, Whose Security? Practical Examples of Gender Perspectives in Military Operations (Stockholm: Nordic Centre for Military Operations, 2015).

Razakamaharavo, Velomahaniha T., Luise Ryan and Leah Sherwood, Improving Gender Training in UN Peacekeeping Operations, WIIS Policy Brief (Washington, DC: WIIS, February 2018).

Wilén, Nina, “Female Peacekeepers’ Added Burden,” International Affairs, Vol. 96 No. 6, (November 2020), pp. 1585 – 1602.

3. Useful listservs and websites

Geneva Centre for Security Sector Governance (DCAF), https://www.dcaf.ch,

Igarape Institute, https://igarape.org.br/temas/consolidacao-da-paz/

London School of Economics Centre for Women, Peace and Security, https://www.lse.ac.uk/womenpeace-security/research/Rethinking-Policy-Advocacy-Implementation

NATO, Allied Command Transformation – Gender Advisor. The website contains on-line education and training modules and toolkits,  https://www.act.nato.int/gender-advisor

Pass Blue Women, press agency, https://www.passblue.com/category/women/

Red de Seguridad y Defensa de America Latina, https://www.resdal.org/

UN Women, https://www.unwomen.org/es

UN Peacekeeping, Department of Peace Operations, https://peacekeeping.un.org/es/department-ofpeace-operations

WILPF’s Women, Peace and Security, https://www.peacewomen.org/

Women In International Security, https://www.wiisglobal.org/wiis-wps-scorecard-security-forces-inlatin-america/

The WomenStats Project at www.womanstats.org

Women’s UN Report Network, listserve (also in Spanish, Portuguese, French), https://wunrn.com/

WPS National Action Plans, https://www.wpsnaps.org/

About the Authors

Dr. Chantal de Jonge Oudraat is President of Women In International Security (WIIS) since February 2013. She has held senior positions at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI)

North America; the US Institute of Peace; Center for Transatlantic Relations, Paul H. Nitze School of

Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University; Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington, DC; and the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR) in Geneva. Dr. de Jonge Oudraat has published extensively on a wide array of international security issues. She is co-editor with Dr. Michael E. Brown of The Gender and Security Agenda: Strategies for the 21st Century (London: Routledge, July 2020). De Jonge Oudraat received her PhD in Political Science from the University of Paris II (Panthéon).

Dr. Ellen Haring is a Senior Fellow at Women In International Security where she directs the Combat Integration Initiative. She is the former CEO of the Service Women’s Action Network. Haring’s research and work focuses on women and gender in the military. She is a West Point graduate and a retired US Army colonel. She holds a PhD in Conflict Analysis and Resolution from George Mason University, and she has taught at the US Army Command and General Staff College, the US Army War College and Georgetown University. Haring has published numerous articles and papers on a wide array of military and security-related topics. She guest lectures, has testified before Congress as a subject matter expert, and has been a guest speaker on foreign and domestic news shows.

Dr. Diorella Islas Limiñana is a Fellow at Women In International Security and an independent security consultant on intelligence, transnational criminal organizations and national security policies. She is Adjunct Faculty member in the Countering Transnational Organized Crime (CTOC) program at the George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies in Garmisch-Partenkirchen, Germany. She has worked as a consultant for the Royal United Service Institute in London, and as a security analyst at the Center for Information and National Security in Mexico City. She holds a PhD in Politics, Languages and International Studies from the University of Bath and a MA and a BA from Tec de

Monterrey, Mexico City Campus. She has taught at the Bader International Study Center of Queens University and delivered guest lectures at different universities and organizations around the world.

Ana Velasco is a Fellow at Women In International Security and a Researcher at Observatorio Nacional Ciudadano, a leading Mexican NGO focused on issues of security and justice. Previously, she worked as an international news reporter in Mexico, and she has held a diplomatic position for the Mexican Secretariat of Economy in Germany. Velasco is the winner of the “1325 and Beyond” international essay competition organized by WIIS and the Heinrich Böll Stiftung. She recently finished a MA in Gender, Violence and Conflict at the University of Sussex with Distinction, and she is about to start her PhD in International Relations at the same institution.

Project Participants*

Aguirre, Johanna (Panama)

Almeida, Katherine (Dominican Republic)

Aquino, Massiel (Dominican Republic)

Arboleda, Naomi (Dominican Republic)

Argueta, Ann Marie (Guatemala)

Arias, Jeannette (Costa Rica)

Baez Racalde, Maria Gloria (Paraguay)

Baires, Emily (Guatemala)

Balcazar, Mauel (Mexico)

Barriga Abarca, Lourdes Aurelia (Peru)

Barrios, Silvana (Argentina)

Beltran Del Portillo, Maria Fernanda (Colombia)

Broce, Rosa (Panama)

Canto, Maria Belen (Argentina)

Capellan, Belgica (Dominican Republic)

Cardenas Hidalgo, Maria Andrea (Ecuador)

Cerdas, Loreley (Costa Rica)

Chaves, Andrea (Argentina)

Colon, Victor (USA)

Cordon, Mireya (Colombia)

Dantas, Stela (Brazil)

Davila Calderon, Martha Jenneth (Colombia)

De Anda Martinez, Erika (USA)

Depaz, Leidy (Peru)

Donadio, Marela (Argentina)

Drumond, Paula (Brazil)

Espaillat, José Rafael (Dominican Republic)

Ferreira Costa, Ivana Mara (Brazil)

Ferreto, Yorleny (Costa Rica)

Fischer, Andrea (Chile)

Flores, Nancy (Guatemala)

Fundora, Cristobal (Panama)

Galan Paniagua, Sonia Maria (Guatemala)

Giannini, Renata (Brazil)

Gil Rosado, Maria Teresa (Dominican Republic)

Gonzalez, Pedro (Chile)

Henandez, Francia (Dominican Republic)

Hernandez, Brianna (USA)

Hormazábal, Javiera (Chile)

Ignacio, Mercedes (Dominican Republic)

Islas, Diorella (México)

Jarpa, Carolina (Chile)

Jeremias da Silva, Jessika Kelly (Brazil) Jiménez Morales, Karen (Costa Rica)

Jorge, Ramon (Dominican Republic) Justynski,

Ashley (USA)

Lancaster-Ellis, Karen (USA)

Layman, Matthew (USA)

Lopez Portillo, Ernesto (Mexico)

Made, Dominga (Dominican Republic) Manes,

Amb. Jean (USA)

Marcial, Cynthia (Argentina)

Marulanda Castano, Diana Marcela (Brazil)

McCann, Elizabeth (USA)

Méndez, Elvira (Panama)

Mendoza Cortes, Paloma (Mexico)

Miranda Vargas, Inaraquel (USA)

Montenegro, Nadia (Panama)

Ortiz, Nereyda (USA)

Otto, Fomina (Chile)

Pacheco, Gloria (Costa Rica)

Pagtakhan, Elisabet (USA)

Paredes Escobar, Byron Gabriel (Ecuador)

Parra, Veronica (Chile)

Pena, Elisama (Dominican Republic)

Perera, Fabiana (USA)

Placencia Almonte, Albania (Dominican Republic)

Porras, Silvia (Costa Rica)

Ramirez Herrera, Carolina (Dominican Republic)

Rebelo, Tamya (Brazil)

Rey Pinto, Eva María (Colombia)

Reynoso Barrera, Jonas (Dominican Republic)

Rivas, Reina Margarita (Colombia)

Rodriguez-Acosta, Cristina (USA)

Rogers, Rhea (Belize)

Rojas, Valeska (Chile)

Rojas Ballestero, Fiorella Andrea (Costa Rica)

Sahid Garnica, German (Colombia)

Salguero, Miguel (Argentina)

Sanabria, Diana (Ecuador)

Sancho, Carolina (Chile)

Sanjines, Karen (Jamaica)

Santolalla, Guillermo (USA)

Santos, Maria Dolores (Ecuador)

Seron, Christian (Chile)

Silva Freire, Maria Eduarda Laryssa (Brazil)

Sprinkle, Abby (USA)

Suarez, Hilda (Argentina)

Summers, Becky (USA)

Talamoni, Ana Florencia (Argentina)

Turner, Duilia (USA)

Typrowicz, Jennifer (USA)

Russ, Sarah (USA)

Velasco-Ugalde, Ana (Mexico)

Villalba, Laura     (USA)

Volia, Zoila (Costa Rica) Weiss, Cornelia (USA)

Williams, Dianna (USA)

* Project participants includes those who participated in at least one of our workshops and/or our country research teams.

[1] In this project we are examining military forces and national police forces (police that operate at the national level not at the local or municipal level).

[2] The methodology was developed by Women In International Security (WIIS) in the context of a NATO sponsored project that sought to assess how well NATO member and partner states had integrated the principles of gender equality and the WPS agenda in their military institutions and operations. See Chantal de Jonge Oudraat et al., Gender Mainstreaming: Indicators for the Implementation of UNSCR 1325 and its Related Resolutions- the 1325 Scorecard: Preliminary Findings (Brussels: NATO, 2015).

[3] See Executive Order, Instituting a National Action Plan on Women, Peace and Security (Washington, DC: The White House, December 19, 2011). This Plan was subsequently updated in June 2016.

[4] See Women, Peace and Security Act of 2017, Public Law 115-68-October 6, 2017 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2017).

[5] See US Strategy on Women, Peace and Security (Washington, DC: White House, 2019).

[6] See US DOD, Women, Peace, and Security: Strategic Framework and Implementation Plan (Washington, DC: US DoD,  June 2020), p.7.

[7] Ibid.

[8] See Chantal de Jonge Oudraat et al., Gender Mainstreaming: Indicators for the Implementation of UNSCR 1325 and its Related Resolutions – The 1325 Scorecard: Preliminary Findings (Brussels: NATO, 2015). For a description of the NATO project and our country scorecard reports, see: https://www.wiisglobal.org/programs/unscr-1325-nato/.

[9] The term “police” in this tool does not include local or municipal police. The police agencies that are included are those police agencies that also send police officers to UN peacekeeping operations.

[10] For more see wiisglobal.org.

[11] This is a statement that has also been recognized and subscribed to by the US Department of Defense. See US DOD, Women, Peace and Security (2020), p.10.

[12] In the Southern Hemisphere the legal framework for human rights even predates the UDHR. The American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, (adopted in May 1948 in Bogota, Columbia) was the first human rights instrument that recognized equal rights for all people. It was followed in 1969 by the American Convention on Human Rights. The 1969 American Convention on Human Rights requires states to adopt domestic legislation to give effect to these rights.

[13] They were particularly important in integrating Human Rights in the UN Charter and the UDHR.

[14] For more see Marcela Donadio et al., Women in The Armed and Police Forces: Resolution 1325 and Peace Operations in Latin America (Buenos Aires: RESDAL, 2010). More generally see also Ellen Haring, “Gender and Military Organizations” in Chantal de Jonge Oudraat and Michael E. Brown, eds., The Gender and Security Agenda: Strategies for the 21st Century (London: Routledge, 2020), pp. 90 – 112.

[15] In October 2015, the UN Security Council, in Resolution 2242, called for the doubling of the number of female peacekeepers (military and police) within five years. In August 2020, the UN Security Council also adopted Resolution 2538 which recognized “the indispensable role of women in increasing the overall performance and effectiveness of peacekeeping operations.” It also stressed the need to increase the participation of uniformed women in peacekeeping operations.

[16] In 2013, CEDAW adopted General Recommendation 30 on women in conflict prevention, conflict, and post-conflict situations. This strengthened the links between the WPS agenda and CEDAW.

[17] NATO/EAPC Women, Peace and Security Policy and Action Plan, 2018. NATO committed to the three “I”s: Integration: making sure that gender equality is considered as an integral part of NATO policies, programs, and projects guided by effective gender mainstreaming practices; Inclusiveness: promoting an increased representation of women across NATO and in national forces to enhance operational effectiveness and success; and Integrity: enhancing accountability with the intent to increase awareness and implementation of the WPS agenda in accordance with international frameworks.”

[18] See Mary K. Meyer Mcaleese, “WPS and the Organization of American States,” in Sara E. Davies and Jacqui True, eds.,  The Oxford Handbook of Women, Peace and Security (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019), pp. 413 – 427.

[19] See, for example, Paula Drumond and Tamya Rebelo, “Global Pathways or Local Spins? National Action Plans in South America,” International Feminist Journal of Politics, Vol. 22, No. 4 (2020), pp. 462 – 484; See also Donadio, Women in the Armed and Police Forces (2010). In 2019 Brazilian Navy Lieutenant Commander Marcia Braga received the UN Military Gender Advocate of the Year award for her work in the UN operation in the Central African Republic.

[20] See Drumond and Rebelo, Global Pathways or Local Spins?

[21] See for example, Fabiana Sofia Perera and Lieutenant Colonel Duilia Mora Turner, eds., Twenty Years, Twenty Stories: Women, Peace and Security in the Western Hemisphere (Washington, DC: William J. Perry Center for Hemsipheric Defense Studies, 2020). See also Nordic Centre for Gender in Military Operations, Whose Security? Practical Examples of Gender Perspectives in Military Operations (Stockholm: Nordic Centre for Military Operations, 2015).

