AN INVESTIGATION OF WOMEN-LED FIRMS AND VENTURE 

CAPITAL INVESTMENT 

FINAL REPORT 

October 20, 2001 

Prepared by: 

Dr. Candida G. Brush, CB Associates and Boston University 

Dr. Nancy Carter, University of St. Thomas 

Dr. Elizabeth Gatewood, Indiana University
 

Dr. Patricia G. Greene, University of Missouri-Kansas City
 

Dr. Myra M. Hart, Harvard Business School 

Prepared for: 

U.S. Small Business Administration, Office of Advocacy 

National Women’s Business Council 

CB Associates 

590 Washington St. 

Duxbury, Mass. 02332 

781-934-7892 (Phone/FAX) 

Federal Identification # 04-3496658 
 

 

AN INVESTIGATION OF WOMEN-LED FIRMS AND VENTURE CAPITAL 

INVESTMENT 

Executive Summary 

For decades venture capital investment assumed a quiet yet crucial role in the 

development and expansion of growing ventures. But, the 1990’s boom in technology 

dramatically increased in the pool of equity capital and funding of new ventures with 

high growth potential. There is a substantial body of venture capital research on equity 

fund flows, investor criteria, and the nature of the investor-investee relationship, but no 

consideration of women-led ventures. Studies of women entrepreneurs have focused on 

psychological dimensions, business characteristics and performance, but their financing 

strategies remain unexplored. Similarly, limited research on minority entrepreneurs 

explores issues of community participation, social networks, and loan accessibility but, 

research on venture capital financing is scarce. Hence, questions about the intersection of 

gender, race, ethnicity and equity capital financing remain unexamined. There is little 

data upon which to base public policy recommendations or programs. 

This research investigated venture capital funding and women-led businesses. We 

utilized two data sets. First, we conducted a literature review and analyzed the nature of 

the venture capital industry. Using Pratt’s Guide to Venture Capital we created a 

proprietary data base reflecting women’s involvement in the venture capital industry in 

1995 and 2000. This data provides a summary of their participation and roles in venture 

capital companies. 

Second, we analyzed the Venture Economics data set which includes private 

equity investments by venture capital firms for more than 30 years. Our analyses 

considered business location, size, industry and business sector which enabled us to a 

“map” venture capital investment in women-led-firms over time and test for differences 

based on gender. Although the data set specified gender and minority identification in its 

collection procedures, there was no minority data available. We therefore collected 

anecdotal information on minority access to capital through a website search and followup phone calls. 

Results of this study show a very small percentage of investments are made in 

women-led ventures for all years, but a slight increase in investments occurred between 

1995-1998. Women-led ventures more likely to receive funding are those in early stage 

financing, located in the West and Northeast, and in computer hardware/software 

business sectors. Investments in women-led ventures differ from those in men-led 

ventures by business sector and stage of investment. 

Present trends suggest women-led ventures are faring better. However the 

proportion of funds that women-led ventures receive remains extremely small. This 

raises the possibility that women could be “left behind” in the wealth creation process. 

Implications for public policy conclude this report. 

2 
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

The authors gratefully thank the US Small Business Administration’s Office of 

Advocacy, the National Women’s Business Council and the Kauffman Center for 

Entrepreneurial Leadership for their support of this research. This investigation is part of 

a larger research project, The Diana Project, which studies the apparent disconnect 

between opportunities and resources in equity funding for high growth women-owned 

businesses. We are indebted to our research assistants, Atieno Adala, Juliette Brush, 

Wendy Carter, Manuela Hoehn, Margaret Owen, Siti Syahwali and Linda Sauber. 

3 
 

AN INVESTIGATION WOMEN-LED FIRMS AND VENTURE 

CAPITAL INVESTMENT
 

Introduction 

Entrepreneurship is recognized as the engine of growth in the U.S. economy and 

women are playing an important role. Over the past 10 years women-owned businesses 

grew dramatically in number, revenues and employment. Their participation in all 

aspects of venture creation and growth has attracted significant attention. From 1987 to 

1996, the number of women-owned businesses grew 78 percent, well above the 48 

percent growth posted by all US businesses.1

 In 1992 it was estimated that more than 

600,000 women-owned firms had sales greater than $1 million (Women Owned 

Businesses: The New Economic Force, 1992). In 1996, women owned 36 percent of U.S. 

businesses, employed 26 percent of the total work force and generated $3.1 trillion in 

revenues or 16 percent of total US revenues (Women in Business, 1998). Employment 

gains (28%) and revenue growth (34.8%) from 1996 to 1997 represent an even greater 

impact on the economy than does the sheer growth in the number of such firms. In 1999 

it was estimated that there were 9.1 million women-owned businesses employing 27.5 

million workers (NFWBO, 1999). 

Yet, recently-released figures based on the 1997 U.S. Census indicate a lower 

number of women-owned businesses, a discrepancy that resulted from the adoption of 

different qualifying criteria. To be considered “women-owned” under the new definition 

requires 51% ownership, $1,000 minimum annual revenues (up from the previous 

criterion of $500), and that the business be privately held.2

 The new criteria exclude 

many high growth publicly held ventures that are at the upper end of the revenue 

continuum. The change in definition results in understating the numbers and economic 

contribution of women-owned businesses. However, this Census report also shows that 

over the past decade the number of women-owned businesses increased at a faster rate 

than all firms. Regardless of which criteria is applied, the growth and contribution of 

women-owned business is indisputable. 

Trends for minority-owned businesses were similar to those of women-owned 

businesses but represented even more striking growth patterns. Between 1987 and 1997 

the number of firms reported as minority-owned grew 168 percent, reaching a total of 

3.25 million businesses (Minorities in Business, 1999). The increase in employment and 

revenue was equally strong. In 1997 minority-owned businesses employed 3.9 million 

people, an increase over the decade of 362.1 percent. Revenues reached $494.7 billion, 

representing a gain from 1987 to 1997 of 342.8 percent (Minorities in Business 

1 U.S. Small Business Administration (1982-1996), The State of Small Business: A Report of the President,
 

US Government Printing Office, Washington DC. 

2

 The U.S. Census reported that the new criteria shows women own 26% of all US businesses, or 5.4 

million. 

4 
 

 

 

 

 

Advocacy, 1999). Whereas there was variability among minority groups on all growth 

measures, the general trend in each of the minority categories was strongly positive.3 

The Equity Funding Gap 

A history of the U.S. Venture Capital Industry4 shows that in 1979 there were 

approximately 225 venture capital firms managing $2.9 billion, and by 1989 there were 

674 managing $33.4 billion (Timmons & Sapienza, 1992). Since 1995, the venture 

capital industry has recorded exceptional and unprecedented growth. In 2000, $103 

billion was invested reflecting a one year increase of 113%. Not only did the total dollars 

invested reach new highs, but also the number of companies receiving equity funds rose 

from 3,967 in 1999 to 5,380 in 2000 (nvca.org/VEpress01_29_01). In 2000, firms 

received an average of $19 million to fuel growth. 

The crash of the dot.coms slowed investment but has not stopped it. Venture 

capital investments for the first quarter of 2001 were reported at $11.7 billion, 

representing 1,072 investments and an average of $10.94 million per company 

(nvca.org/VEpress 05/11/01). In addition, fundraising is down 68% from a year ago, 

with experienced funds having more success in raising money. The second quarter of 

2001 shows $10.6 billion or 13.8% of the total being invested primarily in life 

sciences/medical/health whereas only 11.2% went to such companies in the second 

quarter of 2000. 