[22] See Renata Avelar Giannini et al., A agenda sobre mulheres, paz e segurança no contexto latino-americano: desafios e oportunidades, Hemisphere (Rio de Janeiro, Brasil: Instituto Igarapé, March 2018). 12  See, for example, studies by the McKinsey Institute and the World Economic Forum.

[23] For many practical examples see Nordic Centre for Gender in Military Operations, Whose Security? Practical Examples of Gender Perspectives in Military Operations (Stockholm: Nordic Centre for Military Operations, 2015).

[24] The UN’s 2028 target for women in military contingents is 15% and 25% for military observers and staff officers. The 2028 target for women serving in formed police units is 20% and 30% for individual police officers. In 2020, women constitute 4.8% of military contingents and 10.9 % of formed police units in UN peacekeeping missions. See Peackeeping.un.org.

[25] Cited in Chantal de Jonge Oudraat et al., Gender Mainstreaming: Indicators for the Implementation of UNSCR 1325 and its Related Resolutions – The 1325 Scorecard: Preliminary Findings (Brussels: NATO, 2015), p. 7.

[26] This definition is based on the UN ECOSOC definition of 1997. See also Helene Lackenbauer and Richard Langlais, eds., Review of the Practical Implications of UNSCR 1325 for the Conduct of NATO-led Operations and Missions (Stockholm: Swedish Defense Research Agency (FOA), 2013), p. 55.

[27] See UN Women website unwomen.org “Gender Mainstreaming.”

[28] For example, in the United States and Brazil, the WPS agenda and gender equality efforts were not supported by the Donald J. Trump and Jair Bolsonaro administrations. Yet in both cases, the WPS agenda had gained some champions within the foreign affairs and defense establishments. These establishments had also put in place certain processes to integrate gender perspectives. Together, the champions and the institutional processes were able to safeguard some of the efforts that had been started before the advent of the new administrations. In addition, in the United States the US Congress had adopted the WPS Act in 2017, which had broad bi-partisan support. It was a big factor in safeguarding some of the WPS capacities that had been developed earlier. The Act also allowed the expansion of WPS activities in the military with regard to training and the appointment of GENADs in the Combatant Commands. The US Congress even set aside some money for the latter.

[29] See de Jonge Oudraat et al, Gender Mainstreaming (2015), p. 10-11.

[30] See scorecard template in Annex 2 and the scoring protocol in Annex 3.

[31] See country scorecards and narrative reports at the WIIS website (provide link here).

[32] See ECLAC, Regional Report on the Review of the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action in Latin America and Caribbean countries, 25 years on, LC/CRM.14.4 (Santiago: United Nations, 2019).

[33] See IDEA, Gender Quotas Database (Stockholm: IDEA @idea.int).

[34] See ECLAC, Regional Report on the Review of the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action in Latin America and Caribbean countries, 25 years on, LC/CRM.14.4 (Santiago: United Nations, 2019), p. 17.

[35] See Ellen Haring, “Gender and Military Organizations” in Chantal de Jonge Oudraat and Michael E. Brown, The Gender and Security Agenda: Strategies for the 21st Century (London: Routledge, 2020), p. 90.

[36] Nicole Jenne and Fiorella Ulloa Bisshopp, “Female Peacekeepers: UNSC Resolution 1325 and the Persistence of Gender Stereotypes in the Chilean Armed Forces,” International Peacekeeping, (October 14, 2020), p. 21.

[37] For strategies to increase women’s participation in national military organizations, see Haring, “Gender and Military Organizations.”

[38] See Georgetown Institute for Women Peace and Security and the Peace Research Institute Oslo, The WPS Index 2020 (Washington, DC: GIWPS, 2020); Oxfam and Development Finance International, Fighting Inequality in the Time of Covid-19:

The Commitment to Reducing Inequality Index 2020 (Oxford: Oxfam, 2020).

[39] Costa Rica is unique in the region as one of only a few countries with no military. It was assessed based on the security provided by the national police.

[40] See Paula Drumond and Tamya Rebelo, “Global Pathways or Local Spins? National Action Plans in South America,” International Feminist Journal of Politics, Vol. 22, No. 4 (2020), pp. 462 – 484.

[41] For more general analysis of NAPs globally see Caitlin Hamilton, Nyibeny Naam and Laura J. Shepherd, Twenty Years of Women, Peace and Security National Action Plans: Analysis and Lessons Learned (Sydney: Sydney University, March 2020). 32  Drumond and Rebelo, “Global Pathways or Local Spins?” p. 1. See also Paula Drumond and Tamya Rebelo, 1325 and Beyond:

Moving Forward the WPS Agenda in Latin America, WIIS Policy Brief (July 2020); and

Ana Laura Velasco Ugalde, UNSCR1325 and the WPS Agenda: A Feminist Response to Authoritarianism, WIIS Policy Brief (June 2020), p. 1. Velasco notes the Covid-19 crisis and the call for staying at home has exposed the violence at home.

[42] Cited in Drumond and Rebelo, Global Pathways or Local Spins? p. 12. See also Paula Drumond and Tamya Rebelo, 1325 and Beyond: Moving Forward the WPS Agenda in Latin America, WIIS Policy Brief (July 2020).

[43] Ibid.

[44] For more on Brazil’s NAP see Renata Avelar Giannini and Perola Abrue Pereira, Building Brazil’s National Action Plan: Lessons

Learned and Opportunities (London: LSE, March 3, 2020 – blog); Paula Drumond and Tamya Rebelo, Implementing the “Women,

Peace and Security” Agenda in Brazil: An Assessment of the National Action Plan, Strategic Paper 31 (Rio de Janeiro: Igarape Institute, August 2019). See also https://igarape.org.br/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/2019-07-31_AE-31_Women-Peace-andSecurity-National-Action-Plan.pdf.

[45] Argentine NAP: p. 10. Government of Argentina, National Action Plan of the Argentine Republic for the Implementation of Resolution Nº1325/2000 of the Security Council of the United Nations. (Argentina, 2015) at: https://www.peacewomen.org/ sites/default/files/Argentina%20NAP%202015%20(English).pdf and see the Spanish version at: http://servicios.infoleg.gob.ar/ infolegInternet/anexos/250000-254999/252151/Dto1895.pdf. 37  Today Argentina leads the region in WPS implementation.

[46] See UN Secretary General, Departmental Focal Points for Women in the Secretariat, ST/SGB?2008/12 (New York: United Nations, August 1, 2008). See also UN Women, Gender Focal Points and Focal Points for Women @ unwomen.org; and United Nations, Department of Peacekeeping Operations, Policy: Gender Responsive United Nations Peacekeeping Operations (New York: United Nations, February 1, 2018).

[47] RESDAL obtained much of its data through freedom of information mechanisms. See Marcela Donadio et al., Women in the

Armed Forces and Police in Latin America: Agender Approach to Peace Operations (Buenos Aires: RESDAL, 2010). See Renata Avilar Giannini, Maiara Folly and Mariana Fonseca Lima, Situacoes extraordinarias a entrada de mulheres na linha de frente das Forcas Armadas brasileiras (Rio de Janieri: Igarapé Institute: 2017). We do not know to what extent the US government is collecting data on the number of women in military forces around the world and how it applies that data to its International Military Training and Education (IMET) programs.

[48] The US DoD tracks the incidence rate of sexual harassment and assault in the ranks and publishes annual reports on their Sexual and Prevention Website. This is a Congressionally mandated annual requirement. https://www.sapr.mil/. See also Government of Canada, 2019 Sexual Misconduct Incident Tracking Report https://www.canada.ca/en/department-nationaldefence/corporate/reports-publications/sexual-misconduct-tracking-report.html. In Australia, the Chief of the Army came out strongly against sexual harassment and abuse. See Australia’s Chief of the Army addresses to soldiers on sexual assault in the ranks. https://vimeo.com/71028162.

[49] Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Guatemala, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru and Uruguay. See Adriana Erthal Abdenur, Enhancing Peacekeeping Training Through Cooperation: Lessons from Latin America, Policy Brief (Rio de Janeiro: Igarape Institute, June 2018).

[50] See Humanas Colombia, 20 Años Exigiendo que el Gobierno Colombiano se conecte con la Paz y la Seguridad de las Mujeres, Pronunciamiento (Bogotá, Colombia: Humanas, July 2020) at https://www.humanas.org.co/alfa/dat_particular/arch_contenidos/ i_e_73153_q_PRONUNCIAMIENTO_R1325.pdf; Also from Humanas Colombia, see Observatorio Mujeres, Paz y Seguridad (a group actively lobbying for a WPS NAP), Cumplimiento del Estado Colombiano con la Resolución 1325 de 2000: Informe de monitoreo del año 2017 y primer semestre de 2018, (Bogotá, Colombia: Humanas, December 2018) at https://www.humanas.org. co/alfa/dat_particular/ar/ar_9042_q_R1325informe.pdf.

By Chantal de Jonge Oudraat, Kayla McGill and Zi Xue

UN Security Council Resolution 1325 (2000) on Women, Peace and Security (WPS) called for greater participation of women in peace and security decision-making processes and underscored the importance of incorporating a gender perspective when addressing international peace and security challenges. In November 2017, the US Congress adopted the Women, Peace and Security Act, which posited that “the United States should be a global leader in promoting the meaningful participation of women in conflict prevention, management and resolution, and post-conflict relief and recovery efforts.”1 While much progress has been made since 2000, the roles and numbers of women in foreign policy and security establishments remain underdeveloped, including in the United States. 

In 2018, Women In International Security (WIIS)—as part  of an effort to measure the gender disparities in the US foreign policy and security communities—surveyed 22 US foreign policy and international security think tanks.2 This scorecard provides an update to that survey. This scorecard also spotlights the nuclear security community—both as a subset  of the foreign policy and security community and as its  own community.3

Foreign policy and international security experts in the United States have taken renewed interest in issues related to greatpower competition, including nuclear security, arms control and disarmament issues. In addition, at both international and national levels, policymakers and non-governmental actors have recognized the lack of women in nuclear security, arms control and disarmament issues. For example,  the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution in 2010 that urged UN member states to promote the equitable representation of women in the field of disarmament and to strengthen women’s effective participation.4 In 2018, the UN Secretary-General’s agenda for disarmament called for the full and equal participation of women in all decision-making processes related to disarmament and international security. The UN Secretary General also committed to gender parity on all panels, boards, expert groups and other bodies established under his auspices in the field of disarmament.5 These efforts are all part of the national and international commitments made under the  WPS agenda.

Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have also undertaken a range of initiatives to raise awareness about the lack of women in the nuclear security, arms control and disarmament communities. For example, Article 36 (a UKbased NGO created in 2011) and the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR) have tracked women’s scant representation in multilateral disarmament fora.6 In November 2018, Laura Holgate, the former US ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), launched the Gender Champions in Nuclear Policy (GCNP) initiative  to address gender imbalances in the field.7 As of July 2020, heads of 58 US and non-US organizations had committed to “breaking down barriers and making gender equity a working reality in their spheres of influence.”8 The International Gender Champions Disarmament Impact Group published a Gender and Disarmament Resource Pack in 2018 outlining what a gender perspective in arms control, nonproliferation and disarmament might look like.9 In 2019, New America examined the role of women in nuclear policy, including

how women navigated the nuclear security field and how gender diversity (or rather the lack thereof) affected US policymaking.10 The Ploughshares Fund committed $1 million to a Women’s Initiative Campaign in April 2019 to create greater gender diversity within the nuclear establishment.11

There is thus progress in the advancement of the role of women in nuclear security. That said, there is very little data with respect to the representation of women in the nuclear security arena.

This WIIS Gender Scorecard seeks to fill this void.

To assess how well women are integrated into this community, we examined the number of women experts working on nuclear security issues in US think tanks. We also examined the number of women writing on arms control and nuclear security issues and being published in academic and specialized journals. Think tanks and journals play an important role in shaping foreign and defense policies, including nuclear security policies. Indeed, in the United States members of think tanks frequently move in and out of many critical positions in government. Together with their colleagues in academia, they also participate in policy debates in the media and in writing for specialized academic journals.

In sum, this scorecard does three main things:

  • Scoring the Tanks. We assess the gender distribution in 32 think tanks in the United States—22 foreign policy and international security think tanks and 10 think tanks and programs that are more specifically focused on arms control and nuclear security policy. We also examine the extent to which gender has been integrated into programming.12
Table 1: Washington, DC Think Tanks with Women at the Helm 
Center for American Progress (CAP)Ms. Neera Tanden, President and CEO2011
German Marshall Fund (GMF)Dr. Karen Donfried, President2014
Heritage FoundationMs. Kay Coles James, President2017
New AmericaDr. Anne-Marie Slaugther, CEO2013
Wilson Center for International ScholarsMs. Jane Harman, President and CEO2011
Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms ControlMs. Valerie Lincy, Executive Director2012
  • Scoring the Journals. We review the gender distribution in 11 major international security journals and five major arms control and nuclear security journals. In addition, we examine to what extent gender perspectives are represented in the journals.
  • Bringing into Focus the Nuclear Security Community. We examine the gender distribution of nuclear security experts in 32 think tanks. In addition, we consider the gender distribution of articles on arms control and nuclear security issues in 11 major international security journals and  5 major arms control and nuclear security journals. We also examine to what extent gender perspectives are represented in arms control and nuclear security articles.