The spectacular increase and sudden slow-down of venture capital investing raises 

concerns about investor returns, increased sophistication of limited partners, venture 

capital firm investment specialization, and growing investment size. At the same time, 

recent trends may raise the standards for entrepreneurs seeking capital and increase the 

competition among venture capitalist for good deals (Timmons & Bygrave, 1997). 

While the long-term economic impact of the current venture capital phenomenon remains 

to be seen, equity investment is still recognized as a priority for fast growth businesses. 

Notable changes in the types of investments were evident over the past decades. 

While the 1980s marked a trend toward investments at the seed stage (approximately 

44% of investments) (Timmons & Sapienza, 1992), in the late 1990s the majority of 

venture capital firms were investing in later stages of venture development (Timmons & 

Bygrave, 1997; Kelly, 1999). Investments by industrial sector, once focused primarily on 

computer hardware and energy products, broadened considerably in recent years. During 

the first half of 1999, investments were divided between computer software and services 

(38.9%), communications (20.5%), consumer related (11.7%), medical/health (7.8%), 

3

 The groups mentioned here are those used by the U.S. Government and include Hispanic, Black, and 

Asian. 

4

 The National Venture Capital Association represents more than 400 venture capital and private equity 

organizations. Venture Economics is a Thomson Financial company and provides information for private 

equity professionals through newsletters and research reports (nvca.org/2001) 

5 
semiconductor and electrical related (4.7%), biotechnology (4.1%), computer hardware 

(2.5%), industrial/energy (.21%) and a broad category of other products 

(9.6%)(Thompson Financial Securities Data, 1999). 

In 2000, the vast majority of venture capital investments were made primarily in 

communications; computer software, hardware and services; and medical, health, and 

biotechnology. Strong trends in regional concentration of investments were reported. 

More than 30 percent of the funds were invested in Northern California firms, primarily 

in the Silicon Valley; approximately 10 percent invested in New York and 9 percent in 

New England (Pratt, 1998; nvca.org/VEpress01_29_01). Together ventures in these 

three regions received nearly 56 percent of total dollars invested ($57 billion), which 

approaches the total dollars invested in 1999. Compared to 2000, a greater number of 

companies in the expansion stage received venture capital, which might be a sign that 

venture capitalists were investing in their own portfolio companies 

(www.nvca.org/VEpress09_19_01). 

Despite the explosive growth in equity investment, indications were that women 

and minority entrepreneurs were receiving only a miniscule percentage of equity capital. 

A private study of the venture capital industry conducted by Venture One for Aurora 

Venture partners in 1996 indicated that of the 6,362 companies that received venture 

funding from 1991 to 1996, only 31 deals were with women-led ventures (Seegull, 1998). 

Pratt (1998) estimated that of the 1,900 companies that received $11.4 billion in venture 

capital in 1997 less than 2.5% (or 47) were women-led businesses. Similarly, a national 

study of 14,424 new firms found that when controlling for human capital and firm traits, 

minority entrepreneurs faced greater barriers in obtaining equity capital (Bates & 

Bradford, 1992). Another study of Hispanic-American ventures and equity capital noted 

that Latino businesses were “relegated to a peripheral status on the radar screens of most 

venture capitalists” (Morales & Saade, 2000, p. 59). 

What explains this equity funding gap in women-led ventures? Previous research 

suggested three reasons that women may receive less equity investment: choice of 

industry, geographic location, and business size. 

Choice of Industry 

Researchers found that success in obtaining venture capital often depended on 

industry sector (Hustedde & Pulver, 1992). The predominant industry choices of female 

and minority entrepreneurs appeared to be mismatched with the industry preferences of 

venture capitalists. Scholars speculated that venture capitalists sought to avoid risk, 

while maximizing returns, and were likely to avoid diseconomies involved in 

disproportionate monitoring and due diligence associated with certain populations of 

entrepreneurs (Brophy, 1997). 

6 
“The combination of a perceived unacceptable risk/return relationship and 

investment diseconomies pose special problems for firms of varying types of 

ownership, many of which carry an extra burden of prejudgment with them as 

they approach the financial community. These include women-owned and 

minority-owned firms, and family businesses, franchises, and microbusinesses...” (Brophy, 1997, p.7). 

Separate statistics on women-owned businesses seemed to support the speculation 

that women-led ventures were in sectors less popular for equity investment, and that they 

were not located in regions receiving high amounts of venture capital. For example, US 

Small Business Administration statistics showed that female and minority-owned 

businesses were heavily concentrated in the service (51% and 46%) and retail (18% and 

21%) sectors, and most of their firms were small (www.sba.gov/advo/stats/wib.html). 

Geographic Location 

Another variable discriminating between firms successful and less successful in 

obtaining venture capital was geographic location. Studies showed that proximity to an 

urbanized setting was critical in acquisition of capital (Hustedde & Pulver, 1992). 

Relatedly, it was widely recognized that venture capital firms were geographically 

concentrated in certain areas (e.g. California, Massachusetts, Chicago, New York) 

(Timmons & Bygrave, 1997). Statistics on dollars invested in recent years supported 

this, showing that more than 50 percent of funds were extremely geographically 

concentrated in three areas (Northern California, New York and New England). For firms 

located in rural areas or outside of major venture capital concentrations, it was harder to 

gain access to funds. By contrast, there was strong evidence that the highest growth rate 

for the numbers of women-owned firms was in Nevada, Georgia, New Mexico, Florida 

and Idaho (Women in Business, 1998), all states outside of the major concentrations of 

venture capital providers. 

Stage of Investment 

Research showed that venture capital firms were more likely to invest in firms 

that had reached the accelerated growth or later growth stage (Mason & Harrison, 1999; 

Timmons & Bygrave, 1997). Since 1992, there was a trend towards heavier investing 

and re-investing in ventures reaching later stages as the risk was lower, returns were 

quicker and less managerial attention was required by the VC firm (Timmons & 

Sapienza, 1992). At the same time, the number of deals per year was increasing, the 

average deal size was growing faster. Hence, even though the pool of venture capital 

was increasing, less capital was available to new entrepreneurs, especially those seeking 

small amounts of capital necessary for early stage venture growth. 

7 
 

 

Academic Literature Review 

Our academic literature review examined all issues of Journal of Business 

Venturing5 published between 1997 and 2002, a search that yielded 34 (of 150) studies 

about venture capital. We also identified four literature reviews published in the State of 

the Art of Entrepreneurship (Bygrave, 1992; Timmons & Sapienza, 1992) and 

Entrepreneurship 2000 (Brophy, 1997; Timmons & Bygrave, 1997). All articles except 

for the literature reviews were empirical studies and two examined the European Venture 

Capital Industry (Ooghe, Manigart & Fassian, 1991; and Manigart, 1994). To date, 

research falls generally into three streams; the relationship between the investor and the 

venture capital firm; the operations and decision processes of the venture capital firm (1) 

the relationship between the investor and the venture capital firm; (2) the operations and 

decision processes of the venture capital firm, particularly pertaining to the search/screen 

and evaluation activities; and (3) the relationship between the entrepreneurial company 

and the venture capital firm 

Nearly half of the studies (n=15) focused on the venture capital firm, the decision 

process and evaluation criteria in assessing the new venture (Sapienza, 1992; Sapienza & 

Korsgaard, 1996; Zacharakis & Shepherd, 2001; Zacharakis & Shepherd, 2002). While 

earlier studies relied on surveys and self-reports by venture capitalists, more recent 

studies applied cognitive theory and experimental design methods (Zacharakis & 

Shepherd, 2001; Zacharakis & Shepherd, 2002). 