The Headlines

Despite some progress, the national and international security field, including the nuclear security field, remains a maledominated field.

  • The percentage of women leading think tanks has declined, from 32 percent in 2018 to 19 percent in 2020. 

(See Table 1)

  • The percentage of women on think tank governing boards has increased slightly, from 22 percent in 2018 to 

25 percent in 2020. (See Figure 1)

  • The percentage of women experts working on foreign policy, national and international security issues has increased, from 27 percent in 2018 to 35 percent in 2020.13

(See Figure 2)

The nuclear security community is small. The majority of arms control and nuclear experts work in specialized think tanks and publish in specialized journals.

  • Of the foreign policy and international security think tanks surveyed, only 10 percent of experts (3 percent women and 7 percent men) focus entirely or in part on nuclear issues.14

(See Figure 3)

  • There are 162 nuclear experts working in the specialized arms control and nuclear security think tanks and programs—49 (30 percent) are women.15

Despite renewed interest in nuclear security issues, the percentage of articles devoted to these issues remains small, and few have women authors.

  • In the international security journals only 9 percent of articles published between 2015 and 2019 were devoted to nuclear security. Only 15 percent of those articles were written by women. (See Figure 6.)
  • In the arms control and nuclear security journals, women wrote 17 percent of the articles on nuclear security issues.

Gender perspectives remain largely ignored in the national and international security, including the nuclear security, community.

  • Only one out of 32 think tanks has integrated gender into its programming.
  • In the academic and specialized literature, most articles with a “gender” perspective focused on women in the field—very few articles examined how gender (and notions of masculinity and femininity) shapes thinking about national and international security, including about  nuclear security.16

This scorecard shows that women in the international security field, including in the nuclear security field, remain severely underrepresented. The percentage of women experts and women authors remain well below the 60 percent of women enrolled for over a decade in graduate programs (master’s and doctoral programs) in the social and behavioral science (including political science and international relations); the over 55 percent of women students in the professional schools of international affairs; the 43 percent of women members of the International Studies Association (ISA); and the 38 percent of women members of the ISA’s  International Security Studies Section (ISSS).17

While this scorecard does not incorporate any qualitative interviews in the community, there have been a number of studies that examine how women experience the international security and nuclear security field. A 2019 survey of the members of the International Security Studies Section (ISSS) of the International Studies Association (ISA) showed considerable problems within the international security community, of which the nuclear security community is a subset. The survey showed that women were more likely to report hostility and exclusion and to describe the section as “insular,” “clubby” and an “old boys’ network.”18 In her 2019 study of women in the nuclear arms control and nonproliferation field, Heather Hurlburt talked about the “gender tax” that women in nuclear policy face. She shows “how experiences of sexism, harassment, and gendered expectations translate into constant mental and emotional weight.”19 A 2019 report about the nuclear security field, even though not focused on gender, showed that early and midcareer women professionals found the field rife with

The lack of gender diversity (including ethnic and racial diversity) and the small number of women experts have serious implications not only for the field itself, but also  for policy.21

One such implication is that a small group of mostly likeminded people monopolizes influence and shapes policies. The fact that the nuclear security field seems to live very much in its own bubble or ecosystem of think tanks and journals reinforces its insular nature. Only 10 percent of experts  (7 percent men and 3 percent women) in the think tanks focus on nuclear security issues. Most of the knowledge production and action on nuclear security happens in the specialized institutes and journals. Carol Cohn has written about how language, particularly in the nuclear sphere, kept women and different perspectives out.22 Michèle Flournoy has talked about how women had to fit into a “consensual straitjacket” in the nuclear policy sphere.23 Many early and midcareer professionals in this community defined the field as “old (in terms of both age and ideas) and static.” 24  “Most of the people who work in this field have been doing the same thing for  30 years, and their thinking has not evolved at all, especially in arms control. It’s the dogma. This community … hasn’t evolved with changes in the security environment.”25

Scoring the Tanks

The scorecard reviews think tanks along five main axes:

  • Gender distribution of those who lead think tanks;
  • Gender distribution of governing boards of the think tanks;
  • Gender distribution of experts in the tanks’ foreign policy and international security programs;
  • Gender distribution of experts focusing on nuclear security issues;
  • Level of commitment to gender and/or women’s programming.

Heads of Think Tanks

Of the 32 think tanks surveyed, women lead only six  (19 percent). (See Table 1)

Of the 22 foreign policy and international security think tanks, women lead only five (23 percent): The Center for American Progress (CAP), the German Marshall Fund (GMF), the

Heritage Foundation, New America, and the Woodrow Wilson Center for International Scholars. Compared with 2018, this is a decrease.26

Of the 10 arms control and nuclear security think tanks and programs, a woman heads one: the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control.

sexism and gender discrimination.20

Figure 1: Gender Ratio – Think Tank Governing Boards                    Governing Boards

2018 and 2020  

The gender gap remains stark at the level of the governing 2018   boards. The James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies

• MENWOMEN            is the only institution that has achieved parity on its governing board. It is followed by the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS),

which has 44 percent women on its governing board.

On average, the percentage of women members of the board  of directors or trustees is 25 percent, compared with 23 percent in 2018. (See Figure 1) The specialized arms control and

nuclear institutes do a little better, with 31 percent of women

                                     2020                                                                on their boards.

• MEN

                                 • WOMEN                                                    Experts

Compared with 2018, the overall gender balance in the think tanks has improved, from 27 percent of women experts in  2018 to 35 percent in 2020. (See Figure 2)27 That said, very few think tanks have achieved parity. There is also great variation among the think tanks. (See Table 2 and Figure 4. See also the

Appendix)

Figure 2: Gender Ratio – Foreign Policy and National and International Security Experts in Think Tanks 2018 and 2020  Nuclear Experts

2018

                           ••  MENWOMEN                                     Of the 20 foreign policy and international security think tanks 28

surveyed, only 10 percent of experts (3 percent women and 

7 percent men) focus entirely or in part on nuclear issues. (See Figure 3)

The gender distribution within this group of nuclear experts is slightly lower than the overall gender balance of these institutes. Of the 185 nuclear experts, 55 (30 percent) are

2020      women and 130 (70 percent) are men. (See Figure 5)  MENWOMEN         That said, many arms control and nuclear experts work in

specialized think tanks. We surveyed 10 major think tanks and programs that focus exclusively on arms control and nuclear security issues. Together they comprise 175 experts—162 of which focus on nuclear security issues as defined in this scorecard.29 The percentage of women experts working on nuclear security issues in these 10 think tanks  and programs is 30 percent.

Figure 3: Percentage and Gender Ratio of Nuclear Experts 

in Think Tanks                                                                                                  There is, of course, great variation among the think tanks.

Out of the 10 think tanks, only one has achieved parity—the Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI). (See Table 3 and Figure 5. 

See also the Appendix)

•••   MEN NUCLEAR EXPERTS

WOMEN NUCLEAR EXPERTS

NON-NUCLEAR EXPERTS

Table 2: Percentage of Women Experts in Foreign Policy and International Security Think Tanks 
RankThink Tank% of Women 
1Aspen Institute50%
2US Institute of Peace (USIP)49%
3Third Way47%
RAND Corporation42%
Stimson Center
6New America41%
7Institute for Policy Studies (IPS)36%
8  Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS)31%
Atlantic Council
10  The Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars30%
Center for a New American Security (CNAS)
12Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)27%
  13  Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (CEIP)26%
American Enterprise Institute (AEI)
Brookings Institution
16Heritage Foundation22%
17Center for American Progress (CAP)19%
18Cato Institute11%
19Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA)10%
20Lexington Institute0%
Table 3: Percentage of Women Experts in Arms Control and Nuclear Security Think Tanks 
RankThink Tank% of Women 
1Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI)55%
 2Arms Control Association 43%
Global Zero
4Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control40%
5James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies38%
6Physicians for Social Responsibility33%
7Pugwash Council28%
 8Managing the Atom Project, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs,  Harvard Kennedy School27%
9Federation of American Scientists17%
10Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation11%

Substantive Focus

We also examined the substantive focus of those working on nuclear security issues to explore whether gender has an impact on the types of issues people study.30 Our survey found that the majority of nuclear experts focus on issues related to deterrence, followed by arms control. From their bios, we found no notable differences in terms of substantive focus between men and women.

Gender and Women’s Programming

Programming on gender within the institutes has seen little change since 2018.31 Most DC think tanks do not consider the role of gender in national and international security. For many in the traditional security think tank community— men and women—gender is often equated with women or a “woman’s point of view.” This lack of understanding of gender as a multilevel social construct that governs relations between men and women within societal structures and institutions is widespread within the DC foreign policy and security, including in the nuclear security, think tank community.

Figure 4: Gender Ratio – Foreign Policy and International Security Experts in all Think Tanks                                        Measure Names

Figure 5: Gender Ratio – Nuclear Security Experts in all Think Tanks

Measure Names

Of the think tanks surveyed only one—the US Institute of Peace (USIP)—has recognized gender as an important component of its programming. Since 2016, USIP has had a director for gender policy and strategy that oversees and advises all programs on gender. The director sits in the Policy, Learning and Strategy Center, which reports directly to USIP’s president. In addition, USIP functions as the Secretariat for the US Civil Society Working Group on Women, Peace and Security (WPS).32

Other think tanks have notable gender or women programs:

The Center for New America Security (CNAS) has a Women in National Security program.

The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) has a Smart Women, Smart Power Program and a Women’s Global Leadership Program.

The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) has a Women and Foreign Policy Program and a Women and Foreign Policy Program Advisory Council.

The German Marshall Fund (GMF) since 2017 has organized an annual Women of Color in Transatlantic Leadership Forum. In June 2020, it surveyed the gender balance of European thinks tanks.33

New America has a Gender and Security program housed in its Political Reform Program.

The RAND Corporation has a web page called “RAND Women to Watch,” on which it addresses “Gender Equity in the Workplace” and “Gender Integration in the Military,” including issues related to women and transgender military personnel. In its work on female populations, RAND addresses issues faced by women and girls, including women refugees, migrants and gender-based and intimate partner violence.

In 2020, the Woodrow Wilson Center appointed a gender advisor. In addition, the center has a Middle East Women’s initiative, a Maternal Health Initiative and a Global Women’s Leadership initiative.

The other think tanks have occasional events and publications on gender and security and the WPS agenda. They may  also have one or two individuals working on gender and security issues.34

The Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI) houses the Gender Champions in Nuclear Policy initiative. All the heads of  the 10 specialized arms control and nuclear security think tanks have signed on as Gender Champions. The heads of  the Carnegie Endowment, Third Way and the Stimson

Center have also signed onto the Gender Champion in

Nuclear Policy Pledge.35

Scoring the Journals

The influence of women in the national and international security field, including in the nuclear security field, can also be measured by how well they are represented in academic and professional journals.36

We examined articles in 11 major peer reviewed international security journals, as well as articles in 5 major journals exclusively focused on arms control and nuclear security  issues.

Women wrote 23 percent of the articles in the international security journals versus 64 percent written by men and  13 percent written by mixed gender teams.

That said, there is great variation amongst the journals. Critical Studies on Security is close to parity, with 45 percent of articles written by women versus 48 percent of articles written by men and 8 percent of articles written by mixed gender teams. Security Dialogue has 42 percent of articles written by women versus 47 percent written by men and 11 percent written by mixed gender teams. The Journal of Conflict Resolution is an outlier in the sense that it has the highest percentage of articles written by mixed gender teams—namely, 30 percent versus a 13 percent average. The Journal of Strategic Studies and Survival have the least amount of articles written by women. (See Table 4 and the Appendix.)

Articles on Arms Control and 

Nuclear Security Issues

Our survey found that the majority of articles on nuclear security are published in specialized journals.37  In the  11 international security studies journals surveyed, the percentage of articles that focused on nuclear security issues was only 9 percent. (See Figure 6 and Table 4. See also the Appendix) Of those articles, 15 percent were written by women.38 When we broaden our category and include other weapon and arms control issues, the percentage of articles rises to 16 percent, of which women wrote less than a quarter (21 percent).39 

In the arms control–specific journals, the percentage of articles on nuclear security issues written by women was even lower—17 percent.40 If we broaden our category and include other weapon and arms control issues, the percentage

increased slightly, to 19 percent.41 (See Table 5 and the

Appendix)

That said, there is quite a bit of variation amongst the  arms control journals. The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists scores above the average, with 22 percent of articles written  by women. At the other end, the Journal for Peace and  Nuclear Disarmament had only 11 percent of articles written by women.

Our analysis also confirms earlier studies that found that women coauthor less than men, and when they do coauthor, they are more likely to coauthor with men than with other women.42

Figure 6: Percentage of Nuclear Security Articles in International

Security Journals – 2015-2019 

Gender Perspectives

Of the 3,068 articles surveyed in the 16 journals, we found a mere 91 articles (3 percent) with a gender perspective. This number dropped to 2 percent when we considered only articles that focus on arms control and nuclear issues.

Table 4: Percentage of Articles written by Women in International Security Journals – January 2014-December 2019
Rank  Journal  % of Articles  by Women  
1Critical Studies on Security45%
2Security Dialogue42%
3Cooperation and Conflict30%
4European Journal of International Security27%
5Journal of Global Security Studies26%
6International Security23%
7Security Studies22%
8Contemporary Security Policy16%
9Journal of Conflict Resolution15%
10Survival14%
11Journal of Strategic Studies11%

The majority (71 percent) of the gender articles were penned by women. In the general security studies journals, women wrote 73 percent of those articles. In the arms control and nuclear security journals, they wrote 65 percent of genderfocused articles.

However, most of the articles with a gender perspective focused on the gender balance within the international security and arms control community and how to increase the number of women in the field. Very few examined how gender (and notions of masculinity and femininity) affects thinking about international security, including nuclear security issues.

Lastly, we examined whether men and women wrote about the same topics in the nuclear and arms control field. While we did not see a marked difference in our think tank analysis between the topics men and women studied, in the journals we did see some differences. Women were more likely to write about drones and unmanned aerial vehicles, chemical and biological weapons and nuclear energy and climate. Men were more likely to write about outer space, proliferation (including nonproliferation) and nuclear deterrence issues.

Concluding Thoughts

The nuclear security community is a subset of the national  and international security community.  Both communities  are deeply entrenched male-dominated communities, in  which “old-boy networks” continue to thrive. While we have seen the number of women experts in the think tanks increase from 27 percent to 35 percent, no progress was made in terms of governing boards, and the number of women heading  think tanks has regressed. Both communities continue to struggle with the integration of women. It is also striking that while it is recognized by many in the international security, including the nuclear security, community that new approaches and new thinking are necessary, gender as a lens through which to analyze international, including nuclear, security challenges is not on think tank agendas. Too little thought is given in either the think tanks or the journals to how gender and notions of masculinity and femininity influence understanding of international and national  security challenges, including challenges related to nuclear security policies.

  Table 5: Percentage of Articles written by Women in Arms Control Journals – January 2014-December 2019 Rank Journal % of Women  1 Bulletin of Atomic Scientists 22% 2 International Journal of Nuclear Studies 20% 3 Arms Control Today 19% 4 Nonproliferation Review 17% 5 Journal for Peace and Nuclear Disarmament 11%

While patriarchal structures are difficult to take down, in recent years we have seen some progress in the amount of efforts to break down these structures.

First, the number of women interested in international security issues is increasing. Their enrollment in international affairs schools continues to surpass that of men. Second, a number of people and organizations, including funding organizations, have realized that the changed strategic landscape requires new approaches and new people. This need is apparent for the international security community and particularly for the small, somewhat atrophied nuclear security community. The Nsquare initiative, the Gender Champions in Nuclear Policy, and the Ploughshares Fund’s women initiative are explicitly geared toward creating a more diverse and open community. These efforts have also been supported by major funders of this community such as Carnegie Corporation New York and the MacArthur Foundation. Third, after the killing of George Floyd in the summer of 2020, organizations including foreign policy and international security think tanks expressed renewed commitment to building a more diverse workforce. Many think tanks in the international security and nuclear security have signed on to the Organizations in Solidarity initiative of WCAPS.43

It is important to hold organizations accountable and to make sure that progress is measured not just in declaratory statements but also in actions. This scorecard provides numerical baselines.

Our analysis of the journals, even though it encompasses a broader group of experts, reinforces conclusions from the think tank analysis. Women authors remain grossly underrepresented. Journals, like think tanks, suffer from gender gaps.

Many of our 2018 recommendations still hold. Four stand out:

  • Thinks tanks should periodically carry out a gender analysis of their institutions. An inward gender analysis should be intersectional and must include collection and analysis of data related to gender, race, ethnic background, sexual orientation, age and disability. It must focus on knowledge production as well as recruitment, retention and promotion processes. It must also examine policies and practices related to issues such as remuneration, remote work, family leave and sexual harassment. Finally, the think tanks should make deliberate efforts to diversify their governing boards.
  • Think tanks should carry out an analysis of their partnerships and knowledge dissemination. Such an outward gender analysis should focus on whom they partner with and how content is disseminated. Among the questions one should ask: What type of publications are produced, what type of events are organized, who participates and attends these events, who is tapped for media appearances?
  • Think tanks should consider appointing a gender advisor and locate these advisors not in the human resource office but in the front offices with direct access to the leadership.
  • Journals continue to have gender gaps. One is expressed in terms of women authors published in the journals; the other is represented in the lack of gender perspectives. Editors and editorial boards should resort to periodic gender audits of their journals. Such audits would include issues related to the gender balances and substantive background of editorial staff, editorial boards and outside reviewers. It should also include an analysis of the readership—many of whom are also potential authors.

References

  1. US Congress, Women, Peace and Security Act of 2017, Public Law No. 115-68 (10/06/2017). In accordance with the law, the White House published its WPS Strategy in June 2019. See White House, United States Strategy on Women, Peace, and Security (Washington, DC: White House, June 2019).
  2. See Chantal de Jonge Oudraat and Soraya Kamali-Nafar, The WIIS Gender Scorecard: Washington, DC Think Tanks – 2018, WIIS Policy Brief (Washington, DC: WIIS, September 2018-1).
  3. This scorecard was supported by a grant from the Ploughshares Fund.
  4. See UN General Assembly A/Res/65/69 (2010). See also UN General

Assembly resolutions A/Res/67/48 (2012); A/Res/68/33 (2013); A/ Res/69/61 (2014); and A/Res/71/56 (2016). In addition, the Genevabased Conference on Disarmament held its first informal meeting  on gender and disarmament in August 2015. In May 2016, it held a second informal plenary on Women and Disarmament, in which delegations restated their support to increase the role of women in the disarmament field.

  • See UN Secretary-General, Securing Our Common Future: An Agenda for Disarmament (New York: United Nations, October 2018).
  • See Renata Hessmann Dalaqua, Kjolv Egeland and Torbjorn Graff Hugo, Still Behind the Curve: Gender Balance in Arms Control, NonProliferation and Disarmament Diplomacy (Geneva: UNIDIR, 2019).
  • See GCNP website at gcnuclearpolicy.org. See also Pamela Hamamoto and Laura Holgate, “Gender Champions,” in Tom Z. Collina and Cara Marie Wagner, eds., A New Vision: Gender, Justice, National Security (Washington, DC: Ploughshares Fund, April 2019), pp. 40-45.
  • See GCNP website and GCNP, Gender Champions in Nuclear Policy, Impact Report 2019 (Washington, DC: NTI, May 2020), p. 2.
  • International Gender Champions Disarmament, Gender and Disarmament Resource Pack (Geneva: UNIDIR, 2018 and updated in January 2020).
  • See Heather Hurlburt et al., The Consensual Straitjacket: Four Decades of Women in Nuclear Security (Washington, DC: New America, March 2019).
  • SeeTom Z. Colinna and Cara Marie Wagner, eds., A New Vision: Gender, Justice, National Security (Washington, DC: Ploughshares Fund, April 2019).
  • While gender is generally defined and discussed as meaning more than just whether one is a man or a woman, this scorecard takes the binary approach. We identified experts and authors as either women or men by examining their bios, photographs and use of pronouns.
  • This scorecard tallies national and international security experts, including foreign policy and international affairs experts. Definitions of national and international security differ from institution to institution, some use an expanded definition of security, including human security, others have a narrow definition of security. For more on who is included within each of the think tanks see the methodology section on p.15.
  • This corresponds to 185 experts (55 women and 130 men) out of a total of 1,931 experts.
  • These institutes employ a total of 175 experts, but only 162 (113 men and 49 women) work on nuclear security issues.
  • For more on gender and security, see Chantal de Jonge Oudraat and Michael E. Brown, eds., The Gender and Security Agenda: Strategies for the 21st Century (London: Routledge, 2020).
  • See Hironao Okahana and Enyu Zhou, Graduate Enrollment and Degrees: 2006-2016 (Washington, DC: Council of Graduate Schools,

2017); website of the Association of Professional Schools of International Affairs (APSIA); and the website of the International Studies  Association (ISA).

  1. Maria Rost Rublee et al., “Do You Feel Welcome? Gendered Experiences in International Security Studies,” Journal of Global Security Studies, Vol. 5, No. 1 (2020), pp. 216-226.
  2. Hurlburt et al., Consensual Straitjacket, pp. 6 and 18-28.
  3. See Nsquare, Greater Than: Nuclear Threat Professionals Reimagine Their Field (Washington, DC: NSquare, December 2019). See also Bonnie Jenkins, “Diversity Makes Better Policy,” in Tom Z. Collina and Cara Marie Wagner, eds., A New Vision: Gender, Justice, National Security (Washington, DC: Ploughshares Fund, April 2019), pp. 34-39.
  4. This scorecard focuses on gender. That said, the lack of gender diversity often goes hand in hand with discrimination on other  identity markers, such as race, ethnic background, sexual orientation and age. After the killing of George Floyd in summer 2020, Women  of Color Advancing Peace, Security and Conflict Transformation (WCAPS) launched the Organizations in Solidarity project to root out institutional racism. Many organizations and think tanks, including in the nuclear security arena, (and those surveyed in this scorecard)  signed on to the project.
  5. Carol Cohn, “Sex and Death in the Rational World of Defense

Intellectuals,” Signs, Vol. 12, No. 4 (1987), pp. 687-718; Carol Cohn and

Sara Ruddick, “ A Feminist Ethical Perspective on Weapons of Mass Destruction,” in Steven Lee and Sohail Hashmi, eds., Ethics and Weapons of Mass Destruction (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), pp. 405-435; Carol Cohn, “The Perils of Mixing Masculinity and Missiles,” The New York Times (January 5, 2018).

  • Cited in Hurlburt et al., Consensual Straitjacket.
  • See Nsquare, Greater Than, p. 14.
  • Ibid., p. 15. See also note 17.
  • In 2018, 32 percent of think tanks were headed by women. The reins of the Center for a New American Security passed from a woman to a man, and leadership position of the US Institute of Peace is vacant as of the summer of 2020 with the departure in August 2020 of Nancy Lindborg, who had been president and CEO since 2015.
  • This number also does not include information with regard to the German Marshall Fund (GMF). At the time of our survey no data was available on the website regarding experts at GMF. In addition, at the time of our survey the Bipartisan Policy Centre had no longer a foreign policy international security program.
  • Amongst the nuclear programs in the Foreign Policy and

International Security think tanks mention should be made of the Project on Nuclear Issues (PONI), a program, housed at CSIS, that is geared towards the next generation of professionals in the nuclear security field. In addition, the Carnegie Endowment hosts every two years an international non-proliferation conference attracting hundreds of experts, officials and journalists from around the world.

  • Nuclear experts are defined as experts and analysts who study topics related to nuclear deterrence, weapons of mass destruction, nuclear policy, general nuclear issues, nuclear security (nuclear materials, fuel cycle, nuclear energy, radiological security), arms control and disarmament, nuclear technologies, defense strategy with a nuclear focus, regional studies with nuclear focus (North Korea, China, Iran, Asia-Pacific, Korea, Middle East). See also the methodology section in this scorecard.
  • Within our overall nuclear security category, we defined nine subtopics: nuclear deterrence, weapons of mass destruction, nuclear policy, nuclear security (nuclear materials, fuel cycle, nuclear energy, radiological security), arms control and disarmament, nuclear technologies, defense strategy with a nuclear focus, regional studies  with nuclear focus (North Korea, China, Iran, Asia-Pacific, Korea, Middle East) and miscellaneous nuclear issues.
  • See de Jonge Oudraat and Kamali-Nafar, WIIS Gender  Scorecard 2018.
  • TheU.S. Civil Society Working Group on Women, Peace and Security (U.S. CSWG)brings together over 40 organizations and civil society groups working on women’s issues, gender and the WPS agenda. While many of these groups are active in advocacy and operational work, many will also conduct research and produce policy papers. See https://www.usip.org/programs/advancing-women-peace-and-security.
  • See Rosa Balfour, Corinna Hörst, Pia Hüsch, Sofia Shevchuk and Eleonora del Vecchio, Absent Influencers? Women in European Think Tanks, Policy Paper No. 5 (Brussels, Paris, Washington, DC: GMF,  June 2020).
  • For example, Lisa Aronsson at the Atlantic Council, Saskia Brechenmacher at the Carnegie Endowment or Mackenzie Eaglen at the American Enterprise Institute.
  • All gender champions adopt a panel parity pledge. See GCNP website.
  • For more on the representation of women in journals, see Nadia

Crevecoeur, Kayla McGill and Maya Whitney, The Gender Balance in 11 Security Journals, A review of the literature and PowerPoint analysis of women authors in security journals, draft manuscript (Washington, DC:

WIIS, 2020).