We identified eight studies that examined the relationship between the investor 

and venture capital firm, although this topic was examined in the literature reviews 

(Timmons & Sapienza, 1992; Bygrave, 1992; Brophy, 1997; Timmons & Bygrave, 

1997). Strategies of venture capital firms were considered in some empirical works 

(Gupta, & Sapienza, 1992; Swartz, 1991), while other authors explored the “valued 

added” to entrepreneurial firms from venture capitalists (Sapienza, 1992), the effects of 

team processes in the partnership (Watson, Ponthieu, & Critelli, 1995), and venture 

capitalists’ perceptions of serial entrepreneurs (Wright, Robbie & Ennew, 1997). 

Agreeing with Mason and Harrison (1999), we concluded that the majority of 

research, regardless of research stream or theoretical framework, approached venture 

capital studies from the perspective of the venture capitalist, or the venture capital 

industry, which is the supply side of the industry. Less often did research examine the 

demand side, or the approaches taken by firms seeking venture capital. Indeed, industry 

overviews explicitly pointed out that future research opportunities existed in studying 

public policy, industry competitiveness and venture capital firm operations and strategies 

(Timmons & Bygrave, 1997; Sapienza & Timmons, 1992), and called for examination of 

5 While there are several journals that publish venture capital research, this Journal of Business Venturing 

is widely recognized as a top journal in the Entrepreneurship field, and given its mission, publishes a fairly 

high number of articles about venture capital. Our purpose was not to be comprehensive, but to conduct a 

representative literature review. 

8 
the factors influencing variations in the ability of some populations of firms to obtain 

venture capital. 

None of the 34 articles and book chapters we reviewed indicated that women or 

minority-owned businesses were included in the samples of ventures seeking equity 

funding, and no studies of venture capital decision-making or venture capital firms 

indicated whether or not women venture capitalists were included in the samples. 

When the search of current articles on venture capital yielded no studies that 

explicitly included women-owned businesses, we expanded our review to current 

literature on financing and women-owned businesses. Studies about the access and use 

of debt or credit or financing strategies and relationships to growth and performance were 

extremely limited. Research examining issues of gender and financing focused 

exclusively on access to debt capital (Riding & Swift, 1990; Buttner & Rosen, 1988). 

Findings on the relationship between gender and access to debt financing were 

inconclusive. A study of the role of initial firm resources on start-up success showed that 

women-owned firms had less access to financial resources than did their male 

counterparts (Carter, Williams & Reynolds, 1997). A follow up study showed that 

availability of capital through private and personal banking sources was related to the size 

of women-owned businesses (Carter & Allen, 1997). Similarly, Buttner and Rosen 

(1988) found that bankers perceived men to be higher on characteristics associated with 

successful entrepreneurship than women. 

In contrast, a study of access to bank financing in Canada showed few differences 

where firm age, size, and growth rate were controlled (Riding & Swift, 1990; Fabowale, 

Orser & Riding, 1995). A study by Coleman (2000) using bank data showed that 

women-owned businesses were smaller and newer than men-owned, and that they were 

less likely to use external financing. She concluded there was no apparent discrimination 

in lending based on gender, but noted that women often paid higher interest rates and 

higher collateral requirements, supporting results of Fabowale, et al (1995). 

We also reviewed articles on minority business access to funding (debt) and found 

it to be similarly limited. Bates and Bradford’s (1992) investigation of venture capital 

financing of minority businesses found that 2.8% of the 14,424 firms studied received 

equity capital and that human capital factors (education, age, managerial experience) 

distinguished those receiving capital from those not receiving equity. Another study 

pointed out that black-owned businesses had limited access to financial capital in general, 

in part because they were poorly capitalized at the start, and had less experience and 

education (Bates, 1996). A third study of ethnic immigrants found that trust, based on 

shared values played a significant role in capital acquisition (Greene, 1997). Further, 

Greene and Butler (1997) point out in their extensive literature review that capital 

formation varies by ethnic group, many ethnic entrepreneurs using non-traditional means 

to finance new businesses. 

9 
 

 

 

In summary, we concluded that current studies in the venture capital investigated 

the relationship between the investor and the venture capital firm, the search/screen, 

evaluation and decision processes, and the strategies/characteristics of the venture funded 

firms. But, to date research has not included or not reported whether women venture 

capitalists or women-owned businesses were included in the samples. Research on 

financing strategies and access to debt for women-owned businesses was sparse and 

inconclusive. Hence, the academic literature showed a significant “gap” in our 

understanding of the ways women finance their businesses and women’s participation in 

the venture capital industry, further justifying the need for this study. 

Research Objectives and Methodology 

The purpose of this study was to map and describe equity financing over the past 

30 years and to examine the participation of women.6 As the time period extended three 

decades, we did a separate analysis of the data for the years 1988-1998 in order to detect 

more recent trends reflecting the growth in women-owned businesses and rise in venture 

capital funding. While our initial intention was to examine minority access to financing 

as part of this study, we found that the data sets we utilized did not collect or code for 

race or ethnicity.7 The research questions of interest in this study were: 

1.	 What were patterns of women’s participation in the venture capital industry? 

2.	 What were patterns of venture capital funding in women-led businesses over 

the past 30 years? 

3.	 What were patterns of venture capital funding in women-led businesses over 

the past 10 years? 

Research Design and Methodology 

Phase I 

Our study was conducted in two phases. Phase I was designed to explore the 

history and context of the venture capital industry. We began with a literature review of 

articles about venture capital from entrepreneurship journals (reported above). Each 

article was abstracted, and assessed according to theory, research question, sample and 

major findings. 

6

 This study first proposed to investigate women-owned ventures, however, the data set did not permit 

identification of “ownership”. Instead, we screened the data set for highest ranking role (Chairman and 

President/CEO) and re-coded the data set for gender of the “leader”, consistent with previous studies 

(MacMillan, Zeman & Subba Narasimha, 1987; Hisrich & Jancowicz, 1990). Details of our coding 

procedures are included in Appendix A. 

7

 The Kauffman Center for Entrepreneurial Leadership recently funded a study to investigate minority 

access to equity capital. Principle investigators are Dr. Timothy Bates and Dr. William Bradford. 

10 
 

We then examined women’s participation in the venture capital industry using 

Pratt’s Guide to Venture Capital for 1995 and 2000. Pratt’s Guide lists venture capital 

firms that voluntarily report information, such as location of offices, funds under 

management, age of company, investment preferences and management. We identified 

women by names and their roles in the decision-making hierarchy through visual 

examination of the volumes. A website check was used to verify any names that were not 

identifiable by gender from the printed Guide. Titles were used to determine role, which 

were categorized (e.g. partner, president, CEO, managing director, chairman, principal, 

senior vice-president, vice president, associate, other titles). In cases where titles were not 

listed, phone calls and website checks were used to verify. Statistical analysis included 

frequencies and descriptive statistics. 

Phase II 

This research phase used a comprehensive data set,8 which included information 

on companies funded by venture capital since 1957. This data set was made available 

through an ongoing project by one of the investigators with the Kauffman Center for 

Entrepreneurial Leadership (KCEL) and that Center's strategic partnership with the 

National Venture Capital Association and Venture Economics, a subsidiary of Securities 

Data Corp. The data set included information on 20,000 portfolio companies, 34,000 

executives and 120,000 company investments. The information was provided by 4,500 

private equity firms that managed 7,000 private equity funds. The data was collected by 

the National Venture Capital Association (NVCA) and was updated on a quarterly basis. 