  • Nuclear security issues were determined by title keyword searches. The following keywords were used: weapons—nuclear, hypersonic, missiles (ICBMs, etc.), missile defense, nuclear technology in weapons, cleanup from nuclear accidents, nuclear energy, IAEA, nuclear terrorism, deterrence, nonproliferation. Treaties: disarmament and arms control, nuclear disarmament, NPT, CTBT, INF, nuclear export control, fissile materials negotiations. We also added a country level: USA, China, Russia, France, UK, NATO/Europe, Iran, India/Pakistan, Middle East, North Korea. Arms control issues were broadly defined and determined by the following title keyword searches: weapons—nuclear, hypersonic, missiles (ICBMs, etc.), drones, biological weapons, chemical weapons, missile defense, technology in weapons (very specific, not just technological advances in general but focused on weapons), cybersecurity/cyber war. General themes: geoengineering and climate change, medical/radio isotopes, cleanup from nuclear accidents, nuclear energy, IAEA, nuclear terrorism, space, materials. Treaties: disarmament and arms control, nuclear disarmament, NPT, CTBT, INF, export control, biological and chemical weapons control, fissile materials negotiations, arms trade, general. We also added a country level: USA, China, Russia, France, UK, NATO/Europe, Iran, India/Pakistan, Middle East, North Korea.
  • The overall number of articles in the 11 security journals was 

2,147, of which 194 were devoted to nuclear security issues. There were 29 (15%) written by women, 149 (77%) by men, and 16 (8%) by mixed gender teams. When we expand our focus and include other weapons and arms control issues, the total number of articles was 338. 

  • Of those 338 articles, 72 (21%) were written by women, 232 (69%) by men and 34 (10%) by mixed gender teams. The overall percentage of articles written by women is 23 percent.
  • Of the 921 articles, 683 focused on nuclear security issues. There were 115 (17%) written by women, 512 (75%) by men; and 56 (8%) by mixed gender teams.
  • Of the 921 articles in the five arms control and nuclear security journals, 178 (19%) were written by women, 661 (72%) by men, and  82 (9%) by mixed gender teams.
  • See Crevecoeur, McGill and Whitney, Gender Balance in  11 Security Journals.
  • See the WCAPS website.
Appendix: Think Tanks  
Foreign Policy and International Security Think Tanks American Enterprise Institute (AEI) Head: Robert Doar (M) Nat./Int. Security Experts: 2018 Total: 29 – 6 (F) + 23 (M) 21% female 2020 Total: 31 – 8 (F) + 23 (M) 26% female Nuclear Experts: 2020 Total:  2 – 0(F) + 2 (M) 0% female Governing Board: 2018 Total: 27 – 0 (F) + 27 (M) – 0% female 2020 Total: 27 – 1 (F) + 26 (M) – 4% female Atlantic Council Head: Frederick Kempe (M) Nat./Int. Security Experts: 2018 Total: 227 – 66 (F) + 161 (M) – 29% female 2020 Total: 327 – 102(F) + 225 (M) – 31% female Nuclear Experts: 2020 Total: 12 – 1 (F) + 11 (M) – 8% female Governing Board: 2018 Total: 200 – 39 (F) + 161 (M) – 20% female 2020 Total: 199 – 41 (F) + 158 (M) – 21% female Aspen Institute Head: Dan Porterfield (M) Nat./Int. Security Experts: 2018 Total: 10 – 2 (F) + 8 (M) – 20% female 2020 Total: 8 – 4 (F) + 4 (M) – 50% female Nuclear Experts: None Governing Board: 2018 Total: 77 – 26 (F) + 51 (M) – 34% female 2020 Total: 81 – 28 (F) + 53 (M) – 35% female Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC) Head: Jason Grumet (M) Nat./Int. Security Experts: 2018 Total: 17 – 4 (F) + 13 (M) – 24% female 2020 Not Available Governing Board: 2018 Total: 17 – 5 (F) + 12 (M) – 29% female 2020 Total: 14 – 5 (F) + 9 (M) – 36% female Brookings Institution Head: John R. Allen (M) Nat./Int. Security Experts: 2018 Total: 109 – 28 (F) + 81 (M) – 26% female 2020 Total: 117 – 30 (F) + 87 (M) – 26% female Nuclear Experts: 2020 Total: 13 – 3 (F) + 10 (M) – 23% female Governing Board: 2018 Total: 89 – 19 (F) + 70 (M) – 21% female 2020 Total: 86 – 19 (F) + 67 (M) – 22% female Cato Institute Head: Peter N. Goettler (M) Nat./Int. Security Experts: 2018 Total: 11 – 3 (F) + 8 (M) – 27% female 2020 Total: 9 – 1 (F) + 8 (M) – 11% female Nuclear Experts: 2020 Total: 1 – 0 (F) + 1(M) – 0% female Governing Board: 2018 Total: 19 – 2 (F) + 17 (M) – 11% female 2020 Total: 18 – 2 (F) + 16 (M) – 11% femaleCarnegie Endowment for International Peace (CEIP) Head: William J. Burns (M) Nat./Int. Security Experts: 2018 Total: 32 – 10 (F) + 22 (M) – 31% female 2020 Total: 27 – 7 (F) + 20 (M) – 26% female Nuclear Experts: 2020 Total: 5 – 1 (F) + 4 (M) – 20% female Governing Board: 2018 Total: 31 – 7 (F) + 24 (M) – 23% female 2020 Total: 31 – 8 (F) + 23 (M) – 26% female Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA) Head: Thomas G. Mahnken (M) Nat./Int. Security Experts: 2018 Total: 32 – 4 (F) + 28 (M) – 13% female 2020 Total: 30 – 3 (F) + 27 (M) – 10% female Nuclear Experts: 2020 Total: 15 – 6 (F) + 9 (M) – 40% female Governing Board: 2018 Total: 8 – 2 (F) + 6 (M) – 25% female 2020 Total: 9 – 3 (F) + 6 (M) – 33% female Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) Head: John J. Hamre (M) Nat./Int. Security Experts: 2018 Total: 108 – 32 (F) + 76 (M) – 30% female 2020 Total: 118 – 37 (F) + 81 (M) – 31% female Nuclear Experts: 2020 Total: 12 – 6 (F) + 6 (M) – 50%  Governing Board: 2018 Total: 44 – 5 (F) + 39 (M) – 11% female 2020 Total: 44 – 5 (F) + 39 (M) – 11% female Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) Head: Richard N. Haass (M) Nat./Int. Security Experts: 2018 Total: 75 – 22 (F) + 53 (M) – 29% female 2020 Total: 85 – 23 (F) + 62 (M) – 27% female Nuclear Experts: 2020 Total: 7 – 3 (F) + 4 (M) – 43% female Governing Board: 2018 Total: 36 – 11 (F) + 25 (M) – 31% female 2020 Total: 36 – 11 (F) + 25 (M) – 31% female Center for a New American Security (CNAS) Head: Richard Fontaine (M) Nat./Int. Security Experts: 2018 Total: 78 – 29 (F) + 49 (M) – 37% female 2020 Total: 73 – 22 (F) + 51 (M) – 30 % female Nuclear Experts: 2020 Total: 9 – 2 (F) + 7 (M) – 22% female Governing Board: 2018 Total: 21 – 2 (F) + 19 (M) – 10% female 2020 Total: 25 – 3 (F) + 22 (M) – 12% female Center for American Progress (CAP) Head: Neera Tanden (F) Nat./Int. Security Experts: 2018 Total: 19 – 3 (F) + 16 (M) – 16% female 2020 Total: 16 – 3 (F) + 13 (M) – 19% female Nuclear Experts: 2020 Total: 3 – 0 (F) + 3 (M) – 0% Governing Board: 2018 Total: 9 – 2 (F) + 7 (M) – 22% female 2020 Total: 10 – 3 (F) + 7 (M) – 30% femaleGerman Marshall Fund (GMF) Head: Karen Donfried (F) Nat./Int. Security Experts: 2018 Total: 44 – 12 (F) + 32 (M) – 27% female 2020 Not Available Governing Board: 2018 Total: 19 – 5 (F) + 14 (M) – 26% female 2020 Total: 21 – 8 (F) + 13 (M) – 38% female Heritage Foundation Head: Kay Coles James (F) Nat./Int. Security Experts: 2018 Total: 32 – 7 (F) + 25 (M) – 22% female 2020 Total: 46 – 10 (F) + 36 (M) – 22% female Nuclear Experts: 2020 Total: 14 – 2 (F) + 12 (M) – 14% female Governing Board: 2018 Total: 25 – 6 (F) + 19 (M) – 24% female 2020 Total: 27 – 5 (F) + 22 (M) – 19% female Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) Head: Robert L. Borosage (M) Nat./Int. Security Experts: 2018 Total: 16 – 7 (F) + 9 (M) – 44% female 2020 Total: 36 – 13 (F) + 23 (M) – 36% female Nuclear Experts: 2020 Total: 1 – 1 (M) + 0 (F) – 0% Governing Board: 2018 Total: 18 – 8 (F) + 10 (M) – 44% female 2020 Total: 18 – 8 (F) + 10 (M) – 44% female Lexington Institute Head: Merrick “Mac” Carey (M) Nat./Int. Security Experts: 2018 Total: 6 – 1 (F) + 5 (M) – 17% female 2020 Total: 6 – 0 (F) + 6 (M) – 0% female Nuclear Experts: 2020 Total: 1 – 0 (F) + 1 (M) – 0% female Governing Board: 2018 Total: 7 – 0 (F) + 7 (M) – 0% female 2020 Total: 6 – 0 (F) + 6 (M) – 0% female New America Head: Anne-Marie Slaughter (F) Nat./Int. Security Experts: 2018 Total: 104 – 34 (F) + 70 (M) – 33% female 2020 Total 103 – 42 (F) + 61 (M) – 41% female Nuclear Experts: None Governing Board: 2018 Total: 22 – 6 (F) + 16 (M) – 27% female 2020 Total: 20 – 6 (F) + 14 (M) – 30% female RAND Corporation Head: Michael D. Rich (M) Nat./Int. Security Experts: 2018 Total: 613 – 245 (F) + 368 (M) – 40% female 2020 Total 541 – 229 (F) + 312 (M) – 42% female Nuclear Experts: 2020 Total 47 – 12 (F) + 31 (M) – 28% female Governing Board: 2018 Total: 26 – 7 (F) + 19 (M) – 27% female 2020 Total 24 – 7 (F) + 17 (M) – 30% female
Appendix: Think Tanks  
Stimson Center Head: Brian Finlay (M) Nat./Int. Security Experts: 2018 Total: 72 – 37 (F) + 35 (M) – 51% female 2020 Total: 106 – 45 (F) + 61 (M) – 42% female * Nuclear Experts: 2020 Total: 40 – 18 (F) + 22 (M) – 45% female Governing Board: 2018 Total: 27 – 7 (F) + 20 (M) – 26% female 2020 Total: 30 – 9 (F) + 21 (M) – 30% female Third Way Head: Jonathan Cowan (M) Nat./Int. Security Experts: 2020 Total: 17 – 8 (F) + 9 (M) – 47% female Nuclear Experts: 2020 Total: 8 – 4 (F) + 4 (M) – 50% female Governing Board: 2020 Total: 30 – 6 (F) + 24 (M) – 20% female US Institute of Peace (USIP) Head: … Nat./Int. Security Experts: 2018 Total: 72 – 35 (F) + 37 (M) – 49% female 2020 Total: 84 – 41 (F) + 43 (M) – 49% female Nuclear Experts: 2020 Total: 7 – 2 (F) + 5 (M) – 29% female Governing Board: 2018 Total: 15 – 3 (F) + 12 (M) – 20% female 2020 Total: 15 – 3 (F) + 12 (M) – 20% female The Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars Head: Jane Harman (F) Nat./Int. Security Experts: 2018 Total: 187 – 64 (F) + 123 (M) – 34% female 2020 Total: 151 – 46 (F) + 105 (M) – 30% female Nuclear Experts: 2020 Total: 4 – 1 (F) + 3 (M) – 25% female Governing Board: 2018 Total: 16 – 5 (F) + 11 (M) – 31% female 2020 Total: 17 – 5 (F) + 12 (M) – 29% femaleArms Control and Nuclear Security  Think Tanks Arms Control Association Head: Daryl G. Kimball (M) Nat./Int. Security Experts: 2020 Total: 7 – 3 (F) + 4 (M) – 43% female Nuclear Experts: 2020 Total: 7 – 3 (F) + 4 (M) – 43% female Governing Board: 2020 Total: 35 – 12 (F) + 23 (M) – 34% female Center for Arms Control and NonProliferation Head: Edward Levine (M) Nat./Int. Security Experts: 2020 Total: 19 – 2 (F) + 17 (M) – 11 % female Nuclear Experts 2020 Total: 19 – 2 (F) + 17 (M) – 11% female Governing Board: (Does not include the Szilard Advisory Board) 2020 Total: 24 – 5 (F) + 19 (M) – 21% female Federation of American Scientists Head: Ali Nouri (M) Nat./Int. Security Experts: 2020 Total: 18 – 3 (F) + 15 (M) – 17% female Nuclear Experts 2020 Total: 12 – 3 (F) + 9 (M) – 25% female Governing Board: 2020 Total: 17 – 6 (F) + 11 (M) – 35% female Global Zero Head: Derek Johnson (M) Nat./Int. Security Experts: 2020 Total: 7 – 3 (F) + 4 (M) – 43% female Nuclear Experts: 2020 Total: 7 – 3 (F) + 4 (M) – 43% female Governing Board: Not Available James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies Head: William Potter (M) Nat./Int. Security Experts: 2020 Total: 13 – 5 (F) + 8 (M) – 38% female Nuclear Experts: 2020 Total: 13 – 5 (F) + 8 (M) – 38% female Governing Board: 2020 Total: 4 – 2 (F) + 2 (M) – 50% female Managing the Atom Project, Belfer Center, Harvard Kennedy School Head: Matthew Bunn (M), Steven Miller (M) Nat./Int. Security Experts: 2020 Total: 30 – 8 (F) + 22 (M) – 27% female Nuclear Experts: 2020 Total: 30 – 8 (F) + 22 (M) – 27% female Governing Board: 2020 Total: 45 – 15 (F) + 30 (M) – 33% femaleNuclear Threat Initiative (NTI) Head: Ernest J. Moniz (M) Nat./Int. Security Experts: 2018 Total: 18 – 9 (F) + 9 (M) – 50% female 2020 Total: 22 – 12 (F) + 10 (M) – 55% female Nuclear Experts: 2020 Total: 19 – 9 (F) + 10 (M) – 47% female Governing Board: 2018 Total: 34 – 7 (F) + 27 (M) – 21% female 2020 Total: 35 – 8 (F) + 27 (M) – 23% female Physicians for Social Responsibility Head: Jeff Carter (M) Nat./Int. Security Experts: 2020 Total: 6 – 2 (F) + 4 (M) – 33% female Nuclear Experts: 2020 Total: 2 – 0 (F) + 2 (M) – 0% female Governing Board: 2020 Total: 27 – 11 (F) + 16 (M) – 41% female Pugwash Council Head: Sergio Duarte (M) Nat./Int. Security Experts: 2020 Total: 43 – 12 (F) + 31 (M) – 28% female Nuclear Experts: 2020 Total: 43 – 12 (F) + 31 (M) – 28% female Governing Board: 2020 Total: 8 – 2 (F) + 6 (M) – 25% female Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control Head: Valerie Lincy (F) Nat./Int. Security Experts: 2020 Total: 10 – 4 (F) + 6 (M) – 40% female Nuclear Experts: 2020 Total: 10 – 4 (F) + 6 (M) – 40% female Governing Board: 2020 Total: 9 – 3 (F) + 6 (M) – 33% female
Notes: Absolute Numbers and Gender Ratio of Articles in International Security Journals – January 2014-December 2019
            Contemporary Security Policy   152         25           16%        109           72%          18           12% Nuclear Security Articles 47 8 17% 32 68% 7 15% Cooperation and Conflict 168 51 30% 94 56% 23 14% Nuclear Security Articles 5 2  40% 3 60%   – Critical Studies on Security 200 90 45% 95 48% 15 8% Nuclear Security Articles 28 13 46% 14 50% 1 4% European Journal of International Security 63 17 27% 40 63% 6 10% Nuclear Security Articles 14 2 14% 10 72% 2 14% International Security 114 26 23% 77 67% 11 10% Nuclear Security Articles 32 6 19% 20 62% 6 19% Journal of Conflict Resolution 403 60 15% 224 56% 119 29% Nuclear Security Articles 18 4 22% 11 61% 3 17% Journal of Global Security Studies 117 30 26% 68 58% 19 16% Nuclear Security Articles 16 3 19% 10 62% 3 19% Journal of Strategic Studies 233 26 11% 192 82% 15 7% Nuclear Security Articles 56 9 16% 41 73% 6 11% Security Dialogue 191 80 42% 89 47% 22 11% Nuclear Security Articles 17 8 47% 7 41% 2 12% Security Studies 159 34 22% 107 67% 18 11% Nuclear Security Articles 21 4 19% 15 71% 2 10% Survival 347 48 14% 280 81% 19 5% Nuclear Security Articles 84 12 14% 70 83% 2 3% Journal                                                                                      Total No                            Women*                                       Men*                               Mixed Gender Teams
Notes: Absolute Numbers and Gender Ratio of Articles in Arms Control Journals – January 2014-December 2019
            Arms Control Today   251         47           19%        191           76%           13            5% Bulletin of Atomic Scientist 392 85 22% 271 69% 36 9% International Journal of Nuclear Studies 54 11 20% 32 60% 11 20% Journal for Peace and Nuclear Disarmament 63 7 11% 52 83% 4 6% Nonproliferation Review 161 28 17% 115 72% 18 11% Journal                                                                                      Total No                            Women*                                       Men*                                 Mixed Gender Teams *Includes articles by single authors and by same sex coauthors
Methodology  
Think Tanks All data come from the think tanks’ own websites. Data for the think tanks were collected between September 2019 and January 2020, except for Third Way. Data for Third Way were collected in July 2020. Data for the governing boards of all think tanks were collected in July 2020. We were not able to retrieve data for experts from the German Marshall Fund’s (GMF) website. The Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC) no longer features a national or international security program on its website. Hence, data for GMF and BPC are incomplete. While gender is generally defined and discussed as meaning more than just whether one is a man or a woman, this scorecard takes the binary approach. We identified experts and authors as either women or men by examining their bios, photographs and use of pronouns. This scorecard tallies experts, analysts and fellows. We did not include people whose main responsibilities are in the administrative, operational, personnel, development, communication, and editorial sectors. Experts in foreign policy, defense and national and international security were selected based on the identification of such experts by the think tanks themselves. Nuclear security experts were identified by searching the think tank websites and expert bios for any the following terms: nuclear deterrence, weapons of mass destruction, nuclear policy, general nuclear issues, nuclear security (nuclear materials, fuel cycle, nuclear energy, radiological security), arms control and disarmament, nuclear technologies, defense strategy with a nuclear focus, regional studies with nuclear focus (North Korea, China, Iran, Asia-Pacific, Korea, Middle East). We did not analyze experts’ seniority. Some think tanks include junior staff; others identify only mid-level and senior staff. We did not distinguish between nonresident and resident experts. Again, for each think tank, we followed the think tank’s own identification of its experts. In the case of RAND we excluded all adjunct experts. Adjuncts at RAND are the equivalent of non-residential fellows in other institutions. RAND will feature some adjunct experts, but not all adjuncts on its website. Upon request and in consultation with RAND we decided to leave all adjuncts off this tally. The following experts, analysts, fellows, scholars and staff have been included for: AEI: All Foreign and Defense Policy Scholars; Atlantic Council: All Fellows and Non-Resident Fellows mentioned under Experts; Aspen Institute: All Security & Global Affairs, including the Aspen Strategy Group, the Cybersecurity & Technology Program, and the Homeland Security Program; Bipartisan Policy Center: No Information; Brookings Institution: All Experts in theForeign Policy Program; Cato Institute: All Nat./ Int. Security Experts; Carnegie Endowment: All Experts in the Washington, DC office; CSBA: All All Nat./Int. Security Experts; CAP: Foreign Policy and Security Program; CSIS: All Experts; CFR: All Experts; CNAS: All Experts; GMF: Not Available; Heritage Foundation: Heritage Foundation: All Experts in the International, National Security, and Nuclear Energy Issue Areas; IPS: All Experts; Lexington Institute: All Experts; New America: All Analysts and Fellows in the Cybersecurity Initiative, the International Security Program and the Gender and Security Program; RAND: All experts in the Homeland Security and Public Safety, the International Affairs, and the National Security Programs. Our tally does not do not include Adjuncts, Operational Staff and Legislative Assistants. It may also be noted that some experts in the Homeland Security and Public Safety program are more focused on public safety and domestic issues. Similarly, some experts in the International Affairs Program are focused on non-security international affairs issues; Stimson Center: Senior Research Team & Distinguished Fellows; Third Way: Experts in Climate and Energy and National Security; USIP: All Experts; The Wilson Center: All Experts; Arms Control Association: All Expert Staff; Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation: All Experts; FAS: All Expert Staff; Global Zero: All Expert Staff;  James Martin Center for Non-Proliferation Studies: All Expert Staff; Managing the Atom Project, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs: All Experts; NTI: All Expert Staff;  Physicians for Social Responsibility: All Expert Staff; Pugwash Council: All Expert Staff;  Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control: All Expert Staff.  The Full Think Tank Data Set is available from WIIS. Journals Sixteen journals were examined over the period January 2014–December 2019: 11 security studies journals and 5 journals focused exclusively on arms control and nuclear security issues. 11 – International Security Journals: Contemporary Security Policy; Cooperation &Conflict; Critical Studies on Security; European Journal of International Security; International Security; Journal of Conflict Resolution; Journal of Global Security Studies; Journal of Strategic Studies; Security Dialogue; Security Studies; Survival. 5 – Arms Control and Nuclear Security Journals: Arms Control Today; Bulletin of Atomic Scientists; International Journal of Nuclear Studies; Journal for Peace &Nuclear Disarmament; Nonproliferation Review. The survey covered all articles published in these journals. We excluded editorial comments, reviews of any kind (i.e., book reviews) external news articles or blogs, letters to the editor, addendums and other nonrelevant sections. We established 6 datasets. Data set 1: All 16 journals. Comprises all articles from the 11 international security and 5 arms control and nuclear security journals from January 2014 to December 2019. Does not include letters to the editor, book reviews, or external blogs. Total articles: 3,068 by women (individual and coauthor): 665 by men (individual and coauthor): 2,036 by mixed gender teams: 367 articles with a gender perspective: 91 Data set 2: All international security journals  (11 journals). January 2014-December 2019 Total articles: 2,147 by women (individual and coauthor): 487 by men (individual and coauthor): 1,375 by mixed gender teams: 285 gender articles: 71 arms control/nuclear articles: 338 Data set 3: All arms control and nuclear security journals (5 journals). January 2014-December 2019 Total articles: 921 by women (individual and coauthor): 178 by men (individual and coauthor): 661 by mixed gender teams: 82 articles with a gender perspective: 20 Data set 4: All arms control and nuclear security articles (16 journals). Comprises all articles  from the 5 nuclear journals and 338 arms control/nuclear security issues articles from  the 11 security journals. Total articles: 1,259 by women (individual and coauthor): 250 by men (individual and coauthor): 893 by mixed gender teams: 116 articles with a gender perspective: 21 Data set 5: All nuclear security articles in all journals (16 journals). Total articles: 877 by women (individual and coauthor): 144 by men (individual and coauthor): 661 by mixed gender teams: 72 Data set 6: All nuclear security articles in internationals security journals (11 journals). Total articles: 194 by women (individual and coauthor): 29 by men (individual and coauthor): 149 by mixed gender teams: 16 All data is available from WIIS. Contact: info@ wiisglobal.org, Subject: Scorecard data

By Chantal de Jonge Oudraat and Soraya Kamali-Nafar

For over 30 years, Women In International Security (WIIS) has worked to advance the role of women in national and international security. While much progress has been made, the number of women occupying prominent positions in foreign and defense policy remains limited. As a result, the role of women in decisionmaking in foreign and defense policies is under-developed.

Indeed, while women constitute 40 percent of the Foreign Service officer corps, they hold only one-third of the chief of mission positions.1 Women make up 33 percent of the Department of Defense civilian staff and 18 percent of the DOD active duty officer corps, and they remain grossly under-represented at the highest ranks—less than 8 percent have the rank of general or flag officer.2

Women also remain under-represented as expert commentators in the media. Women accounted for just  24 percent of foreign affairs and national security experts invited to speak on major political talk shows.3 Manels— that is, event panels with only men—remain common in  the United States, including in Washington, DC.4

The lack of women in prominent positions in the foreign policy and national and international security establishments In 2000, the UN Security Council adopted resolution 1325 on Women, Peace and Security, which recognized the importance of the role of women in matters related to international peace and security.7 In 2011, the US rolled out a US National Action Plan on Women, Peace and Security, and in November 2017, the US Congress adopted the Women, Peace and Security Act, which posited that “the United States should be a global leader in promoting the meaningful participation of women in conflict prevention, management and resolution, and post-conflict relief and recovery efforts.”8

Think tanks play an important role in shaping foreign and defense policy agendas. Think tank experts shape these agendas by moving in and out of many critical positions in the US government and by participating in policy debates  in the media.