However, as noted by MacMillan et al, (1995), and as is the case with many 

publicly available data sets, this data set has some common limitations- i.e. completeness 

of responses and definitional purity (Phillips & Dennis, 1997). In addition, only 

businesses receiving funding are included in the data set, therefore comparisons to 

businesses not receiving funding are not possible from this data set. 

In order to analyze the data set, we re-organized, re-formatted, and re-coded the 

original data set. When we received the data, it was organized in four separate excel files 

with multiple redundant records. It was necessary to review each line of data to 

determine redundant company entries to insure that each investment was counted only 

once. This necessitated re-coding, checking and cleaning. Files were transposed, 

imported into an SPSS format, and merged into a single data base. 

All responses were coded according to the sex of firm owner or management, year 

of first investment, stage at first investment, and industrial sector. The original data set 

was not coded for sex of participants, therefore, it was necessary for us to screen all 

entries and code male or female by first name or title (Mr./Mrs./Ms). Entries for which 

8

 The data was originally collected by Venture Economics, but taken over by the National Venture Capital 

Association. 

11 
 

 

 

sex was not apparent by either criterion were coded "2," used to establish frequencies, 

and set aside for further investigation and consideration. We screened according to job 

title, selecting the highest-ranking role for each firm as the representative. In cases where 

both Chairman and President/CEO were listed, we chose the latter, reasoning that 

management capabilities was one of the key determinants in the decision to fund a new 

venture (MacMillan, et al, 1985, Hisrich & Jancowicz, 1990). 

 Analyzable variables included stage of investment (coded: early, expansion, late, 

buyout/acquisition), month/year of investment, and amount of investment. Company 

characteristics included were geographic location (city, state, zip), industry (SIC and 

industry category –e.g. software), gross sales, and owner demographics. All of these 

variables were recorded for each investment stage- for instance sales and profits were 

noted for a company every time it received venture capital.9 Although minority status 

was included in the description of the data set, we have since learned this information 

was not collected.10 

Data recoding was followed by statistical analysis. We ran frequencies, means, 

and descriptive statistics for the overall data set, and for subgroups (gender, decade, 

sector and geographic region). This was followed by running cross-tabs and X2 analyses 

to determine if gender was related to stage and/or amount of investment for all years and 

for the past 10 years, 1988-1998, anticipating that patterns might be different given the 

increased growth of the venture capital industry and new business formations by women 

in the past decade. 

As noted earlier, our data sets did not collect information coded by race or 

ethnicity. However, in order to gain an understanding of the issues surrounding the 

funding of minorities, and particularly minority women, we conducted a website search 

of more than 150 websites to identify (1) venture capital funds focusing on minority and 

minority women investing, (2) community and trade organizations facilitating or 

supporting minority women in growth and equity capital acquisition, and (3) minority 

women-led ventures seeking or receiving equity investment. Websites that were specific 

to certain groups (e.g. Hispanics, Asians, African-Americans) were examined. Follow-up 

phone calls were made to clarify information from the websites. 

Results 

Women’s Participation in the Venture Capital Industry 

In order to address our first research question: “What were the patterns of 

women’s participation in the venture capital industry?”, we conducted statistical tests of 

9

 This information was not reported consistently for every company, as there is substantial missing data. 10 While minority status was a variable listed in the data set, the number was very small. This information 

was collected only sporadically during the past 6 years, and it is uncertain to what extent the numbers were 

analyzable. 

12 
 

the compiled and re-coded data from Pratt’s Guide. Listings were based on individual 

level data (women’s names) and collapsed using company name and information. From 

this, 462 firms were identified in the combined 1995 and 2000 data sets that had women 

listed in one or both years. 

In 1995, 276 women were listed, while in 2000, 529 women were listed, a rate of 

increase of 92 %. The number of firms listing one woman increased by 49% from 144 to 

237, while the number of firms listing two women rose by 93%, and those listing 3 or 

more grew by 183%. While the average number of women per firm had increased from 

1.37 to 1.48, in 2000 the number of firms having more than 3 women listed remains very 

small, less than 10% of all firms listing women.(See Table #1) 

The total number of people listed in the industry in 1995 was 3,647; the 

percentage of women was 7.8%. By 2000, the total number of people in the industry was 

6,086, and women accounted for 8.8%. Similarly, the average number of women in 

venture capital firms showed a slight increase from 1.37 to 1.49 over the same time 

period. However, the percentage of women among the staff listed decreased over the five 

year period from 35% representation to 32%. (See Table #1). 

The number of women listed in top decision positions increased by 109% from 

106 in 1995 to 222 in 2000 with nearly 50% of firms in 2000 having women partners. 

The number of women at mid-decision levels increased by 73%, from 100 to 173. At the 

lower decision level, the increase was much smaller, 27% over the same time period (See 

Table #1.). Although women serving as managing directors of venture capital firms also 

increased, their numbers remained extremely small. 

The data showed that even though the percentage of women was overall quite 

small relative to their male counterparts, the number of women working in the venture 

capital industry was increasing, many were rising to major decision-roles in their firms 

and there were significant numbers of women in the pipeline. In just 5 years, the 

progress women made in penetrating a previously male-dominated industry was notable. 

Characteristics of Businesses Funded by Venture Capital- 1957-1998 

To address our second research question, “What were patterns of venture capital 

funding in women-led businesses over the past 30 years?”, we conducted statistical tests 

on the National Venture Capital Association data set that we recoded. For the 8311 

businesses11 for which the leader’s gender could be identified (in the years between 1957-

1998), 395 (2.4%) of the investments were made in women-led ventures, while 7916 

were made in men-led ventures (See Table #2). Between 1957-1980, there is no year in 

11 Of the 16,135 investments in ventures between 1957 and 1998, we were able to identify the gender of the 

founder in 8, 311. For many cases, the name of the management contact for the business receiving the 

investment was only listed by last name, or initial. In other instances, we could not assume that the first 

name was male or female. For all cases in which there was any question, the businesses were counted as 

“unidentifiable” by leader’s name. 

13 
 

 

 

which there were more than 3 identifiable women-led ventures receiving venture capital, 

but after 1980, the numbers of investments grew (See Table #3). Between 1981-1987 the 

greatest number of investments in women-led ventures was 33 in 1987, representing 

4.1% of all investments. Investments in women-led ventures between 1988 and 1998 

increased to a high of 54 (still representing 4.1%) in 1998. The range was a low of 9 in 

1995 to a high of 43 in 1996, to 52 (3.5%) in 1997, and 54 (4.1%) in 1998. 

From 1957-1998 service-related ventures received the greatest proportion of 

venture capital investment for women (53%) and the second highest percentage for menled ventures (42%). Manufacturing ventures received the greatest investment overall at 

nearly 50%, and for men-led ventures, this comprised 50% of investments. For womenled ventures, manufacturing companies received 38% of total investments, while 

wholesale firms received 5.2% similar to men-led ventures (5.5%) (See Table #4). No 

identifiable women-led ventures in FIRE, construction or public administration received 

equity financing between 1957-1998, although a small percentage of men-led ventures in 

these sectors received investments. 

The analysis of funding by stage of investment showed that the highest percentage 

of investments in women-led ventures were made at early stage similar to men-led 

ventures (See Table #5). However, within gender percent shows that 63% of womenled ventures received equity at seed stage compared to 55% of men-led ventures. The 

data suggests that proportionately, women are more likely to receive early stage funding, 

whereas men are more likely to receive funding at early, expansion and buy-out stages. 

Ventures funded were most often located in the West (42%) and East (31%). 