Many think tanks have recognized the importance of diversifying their staff and recruiting and retaining more women.9 Many have in recent years added programs highlighting women in the field (see below). Unfortunately, many think tanks continue to suffer from significant gender gaps. First, only 32 percent of the national and international security think tanks are headed by a woman.

is surprising since for over a decade more than 60 percent of those enrolled in graduate programs (masters and doctoral programs) in the social and behavorial sciences (including political science and international relations) have been women.5 The 7,000-member International Studies Association (ISA), the professional association for scholars, practitioners, and graduate students in the field of international studies, has 43 percent female membership. Amongst its graduate student members, women are in the majority.6

Figure 1: Heads of Washington, DC Think Tanks

Figure 2: Average % of Experts in Washington, DC 

Think Tanks by Gender

Figure 3: Average % of Governing Board Members of

Washington, DC Think Tanks by Gender

Second, on average only 27 percent of expert staff are women. Only 3 out of 22 think tanks (14 percent) have achieved gender parity within their expert staff. Third, only 22 percent of think tank governing boards are women. Finally, only one think tank has integrated gender in its programs.

Since 2007, the Think Tanks and Civil Societies Program (TTCSP) of the University of Pennsylvania has published an annual Global Go To Think Tank Index Report. The report measures the roles think tanks play in governments and civil societies around the world. It does so by ranking think tanks in a variety of categories, including top think tanks by region and areas of research.10

Table 1: Washnigton, DC Think Tanks with Women at the Helm 
Center for American Progress (CAP)Ms. Neera Tanden, President and CEO2011
Center for a New American Security (CNAS)Ms. Victoria Nuland, CEO 2018
German Marshall Fund (GMF)Dr. Karen Donfried, President2014
Heritage FoundationMs. Kay Coles James, President2017
New America Dr. Anne-Marie Slaugther, President and CEO2013
US Institute of Peace (USIP)Ms. Nancy Lindborg, President and CEO2015
Wilson Center for International ScholarsMs. Jane Harman, President and CEO2011

Unfortunately, the Global Go To Think Tank Index Report does not consider how gender balances or gender programming influence these roles. In sum, up until now there has not been a systematic effort to collect data on the gender balances within the major thinks tanks active in national and international security arena.11 Nor has there been a systematic effort to survey the programs of think tanks to see how gender is integrated into them.

The WIIS Gender Scorecard: Washington, DC Think Tanks fills this gap by presenting data with regard to the gender balance of 22 major think tanks that work on foreign policy and national and international security issues and are based in the Washington, DC area. We also present information about the gender and women’s programs within these think tanks.

This scorecard is part of a broader WIIS initiative to promote the integration of gender perspectives into national and international security agendas.12 Indeed, we believe that gender perspectives are insufficiently integrated into analyses of national and international security challenges.13 An important step in the right direction is to achieve gender parity at the level of the expert staffs. In addition, we believe that it is important to achieve gender parity at the level of the governing boards of thinks tanks. Indeed, boards of directors and trustees have judiciary responsibilities for the governance of thinks tanks, they oversee think tank activities, and help set the strategic direction. Without leadership from the top, gender gaps will remain.14

By publishing this scorecard, we hope to stimulate discussions within the think tanks on how to close the gender gaps on their expert staffs and governing boards. We also hope to stimulate a broader discussion about the importance of gender when examining important international security challenges. We believe that a more diverse staff within think tanks, as well as more diverse governing boards, will stimulate innovative and better approaches to critical national and international security challenges and help to make the world a better place.

Scoring the Tanks

The scorecard reviews think tanks along four main axes:

percentage of women that lead the think tanks;

percentage of women experts in the think tank’s foreign policy and national and international security programs;

percentage of women in the governing bodies of the  think tanks.

number of think tanks with significant commitment to gender and/or women’s programming.

Heads of Think Tanks

Of the 22 institutions surveyed, only seven (32 percent) are led by women – the Center for American Progress, the Center for a New American Security (CNAS), the German

Marshall Fund (GMF), the Heritage Foundation, New America, the US Institute of Peace (USIP), and the Woodrow Wilson Center for International Scholars.

Experts

Only three think tanks—the Stimson Center, the Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI), and the US Institute of Peace (USIP) —have reached gender parity at the level of their expert staff.

On average, only 27 percent of the expert staff of Washington, DC thinks tanks surveyed are women.

Figure 4: % of Women Experts in Washington, DC Think Tanks


51 50 49

Governing Boards

The gender gap is particularly stark at the level of the governing boards. No think tank has achieved gender parity. The Institute for Policy Studies and the Aspen Institute come closest, with 44 percent and 43 percent women, respectively.

On average, only 22 percent of the Board of Directors or Trustees are composed of women.

Gender or Women’s Programming

Most Washington, DC think tanks do not consider the role of gender in national and international security. For many in the traditional security think tank community—men and women—gender is often equated with “women” or a “woman’s point of view.” A 2016 survey by the New America

Foundation found that the majority of US policymakers and elites had little knowledge and understanding of gender. Most equated gender with women. If at all open to the idea of a gender

Figure 5: % of Women on Governing Boards of Washington, DC Think Tanks widespread within the DC foreign policy and security think tank

Table 2: % of Women Experts in Washington, DC Think Tanks
RankThink Tank% of Women 
  1Stimson Center51%
  2Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI)50%
  3US Institute of Peace (USIP) 49%
  4Institute for Policy Studies (IPS)44%
  5RAND Corporation40%
  6Center for a New American Security (CNAS)37%
  7Wilson Center for International Scholars34%
  8New America33%
  9Center for Strategic & International Studies (CSIS)30%
10    Atlantic Council  Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (CEIP) Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)29%  
13  CATO Institute German Marshall Fund (GMF)27%  
15Brookings Institution26%
16Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC)24%
17Heritage Foundation22%
18American Enterprise Institute (AEI)21%
19Aspen Institute20%
20Lexington Institute17%
21Center for American Progress (CAP)16%
22Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA)13%

the programming center on gender to the front office and began mainstreaming gender throughout its work in 2015, most notably in its field projects and programs. Since 2016, USIP has had a director for gender policy and strategy that oversees and advises all programs on gender. The director sits in the Policy, Learning and Strategy Center, which reports directly to USIP’s president.

None of the other think tanks have integrated gender into their national and international security programming. Most other think tanks have separate programs that have a focus on women, rather than gender. A few think tanks work on the Women, Peace and Security (WPS) agenda, but most of that work is not integrated into their other national or international security programs.16

Think tanks with notable programs on women and/or the WPS agenda include the following:17

The Center for a New American Security (CNAS) launched a Women In National Security program in 2014.

The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) launched a Smart Women, Smart Power Program in December 2014 and a Women’s Global Leadership Program in 2015.

The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) has a Women and Foreign Policy Program and a Women and Foreign Policy Program Advisory Council founded in 2002.

New America started work on the WPS agenda in its Better Life Lab and Political Reform Program.

The RAND Corporation has a webpage called Rand Women

To Watch. It also has programs on Gender Equity in the Workplace and Gender Integration in the Military, which addresses issues related to women and transgender military personnel. In its work on Female Populations RAND addresses issues faced by women and girls, including women refugees, migrants, and gender-based and intimate partner violence.

The Woodrow Wilson Center has a Global Women’s Leadership Initiative (GWLI) (since 2012) and a Women In Public Service Project.

Most research on the WPS agenda and the intersections of women, gender, and national and international security issues is carried out outside of the foreign policy and national and international security think tank establishment by nongovernmental organizations and civil society groups. While many of these groups are active in advocacy and operational work, many also conduct research and produce policy papers. Most of these organizations are members of the US Civil Society Working Group on Women, Peace and Security  (US CSWG). (see box page 6).

Table 3: % of Women on Governing Boards of Washington, DC Think Tanks

Rank     Think Tank         % of Women  

Institute for Policy Studies (IPS)     44%

Aspen Institute    34%

Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)           31%

            Wilson Center for International Scholars

Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC)      29%

New America      27%

            RAND Corporation

  8         German Marshall Fund (GMF)       26%

            Stimson Center

Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA)        25%

Heritage Foundation         24% 12 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (CEIP) 23%

Center for American Progress (CAP)           22%

Brookings Institution        21%

            Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI)

16         Atlantic Council 20%

            US Institute of Peace (USIP)

18         CATO Institute    11%      Center for Strategic & International Studies (CSIS)     

20         Center for a New American Security (CNAS)           10%

21-22    American Enterprise Institute (AEI)            0%

            Lexington Institute

Concluding Thoughts

The main security policy establishments, including think tanks, continue to be staffed and managed mostly by men.

The top 10 think tanks in the United States, as ranked by the Go To Think Tank Index Report—Brookings, CSIS, CEIP, Heritage Foundation, Wilson Center, RAND, CAP, CFR, Cato, Atlantic Council—are often not those who do best in terms of gender balance or gender programming, the Wilson Center being the exception.

While we see an increasing number of women entering the field of national and international security, their influence remains limited. Only 3 out of 22 think tanks have achieved  gender parity at the level of their expert staff.

We hope that the publication of this scorecard will stimulate discussions and encourage thinks tanks to conduct a gender analysis of their organizations.18

Such an analysis should include a more fine-grained examination of the gender balance within their institutions. For example, what positions do men and women occupy within the foreign and national and international security expert positions available at the organization? How are hiring and retention policies affecting the gender imbalances? Are there gender pay gaps? Do men and women get interviewed and quoted equally? If not, why not? These discussions should include not just the human resources department, but also and most important the staff of the policy programs in question.

In addition, think tanks should examine the gender balance at their governing boards and how they can increase efforts to attract more women to the boards. Organizations, like WIIS can help think tanks identify women with the necessary expertise and experience.

A think tank gender analysis would also include an examination of how gender is integrated into the analysis of national and international security issues. Program directors should be encouraged to examine how research on women and gender can become a more integral part of their foreign policy and national security programs, instead of standalone, siloed, programs.

Change within institutions require leadership from the top. They also require that programs and program staff are held accountable. Collecting gendered data on such things as new hires, panels, and media outreach is often a first step.19

Lastly, think tanks may consider appointing a Gender Advisor (GENAD). Such advisors have been particularly useful in government settings (USAID, State and DoD) and international organizations (United Nations, NATO). When appointing GENADs, it is important to locate them in policy positions or in the think tank’s front office so that they have direct access to the leadership.

Members of the USCSWG
4Girls GLocal Leadership Alliance for Peacebuilding American Red Cross Amnesty International USA Asia Foundation Baha’is of the United States Equality Now Fuller Project for International Reporting Futures Without Violence George Washington University Center for Gender Equality in International Affairs Georgetown Institute for Women, Peace & Security Human Rights Watch Inclusive Security Institute for State Effectiveness (ISE) International Center for Research on Women (ICRW) International Civil Society Action Network (ICAN) International Foundation for Electoral Systems (IFES) International Republican Institute (IRI) International Research and Exchanges Board (IREX) Mina’s List / Peace is Loud National Democratic Institute Our Secure Future: Women Make the Difference PAI Peace X Peace Promundo – U.S. Protect the People Saferworld Strategy for Humanity The Tahrir Institute for Middle East Policy (TIMEP) United Nations Association of the USA U.S. National Committee of UN Women Vital Voices Global Partnership WomanStats Project Women Enabled International Women for Afghan Women Women In International Security (WIIS) Women of Color Advancing Peace and Security (WCAPS) Women’s Action for New Directions (WAND) Women’s Refugee Commission Secretariat: USIP Fiscal Sponsor/Agent: WIIS

Much progress has been made with regard to gender equality. In the last two decades the number of women studying national and international affairs has grown enormously. Students (women and men) are also increasingly interested in analyzing the role of gender and gender inequalities on national and international security. Think tanks no longer have many excuses for the persisting gender gaps and the neglect of gender perspectives. In a world with increasingly complex national and international security challenges, think tanks need to appeal to broad expertise in order to advance peace and security in the 21st century.

Methodology

The WIIS Gender Scorecard: Washington, DC Think Tanks surveys 22 think tanks with a strong presence in the Washington, DC area. They all work on a broad range of international affairs and national and international security issues. Most are mentioned in the 2017 Global Go To Think Tank Index Report and/or get regular mention in the media.20

This scorecard does not include university-based research institutes (e.g., the McCain Institute or the Center for Transatlantic Relations). The scorecard also excludes those think tanks focused on a specific region (e.g., the Middle East) or one functional area (e.g., migration or international economic development).

While gender can be defined and discussed as more than just women and men, this survey takes a binary approach and conducted its evaluation using women and men and based its evaluation on the names and photographs found on organizations’ websites.

Data on each of the think tanks were collected in August 2018 from the think tanks’ own websites. Experts in foreign policy, defense, and national and international security were selected based on the identification of such experts by the think tanks themselves. We did not analyze the positions of the experts. Some think tanks include junior staff; others will identify only more senior staff. Similarly, we did not distinguish between non-resident and resident experts. For each think tank, we followed the think tanks’ own identification of its experts. For the full data set, see the WIIS Gender Scorecard: Washington, DC Think Tanks Data Set – 2018 at wiisglobal.org.

Table 4: WIIS Gender Scorecard: Washington, DC Think Tanks in alphabetical order. 
American Enterprise Institute (AEI) head: Arthur Brooks (M) Nat./Int. Security Experts: 21% women total: 29                    6 (F) + 23 (M) Governing Board: 0% women total: 27          0 (F) +27 (M) Atlantic Council head: Fred Kempe (M) Nat./Int. Security Experts: 29% women total: 227                     66 (F) + 161 (M) Governing Board: 20% women total: 200                  39 (F) +161 (M) Aspen Institute head: Dan Porterfield (M) Nat./Int. Security Experts: 20% women total: 10                    2 (F) + 8 (M) Governing Board: 34% women total: 77          26 (F) + 51 (M) Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC) head: Jason Grumet (M) Nat./Int. Security Experts: 24% women total: 17                    4 (F) + 13 (M) Governing Board: 29% women total: 17          5 (F) + 12 (M) Brookings Institution head: John R. Allen (M) Nat./Int. Security Experts: 26% women total: 109                    28 (F) + 81 (M) Governing Board: 21% women total: 89          19 (F) +70 (M) Cato Institute head: Peter Goettler (M) Nat./Int. Security Experts: 27% women total: 11                    3 (F) + 8 (M) Governing Board: 11% women total: 19          2 (F) + 17 (M) Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (CEIP) head: William J. Burns (M) Nat./Int. Security Experts: 29% women total: 31                    9 (F) + 22 (M) Governing Board: 23% women total: 31          7 (F) + 24 (M) Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA) head: Thomas G. Mahnken Nat./Int. Security Experts: 13% women total: 32                    4 (F) + 28 (M) Governing Board: 25% women total: 8            2 (F) + 6 (M) Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) head: John J. Hamre (M) Nat./Int. Security Experts: 30% women total: 108                    32 (F) + 76 (M) Governing Board: 11% women total: 44          5 (F) + 39 (M) Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) head: Richard N. Haass (M) Nat./Int. Security Experts: 29% women total: 75                    22 (F) + 53 (M) Governing Board: 31% women total: 36          11 (F) + 25 (M)Center for a New American Security (CNAS) head: Victoria Nuland (F) Nat./Int. Security Experts: 37% women total: 78                    29 (F) + 49 (M) Governing Board: 10% women total: 21                    2 (F) + 19 (M) Center for American Progress (CAP) head: Neera Tanden (F) Nat./Int. Security Experts: 16% women total: 19                    3 (F) + 16 (M) Governing Board: 22% women total: 9    2 (F) + 7 (M) German Marshall Fund (GMF) head: Karen Donfried (F) Nat./Int. Security Experts: 27% women total: 44                    12 (F) + 32 (M) Governing Board: 26% women total: 19                    5 (F) + 14 (M) Heritage Foundation head: Kay Coles James (F) Nat./Int. Security Experts: 22% women total: 32                    7 (F) + 25 (M) Governing Board: 24% women total: 25                    6 (F)+19 (M) Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) head: John Cavanagh (M) Nat./Int. Security Experts: 44% women total: 16                    7 (F) + 9 (M) Governing Board: 44% women total: 18          8 (F) + 10 (M) Lexington Institute head: Merrick “Mac” Carey (M) Nat./Int. Security Experts: 17% women total: 6       1 (F) + 5 (M) Governing Board: 0% women total: 7            0 (F) + 7 (M) New America head: Anne-Marie Slaughter (F) Nat./Int. Security Experts: 33% women total: 104       34 (F) + 70 (M) Governing Board: 27% women total: 22     6 (F) + 16 (M) Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI) head: Ernest J. Moniz (M) Nat./Int. Security Experts: 50% women total: 18                    9 (F) + 9 (M) Governing Board: 21% women total: 34          7 (F) + 27 (M) RAND Corporation head: Michael D. Rich (M) Nat./Int. Security Experts: 40% women total: 613            245 (F) + 368 (M) Governing Board: 27% women total: 26                    7 (F) + 19 (M) Stimson Center head: Brian Finlay (M) Nat./Int. Security Experts: 51% women total: 72                    37 (F) + 35 (M) Governing Board: 26% women total: 27                    7 (F) + 20 (M)US Institute of Peace (USIP) head: Nancy Lindborg (F) Nat./Int. Security Experts: 49% women total: 72     35 (F) + 37 (M) Governing Board: 20% women total: 15         3 (F) + 12 (M) Wilson Center for International Scholars head: Jane Harman (F) Nat./Int. Security Experts: 34% women total: 187  64 (F)+123 (M) Governing Board: 31% women total: 16         5 (F) + 11 (M) NOTE: The following experts, fellows, scholars, and staff have been included for: AEI: All Foreign and Defense Policy Scholars; Atlantic Council: All fellows and non-resident fellows mentioned under experts; Aspen Institute: All staff and experts from the following programs: Security & Global Affairs, including the Aspen Strategy Group, the Cybersecurity & Technology Program, and the Homeland Security Program; Bipartisan Policy Center: All experts mentioned under the National Security Project; Brookings Institution: All experts mentioned under the Foreign Policy Program; CATO: All experts mentioned under Foreign Policy and National Security; Carnegie Endowment: All experts in the Washington, DC office; CSBA: all national and international security analysts and fellows; CSIS: All experts; CFR: All experts; CNAS: All experts (staff and adjunct fellows); CAP: All experts mentioned under the Foreign Policy and Security Program; GMF: All experts; Heritage Foundation: All experts staff identified as working on national and international security issues; IPS: all experts identified as working on foreign policy and national and international security; Lexington Institute: All experts; New America: All current staff and fellows mentioned in the following programs: Cybersecurity Initiative and International Security. NTI: All experts: Rand Corporation: All experts mentioned under Homeland Security & Public Safety, International Affairs, and National Security & Terrorism programs; Stimson Center: All national & international security experts mentioned under “Staff”, note: we did not include development staff, finance officers, or other administrative staff members; USIP: All experts; Wilson Center: All experts. For a full list of experts go to the WIIS  Gender Scorecard: Washington, DC Think Tanks Data Set – 2018 at wiisglobal.org

References

See Andrea Strano, “Foreign Service Women Today: The Palmer Case and Beyond,” The Foreign Service Journal, March 2016. On the lack of women in leadership positions, see also Katherine Kidder, Amy Schafer, Phillip Carter, and Andrew Swick, From College to Cabinet: Women In

National Security, (Washington, DC: CNAS, 2017); Women In Public Service Project, Wilson Center, Roadmap to 50×50, Power and Parity in Women’s Leadership, (Washington, DC: Wilson Center, May 2018); Joan Johnson-Freese, “Half of Heaven: Why More Women are Needed in National Security,” TedxTalks, August 17, 2018; and Adrianna Pita, Tamara Cofman Wittes and Sarah Yerkes, “Presence and Voice: Women In Foreign Policy,” A Brookings Podcast, June 8, 2016.

See DOD, Office of Diversity Management and Equal Opportunity, DoD Diversity and Inclusion 2013 Summary Report (Alexandria, VA: DOD, 2013), pp. B3-B6; and Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services, 2017 Annual Report, (Alexandria, VA: DOD-Dacowits, 2017). See also Kidder et al. From College to Cabinet.

See Foreign Policy Interrupted, “Women’s Voices Marginalized in

2016 News Coverage of Foreign Affairs and National Security,” Media Matters, March 8, 2017. Foreign Policy Interrupted reports similar numbers with respect to the number of women who have seen their Opeds published. See website: www.fpinterrupted.com. See also: Amanda Taub, “The #ManPanel problem: Why are female experts still so widely ignored?,” Vox, March 16, 2016.

Several initiatives to combat manels and gender discrimination were launched in 2015. In Australia, the Panel Pledge was launched—i.e., a commitment not to appear on male only panels. In Geneva, the International Gender Champion network was launched, committing heads of organizations to no longer sit on single-sex panels.  See also, Daniel Drezner, “A Few Thoughts on Manels,” Washington Post Blog, June 7, 2018; and Tamara Wittes and Marc Lynch, “The mysterious absence of women from Middle East policy debates,” Washington Post, January 20, 2015.

See Hironao Okahana and Enyu Zhou, Graduate Enrollment and

Degrees: 2006-2016 (Washington, DC: Council of Graduate Schools, 2017). For example, in the Fall of 2016, first-time graduate enrollment in the social and behavorial sciences (including anthropology, economics, political science and international relations) saw 38 percent men and 62 percent women enrolled in doctoral programs and 35.5 percent men and 64.5 percent women enrolled in Masters programs. A separate study should examine what happens with these graduates.

See “Gender Distribution of ISA Membership” at https://www.isanet.org/ISA/About-ISA/Data/Gender. In the international security thematic group of ISA women make up 37 percent; in foreign policy analysis women 34 percent; in peace studies 53 percent. Women outnumber men in 8 of the 29 thematic groups: interdisciplinary studies, environmental studies, feminist theory and gender studies, global development, global health, human rights, international law, and peace studies. Women also outnumber men in three of its four caucuses: Global South Caucus LGBTQ and allies caucus; and the Women Caucus. The Online Media Caucus has 48 percent women members.

See, for example, Kathleen Kuehnast, Chantal de Jonge Oudraat and Helga Hernes, eds., Women and War: Power and Protection in the 21st Century (Washington, DC: USIP, 2011), and Chantal de Jonge Oudraat and Michael E. Brown, “WPS+GPS: Adding Gender to the Peace and Security Equation,” WIIS Policybrief, November 2017

The US NAP on WPS was updated in June 2016. See also Women, Peace and Security Act of 2017, Public Law No:115-68, 10/06/2017.

See for example Vestige Strategies, Advancing Diversity and Inclusion in the Foreign Policy Sector, (Washington, DC: Vestige Strategies, July 2018). See also the activities of The Think Tank Diversity Consortium (TTDC).

James McGann, 2017 Global Go To Think Tank Index Report, (Philadelphia, PA: TTCSP, the Lauder Institute, The University of Pennsylvania, 2018).

Micah Zenko has been one of the few foreign policy experts paying attention to this issue. See for example, Micah Zenko, “Where are the Women in Foreign Policy Today,” Foreign Policy Blog Post (September

26, 2015). In the past, WIIS has surveyed women in the State Department, staff in the US Congress and women in Peacekeeping, but never did a survey of women in think tanks. See wiisglobal.org

This scorecard is also part of a broader initiative of the Leadership Council for Women In National Security (LC-WINS) that seeks greater diversity within think tanks. LC-WINS is an informal group of foreign policy and national security professionals created in 2017. 13.  See de Jonge Oudraat and Brown, “WPS+GPS”

Leadership should also encourage men and women to integrate gendered perspectives into their analysis of international security problems.

See Heather Hurlburt, Elizabeth Weingarten and Carolina Marques de Mesquita, A Guide to Talking Women, Peace, and Security Inside the U.S. Security Establishment (Washington, DC: New America Foundation, 2017)

In 2015, the Compton Foundation launched a $5 million special peace and national security initiative with a focus on the Women, Peace and Security agenda and the integration of a gendered perspective in US Foreign Policy. Thanks to these grants The Council on Foreign Relations, CNAS, and New America greatly expanded their programs on women and the WPS agenda.

We do not include those think tanks that view women and gender mostly through a domestic lens (Brookings and CAP) or those that might have an occasional publication related to women and gender and national or international security.

An increasing number of companies in the corporate sector seek EDGE (Economic Dividends for Gender Equality) workplace gender equality certification. WIIS has also a growing portfolio of gender evaluation and analysis and gender trainings.

The collection of data and the setting of benchmarks and objectives has proven to be very effective within the Scandinavian academic and think tank community. In August 2018, a consortium of seven European universities launched a new Charter that seeks to build a stronger commitment to gender equality in higher education and research institutions. The Charter is part of an EU Horizon 2020 initiative entitled the SAGE (Systematic Action for Gender Equality) project. It outlines 12 principles that support structural, cultural and political

change to eradicate sexism, bias, and other forms of discrimination

in research and higher education, and advance an intersectional and inclusive concept of gender. See “New European Charter to Promote Gender Equality in the University Sector,” Press Release, Trinity College

Dublin, August 22, 2018; see also http://sage-growingequality.eu. The Irish Minister of State for Higher Education, Mary Mitchell O’Connor, announced that University funding would in future be linked to how well universities are tackling gender inequality, including gender inequalities among staff. See Catherine Sanz, “University funding will  be linked to gender equality,” The Times, August 21, 2018.

20.  McGann, 2017 Global Go To Think Tank Index Report. We also consulted https://thebestschools.org/features/most-influential-think-

tanks/