Only about 8% to 11% of businesses receiving funding were located in the South, 

Midwest and Central regions. Among women-led ventures receiving funding, more than 

52% were located in the West, about a fourth (26%) were located in the East, and less 

than 5% (4.6%) were located in the Midwest. (See Table #6) Notably, women-led 

businesses located in the Midwest received the smallest percent .2 % of total investments, 

and 4.6% within gender, compared to 7.9% of the total, and 8.3% within gender for menled businesses. Not surprisingly, women-led ventures located in the West received 51% 

of all investments in women-led ventures, compared to 41% of investments in men-led 

ventures. 

An analysis of investments by business sector showed that the most popular sector 

for investing was computer hardware/software/service which received 39% of total 

investments (See Table #7). This was followed by medical/health (15%) and 

communications (15%). In comparing investments by sector for men and women, we saw 

that women-led software ventures received 2.4% of total investments, and nearly 50% of 

all investments in women-led businesses. On the other hand, men-led businesses in this 

area received 36% of the total and 38% of the total for all men-led businesses. The data 

shows that women-led-businesses in medical/health and biotechnology receive a higher 

proportion of investments than men-led ventures, while the reverse is true for 

communications and industrial/energy. 

14 
 

Characteristics of Businesses Funded by Venture Capital- 1988-1998 

Our third research question examined patterns in the past 10 years: “What were 

patterns of venture capital funding in women-led businesses over the past 10 years?” 

As seen in Table #8, the proportion of investments made in women-led ventures was the 

highest in the most recent decade (3.5%). The cumulative average of investments in such 

firms between 1957 and 1988 was 2.4%.(See Table #2) The total number of investments 

in firms identified as women-led ventures between 1988-1998 was 290 (vs. 395 for all 

years) which represents 73% of all investments (See Table #8). 

We began with an analysis of investments by industrial sector. No investments 

were made in women-led ventures in construction, public administration, finance, 

insurance, or real estate (FIRE) (See Table #9). Women in service (56%) or 

manufacturing (36%) were more likely to receive funding than in other industries, while 

the same was true for men (42%) and (43%), respectively. Men and women-led 

businesses in wholesale and retail were less likely to receive funds. Hence the pattern of 

investment by sector is quite similar for men and women-led businesses between 1988-

1998. 

On the other hand, there were differences in that men-led ventures in 

manufacturing received a higher percentage of total investments, whereas women-led 

ventures in services received the highest proportion of funding for all women-led 

businesses. (See Table #9) This may reflect general trends: women were more likely to 

start service-based businesses rather than manufacturing-based businesses 

(www.sba.gov/advo/stats/wib.html). From 1988-1998, there was only one sector for 

which women’s receipt of venture capital was not significantly different from men: retail 

and wholesale. 

In the years 1988-1998, both men and women led ventures in early stages 

received more investments. However, women-led companies were more likely to be 

funded at early stages of business development, with more than 62% of all investments in 

women-led ventures occurring at this stage, compared to 43% for men-led ventures. 

Men-led ventures more often received funding at buy out/acquisition. (See Table #10). 

The buy-out acquisition stage of investment represented 18 percent of all investments 

made in male-led ventures, but not quite 1 percent of those made in women-led firms. 

Statistical tests showed significant differences between men and women led ventures in 

stage of investment, men were significantly more likely to receive buy-out and 

acquisition investments, while women were more likely to receive seed stage 

investments. 

15 
 

 

Patterns of Minority Access to Equity Capital 

As indicated earlier, the data sets we analyzed (NVCA and Pratt’s Guide) 

included no breakdown by race or ethnicity. We collected anecdotal information to 

determine trends in equity funding for minority businesses by using a snowball approach 

starting with general web searches, follow-up phone calls and e-mail correspondence. 

We examined 500 web pages (150 websites) and made 70 phone calls. Initial web 

searches employed key terms and combinations of key terms (e.g. minorities, venture 

capital, equity financing and specific ethnic group classifications used in prior research 

by the US Small Business Administration). This yielded more than 13,000 hits (for 

instance, venture capital and African –Americans, 3,840 hits). Next, organizations and 

resources targeted at business development of minorities were investigated. Several 

organizations were contacted by phone (n= 45) to determine if they provided venture 

capital, education/programs about venture capital, or had information about minority 

business access to venture capital. Phone interviews, websites and materials mailed to 

us as a result of our inquiries were analyzed by two researchers. We developed following 

“stylized” facts from this investigation. 

a.	 Venture capital funds, angel investment programs, and equity funding 

organizations targeting minorities focused on businesses specializing in computer 

and information systems, health care services and communications. 

b.	 Regional initiatives designed to advance venture capital investment (e.g. an 

Illinois strategic initiative for investing state resources in education and advanced 

research and development, health sciences and bio-technology and cutting –edge 

information and technology programs) did not appear to specifically target 

women or minority businesses. (www.state.il.us/tech/venture.htm). 

c.	 Networking behaviors by minorities to locate equity investment began with other 

minorities in related services (i.e. lawyers, accountants). Quite often, these were 

local business based groups (e.g. the Atlanta Business League, www.theabl.org), 

minority groups of local Chambers of Commerce, or targeted ethnic organizations 

that provided a variety of services (e.g. Asian Inc., www.asianinc.org). These 

organizations noted consistently that the process of obtaining equity capital varied 

by ethnic group. For example Vietnamese and Korean families were more likely 

to engage in “pooling” of funds to seed new ventures. 

d.	 Recent minority businesses investment conferences were fostering networking 

and contacts among members. For example, the National Organization of 

Minority Funds (www.naich.org) sponsored conferences in the past 30 years to 

increase the number of equity investments in minority-led ventures. 

e.	 Minority women seeking capital may have greater barriers than white women or 

minority men. For example, one Hispanic woman entrepreneur, who owns a 

sizable multi-media production company, suggested that venture capitalists were 

16 
less likely to consider minority women than white women. This perception was 

echoed by an Atlanta-based Hispanic woman, who owns a steel fabrication firm, 

and a Chinese woman who founded a multi-outlet medicine research institute. All 

three women had established businesses of over $ 1,000,000 in sales, and desired 

to expand their businesses rapidly. 

Discussion 

This exploratory analysis showed that the proportion of women-led businesses 

funded by venture capital over the past 30+ years was extremely small. Earlier reports 

note that about two percent of the deals receiving venture capital were women-led firms, 

and our data showed overall similar results. Whereas the data in this study showed the 

overall percentage for the past 30 years was 2.4%, the last few years provided indications 

of an increasing trend (up to 4.1% in 1998). Nevertheless, the proportion of womenowned businesses receiving venture capital from 1957-1998 remained extremely small 

(395 compared to 7916), especially considering the overall number of women-owned 

businesses in the US. 

Industry differences were apparent. There were no investments reported for 

women-owned firms in construction, Finance, Insurance, Real Estate (FIRE), and public 

administration, and only one in transportation/communications. In part, the explanation 

for this lack of investment in these sectors may be a result of the small number of women 

starting businesses in these sectors. In 1982, women’s share of all non-farm soleproprietorships in agricultural services, mining, transportation and utilities, and 

manufacturing was less than 1%. In construction, women held a 2.3% share (The State of 

Small Business, 1995). By 1992, women’s share rose to 1.4% (82,526 businesses) in 

agricultural services, 2.6% (152,346 businesses) in manufacturing and 3.1% (183,695 

businesses) in construction (The State of Small Business, 1995). The numbers of 

women-owned businesses in finance, real estate and insurance had a 9.4% share in 1982 

(246,403 businesses) and rose to 10.2% (602,802 businesses) by 1992. One reason for 

the comparative lack of investment in women-led ventures during the 1980’s and early 

1990’s may be explained by their low level of participation in these areas. 

By contrast, in 1992, women owned 53.6% of all service firms (3,158,444 

businesses). When examining the percentage of investments in women-led ventures 

within this sector, we found that women in services received only 6.7% (155) of total VC 

investments in this sector. Hence the proportion of women receiving equity investments 

relative to presence in the industry is comparatively small, considering the total number 

of investments in service businesses (2,306). (See Table #4, #9). On the other hand, the 

overall high percentage of investments in service businesses for both men and women-led 

ventures disconfirms the idea that only manufacturing or technology ventures receive 

equity capital 

17 
 

 

Extended analysis of investments in industry by gender between 1988 and 1998 

shows that women’s share of investments in manufacturing businesses rose from 4.2% to 

7.2% and in services from 6.7% to10.9% (See Tables #4, #9). Within-industry analysis 

of investments in women-owned businesses shows the highest percent of investments is 

received by services and manufacturing, which parallels the distribution of investments in 

men-owned businesses. The lack of significant differences between industry sectors 

supported the strength of the supply side of the industry. Venture capital dollars were 

attracted to specific industries in a way that benefited risk/reward trade-offs desirable to 

equity investors. 

Furthermore, it has been argued that transportation and communications 

businesses are more technology focused and innovative, and therefore have the potential 

to grow faster and bigger (Kirchhoff, 1994). According to the National Women’s 

Business Council, the women in management positions in technology-based businesses 

grew by 21% between 1998-1999 (NWBC, 1998). 

Although the distribution of investments by industry and gender was similar, the 

major disparity was in the sheer number of investments, which was less than 10% of all 

investments that could be identified by gender and SIC code. There were more than 

600,000 women-owned businesses in FIRE, and over 3 million women-led firms within 

the service industry. By 1998, 70% of all women-owned businesses were in the service 

and retail sectors, with 10.2% in finance, real estate, and insurance (SBA, 1998). 

Consequently, it was surprising that the proportion of women-led firms in these sectors 

receiving venture capital funding was so small. 

A closer examination of investments by business sector showed women in 

biotechnology and medical/heath sectors received proportionately more investments than 

men-led ventures. This might parallel the increased numbers of women attending 

medical school. In 1960, approximately 6% of attendees were female, but this grew to 

25% in 1982 and 43% in 1995 (AACSB.org). On the other hand, the share of women-led 

businesses in computer hardware/software and communications receiving financing was 

comparatively low, even though these areas were the highest for women overall. This 

suggests that women do indeed start ventures in sectors that are attractive to venture 

capital funding. A recent survey of applicants to the Springboard Venture Forums shows 

that 50 percent of the women-led businesses that received investments were in computer 

hardware/software/services. Further, a review of the National Venture Capital 

Association statistics from between 1988 and 1998 showed that service-related ventures 

received the greatest proportion of venture capital investments for both men-led (42 

percent) and women-led (53 percent) ventures. It is clear that women are active 

participants in industrial sectors attractive to venture capitalists (The Diana Project, 

2001). 

The geographical distribution of investments by gender showed that 70% of all 

investments were made in businesses located on the East and West coasts for both men 

and women-led ventures. This suggests that businesses located in the Midwest, South 

18 
 

 

 

and Central regions of the US were receiving a combined 25% of investments. While the 

distribution of the venture capital industry matched the investments, it was less clear 

whether the proportion of fundable businesses were concentrated on the two coasts. For 

women-led businesses in the South and Midwestern part of the US, a combined 48 

businesses or 12% were funded over 30 years. This compared to 1247 for men-led (16%) 

It raised the question as to whether location was playing a significant role in determining 

access to equity funding. 

Looking at the relationship between stage of development and equity funding 

from 1957-1998 showed that the bulk of women-led businesses were funded at early 

stage, while men-owned businesses received buy/out and acquisition funding. The data 

from the past 10 years did not reflect a change in that relationship: more than 60% of 

women-led investments were still early stage investments. This suggested that even for 

women-led growth oriented firms, those likely to be funded by venture capital, growth by 

acquisition may not be a primary strategy, by choice or because of lack of funding to 

pursue those strategies. Data showed that the number of women starting new businesses 

was greater in the past 5-10 years (SBA, 1998). Even with early stage investments, it was 

expected firms will have received angel and private funding prior to seeking institutional 

equity funding (Bartlett, 1999). Furthermore, early stage investment might be 

considered more risky, especially if the market is emerging and products are in the 

development stage (Mason & Harrison, 1999). 

But, it is less clear whether or not there were disparities in the amount of funding 

or stage of funding based on gender due to perceived risk and/or diseconomies of extra 

due diligence as suggested by Brophy (1997). Our data did not allow for analysis of 

amount of investment by stage and gender, but clearly this should be examined in future 

investigations. 

Our assessment of the venture capital industry showed that women are making 

significant progress participating as venture capitalists and moving into decision-making 

roles. Ironically, even though the industry itself experienced rapid growth, the increase in 

women’s participation remained comparatively small. The extent to which this 

influenced the ability of women to access the informal network is yet to be determined. 

One survey of 145 venture capitalists over 98 different firms showed that more than 67% 

had and MBA, and than 56% graduated from Stanford and Harvard. A majority had more 

than 10 years business experience, which for 34% of respondents was in corporate 

management, while 30% were former entrepreneurs (Smart, Payne & Yuzaki, 2000). By 

comparison, statistics show that women are less likely to have corporate experience as on 

average 25% of all managers of Fortune 200 companies are female, some companies 

reporting only 7%. On the other hand, the pool of women qualified to be venture 

capitalists by virtue of entrepreneurial experience appears to be increasing. Another study 

found that of firms that went public in 1988, there were no women on top management 

teams, but by 1993, 27% of firms going public had women in the management ranks 

(Welbourne & Cyr, 1999). 

19 
 

 

 

It is widely stated that the process of raising capital is a “non-formal process,” 

that capital seekers should talk to people who have done it before, get guidance from 

professionals in the business (e.g. investment bankers, attorneys) (Alimansky, 2000). 

Further, empirical research shows that the industry is highly concentrated with several 

large firms controlling the bulk of capital and consistently producing superior returns 

(BenDaniel, Reyes & D’Angelo, 2000). Reasons given for this concentration were the 

tendency for risk aversion by limited partners (pension funds, endowments, insurance 

companies) encouraging venture funds to invest in later stage deals, which are less risky. 

This suggests greater challenges for women and minorities who have earlier stage 

businesses, fewer role models and less access to professionals or entrepreneurs who have 

taken companies public. 

Implications 

Entrepreneurship is the engine of economic growth. Equity investments fuel the 

growth and development of new ventures that yield innovative solutions to consumers 

and businesses. Women are contributing to new business development in every sector, 

yet their ability to acquire equity capital remains limited. The industry choice, stage of 

investment and geographic location of most women-led ventures are consistent with 

general practices of entrepreneurs seeking equity to grow their ventures. Moreover, 

women are gaining presence in the venture capital. However, in spite of recent 

developments, the disparity between men and women entrepreneurs and their 

proportional access and receipt of equity funding remains a concern. What are the 

potential implications of this disparity between men- and women-owned ventures and 

their access to equity funding? 

1. Wealth Creation 

Minimal investment in women and minority-led ventures diminishes the 

opportunity for women to grow their businesses and create wealth. We 

determined that over a period of 30 years women received less than 5% of all VC 

investments. The good news is that women’s share increased over recent years, 

but the large disparity between women owning businesses and those receiving 

equity are a policy concern. Further, the numbers of women participating as 

partners in the venture capital industry is equally small. Are women being left out 

of the wealth creation process? Are women being denied the opportunity to share 

in the wealth flowing to venture capitalists and entrepreneurs who successfully 

partner in creating large and valuable enterprises? Will women’s severely limited 

participation in wealth creation influence their ability to build personal and family 

assets? 

20 
 

 

 

2.	 US Competitiveness 

A lack of equity investment in women and minority-led ventures may 

limit growth and diffusion of innovations, job creation and economic 

contributions of these populations to the US economy. Our data showed that 

women created businesses in industries (e.g. manufacturing and services) and 

sectors (computer software, telecommunications, biotechnology) that resonate 

with venture capital investors. Yet the share of women-led ventures in these areas 

receiving equity remains small. Is the US missing out on multiple opportunities 

to develop, commercialize and export many of its most unique inventions, best 

medical solutions, or top technology innovations? 

3.	 Investment Returns 

Continued investing in predominantly male-led geographically 

concentrated businesses may result in less desirable returns to the venture capital 

community. By pursuing a strategy of identifying investments through informal 

networks, is the venture capital community missing out on the chance to fund and 

receive returns from good investments? 

Public Policy Suggestions 

To encourage and facilitate equity investment in ALL entrepreneurial ventures, 

not just those led and founded by men, the following steps should be taken: 

1.	 Track investments and performance of investments by gender, race and 

ethnicity, as well as geographic location in all venture funded companies. 

2.	 Encourage investors to seek out and consider investment in women and 

minority-led ventures. 

3.	 Create programs to educate and prepare women to lead fast growth 

businesses—whether high tech or not. 

4.	 Sponsor forums, like Springboard 2000, to link women and minorities with 

potential investors. 

5.	 Encourage and educate women and minorities to participate in the investment 

process (angels, corporate venture funds, and venture capital firms). 

6.	 Encourage and sponsor additional research to examine the process by which 

men, women and minority-led ventures are screened by angels and venture 

capital firms, to determine if there are any differences. 

21 
 

7.	 Encourage and sponsor research to examine similarities and differences in 

funding stages, funding amounts, venture performance and returns to investors 

by gender and ethnicity. 

8. Encourage and sponsor research to examine the extent to which venture 

capitalists, angels and limited partners (pension funds, endowments, insurance 

companies) perceive investments in women and minority-led ventures as more 

risky investments. 

The Future 

“The equity markets are the last frontier for women entrepreneurs. The stories of 

the women who tried to build their businesses without a map to the gold in these 

markets were the motivation for launching the Springboard forum series. Now we 

have more than stories, we have results. The experiences of these women 

entrepreneurs have become the gold mine that will be used to guide the next wave 

of entrepreneurs through these markets.” 

-Amy Millman, President, Springboard Enterprises 

Within the past two years, several groups around the country have coalesced 

around the issue of women business owners, growth opportunities and equity 

investments. Both general networking and focused organizations have created programs 

to advance the development of female entrepreneurs. In addition, venture capital firms 

and angel networks began to devote significant attention to what was perceived as a new 

market – women business owners. Periodically convened by the Kauffman Center for 

Entrepreneurial Leadership, and in partnership with the National Women’s Business 

Council and Forum for Women Entrepreneurs, representatives of many of these 

organizations participated in preparing an agenda for further development 

The series of Springboard Forums held in 2000 provided a vivid example of a 

proactive response to the dearth of women receiving equity investments to grow their 

ventures. The program, intended to accelerate investments in women-led businesses, was 

launched in 1999 by a consortium of leading women’s business advocates and 

organizations. In 2000, forums were held at the Oracle Corporation in Silicon Valley, 

America Online Headquarters in Washington, DC, and the Harvard Business School in 

Boston. Forums in 2001 were held at the Oracle Corporation, as well as Chase 

Manhattan Plaza in New York City, and Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois. 

These six events received 1,700 applications from women entrepreneurs in the software, 

technology, new media, consumer and business products, and life sciences industries. 

Further, the forums showcased 175 women entrepreneurs, attracted nearly 1,000 

investors, and connected almost 2,000 investors, financiers and business development 

professionals in screening and coaching the companies. The women-led ventures 

presenting at these forums have raised more than half a billion dollars, and 80 percent of 

22 
 

these companies still have women at the helm and are continuing to grow. The program 

is continuing as Springboard Enterprises with additional programs and services designed 

to assist women in growing their ventures. 

However, these programs are only a start. The success of the US economy 

depends on the extent to which the best ideas, managed by qualified entrepreneurs 

receive growth capital. We cannot afford to leave out populations of women and 

minorities in either the supply or demand for equity funding. 

23 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 1- Women in the Venture Capital Industry 

1995 PRATTS 2000 PRATTS 1995 

PRATTS 

2000 

PRATTS 

Same 96 Companies 

With Indices taken at 

both ’95 & ’00 

FIRMS 

LISTED 

ONLY IN 

1995 

FIRMS 

LISTED 

IN 

1995 & 

2000 

FIRMS 

LISTED 

IN 

1995 & 

2000 

FIRMS 

LISTED 

ONLY IN 

2000 

TOTAL NUMBER 

OF FIRMS 

462 (94 overlap) 

% 

Increase 

across 

‘95-‘00 

Firms Listing Women Principals 107 94 94 261 201 355 77% 

Number of Women in Industry1 133 143 164 365 276 529 92% 

No women listed 1 (1%) 7 (7%) 

1 woman listed 86 (80%) 58 (62%) 48 (51%) 189 (72%) 144(72%) 237(67%) 49% 

2 women listed 17 (16%) 26 (28%) 21 (22%) 56 (21%) 43(21%) 77(22%) 93% 

3 or more women listed 4 (4%) 9 (10%) 18 (19%) 16 (6%) 13(6%) 34(10%) 183% 

Average women in firms 1.2 1.52 1.74 1.38 1.37 1.49 9% 

Percentage women in firms 35% 35% 35% 31% 35% 32% -9% 

Women’s Position in the Decisionmaking Hierarchy2 

Number of women at Top Decision 

Level 

49 58 91 142 106 222 109% 

Average number of women at Top 

Decision Level 

1.37 1.64 1.95 1.58 1.51 1.69 12% 

Percentage of staff that are women at 

Top Decision Level 

37% 38% 36% 34% 38% 35% -8% 

Number of women at Mid Decision 

Level 

48 52 50 122 100 173 73% 

Average number of women at Mid 

Decision Level 

1.43 1.76 2.15 1.54 1.59 1.71 7% 

Percentage of staff that are women at 

Mid Decision Level 

38% 37% 41% 30% 38% 33% -13% 

Number of women at Low Decision 

Level 

32 24 21 50 56 71 27% 

Average number of women at Low 

Decision Level 

1.17 1.95 2.38 1.81 1.49 1.97 32% 

Percentage of staff that are women at 

Low Decision Level 

27% 32% 29% 32% 29% 31% 7% 

1

- computation based on listing of woman’s name 2- computation of all decision hierarchy measures based on listing of woman’s title- number of which is less 

than indicies based on woman’s name because of missing data. 
Table 2 

Frequency of Firm Acquisition of Venture Capital, by Gender of Firm Leader 

from 1957-1998 

Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative 

Percent Percent 

Male-led 7916 49.1 49.1 49.1 

Female-led 395 2.4 2.4 51.5 

Unidentified 7824 48.5 48.5 100.0 

Total 16135 100.0 100.0 

25 
 

 

 

 

Table 3 

Investments in Women-led Businesses by Year 1957-1998 

Women-led Businesses 

Year Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative Frequency of Women’s 

Investments in Percent Percent all Percentage of 

Women- Led Investments Total 

Ventures by Year 12 

1957 1 .3 .3 .3 1 50.0% 

1958 1 .3 .3 .5 1 50.0% 

1960 2 .5 .5 1.0 25 8.0% 

1968 1 .3 .3 1.3 55 1.8% 

1969 2 .5 .5 1.8 151 1.3% 

1970 1 .3 .3 2.0 102 .9% 

1978 2 .5 .5 2.6 224 .8% 

1980 2 .5 .5 3.1 338 .6% 

1981 5 1.3 1.3 4.3 574 .9% 

1982 4 1.0 1.0 5.4 531 .8% 

1983 8 2.0 2.0 7.4 773 1.0% 

1984 12 3.0 3.1 10.5 732 1.6% 

1985 12 3.0 3.1 13.5 580 2.0% 

1986 16 4.1 4.1 17.6 761 2.1% 

1987 33 8.4 8.4 26.0 804 4.1% 

1988 25 6.3 6.4 32.4 891 2.8% 

1989 26 6.6 6.6 39.0 774 3.3% 

1990 16 4.1 4.1 43.1 430 3.7% 

1991 10 2.5 2.6 45.7 292 3.4% 

1992 17 4.3 4.3 50.0 501 3.4% 

1993 9 2.3 2.3 52.3 412 2.2% 

1994 23 5.8 5.9 58.2 470 4.8% 

1995 15 3.8 3.8 62.0 653 2.3% 

1996 43 10.9 11.0 73.0 1130 3.8% 

1997 52 13.2 13.3 86.2 1493 3.5% 

1998 54 13.7 13.8 100.0 1320 4.0% 

Total 392 99.2 100.0 14,018 

MMissing 3 .8 

i System 395 100.0 

s 

s 

i 

n 

g 

12 Shown are only those years for which women-led ventures received investments; the 

total investments in over the period is higher than this table shows because there were 

investments made every year between 1953 and 1998, while prior to 1980, there were 

several years in which women-led ventures received no investment. Investments in all 

ventures between 1953 and 1980 totaled 1,663, versus 11 for women-led ventures. 

Percents may not add to 100 due to rounding. 

26 
 

 

 

 

 

Table 4 

Frequency of Firm Acquisition of Venture Capital Funding by 

Gender and Industry from 1957-1998 

Industry a Male Female Women’s 

% w/in 

Industry 

Industry 

% of 

Total 

Total 

Investments 

Number % Number % % % 

Construction 3 0.1 0 0.0 0 .05 3 

Manufacturing 2556 50.0 111 38.3 4.2 49.4 2667 

Trans/Comm 8 0.2 1 0.3 11.1 .2 9 

Wholesale 279 5.5 15 5.2 5.1 5.4 294 

Retail 102 2.0 8 2.8 7.2 2.0 110 

FIRE 8 0.2 0 0.0 0 .1 8 

Services 2151 42.1 155 53.4 6.7 42.7 2306 

Public Administration 2 0.0 0 0.0 0 .03 2 

Total 5109 100.0 290 100.0 100.0 5399 

X2 = 18.09 d.f. 7 sig. <.012 

Differences in sample size are due to missing data. Data is presented only for firms for which 

gender of owner is identifiable and SIC code is reported. Industry labels are those reported in the 

NVCA data set. Percents may not add to 100 due to rounding. 

Table 5 

Frequency of Firm Acquisition of Venture Capital by Gender 

and Stage of Investment from 1957-1998 

Stage Male Female Total 

 Number Number % % Number 

% 

Early Stage 4240 52.7 251 3.1 55.9 4,491 

Expansion 1449 18.0 80 1.0 19.0 1529 

Later Stage 580 7.2 28 .3 7.6 608 

Buyout/Acquisition 1097 13.6 31 .4 14.0 1128 

Other 277 3.4 5 .1 3.5 282 

Total 7643 95.1 395 4.9 100.0 8038 

X2 = 22.11 d.f. 4 sig. <.000 

Differences in sample size are due to missing data. Data is presented only for firms for 

which gender of owner is identifiable and investment stage is reported. Percents may not 

add to 100 due to rounding. 

27 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 6 

Chi Square Tests for Gender and Region 1957-1998 

Male Female total 

East 2394 102 2496 

 % in region 95.90% 4.10% 100%

 % in gender 31.20% 25.80% 30.90%

 % of total 29.60% 1.30% 30.90% 

West 3187 204 3391 

 % in region 94.00% 6.00% 100%

 % in gender 41.50% 51.60% 42%

 % of total 39.50% 2.50% 42.00% 

South 612 30 642 

 % in region 95.30% 4.70% 100%

 % in gender 8.00% 7.60% 7.90%

 % of total 7.60% 0.40% 7.90% 

Midwest 635 18 653 

 % in region 97.20% 2.80% 100%

 % in gender 8.30% 4.60% 8.10%

 % of total 7.90% 0.20% 8.10% 

Central 854 41 895 

 % in region 95.40% 4.60% 100%

 % in gender 11.10% 10.40% 11.10%

 % of total 10.60% 0.50% 11.10% 

Total 7682 395

 % in region 95.10% 4.90%

 % in gender 100% 10%

 % of total 95.10% 4.90% 

X2 = 19.346 d.f. 4 sig. <.001 

Differences in sample size are due to missing data. Data is presented only for firms for 

which gender of owner is identifiable and investment stage is reported. Percents may not 

add to 100 due to rounding. 

28 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 7 

Chi Square Tests for Gender and Business Sector 1957-1998 

Male Female total 

Biotechnology 446 40 486 

% in sector 91.80% 8.20% 100% 

 % in gender 7.10% 12.20% 7.30%

 % of total 6.70% 0.60% 7.30% 

Communications 955 25 980 

% in sector 97.40% 48.2.6% 100% 

 % in gender 15.10% 7.60% 15%

 % of total 14.40% 0.40% 14.80% 

Computer hardware 

Software/service 2413 157 2570 

% in sector 93.90% 6.10% 100% 

 % in gender 38.20% 47.90% 38.70%

 % of total 36.30% 2.40% 38.70% 

Industrial/energy 712 10 722 

% in sector 98.60% 1.40% 100% 

 % in gender 11.30% 3.00% 10.90%

 % of total 10.70% 0.20% 10.90% 

Medical/health 945 63 1008

 % in sector 93.80% 6.30% 100% 

 % in gender 15.00% 19.20% 15.20%

 % of total 14.20% 0.90% 15.20% 

Other products 843 33 876 

% in sector 96.20% 3.80% 100% 

 % in gender 13.40% 10.10% 13.20%

 % of total 12.70% 0.50% 13.20% 

Total 6314 328

 % in sector 95.10% 4.90%

 % in gender 100% 100%

 % of total 95.10% 4.90%
 

X2 56.293 d.f. =5 sig. <.000 

Differences in sample size are due to missing data. Data is presented only for firms for 

which gender of owner is identifiable and investment stage is reported. Percents may not 

add to 100 due to rounding. 

29 
Table 8 

Frequency of Firm Acquisition of Venture Capital from 1988-1998 

Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative 

Percent Percent 

Male 4016 48.4 48.4 48.4 

Female 290 3.5 3.5 51.9 

Unidentified 3992 48.1 48.1 100.0 

Total 8298 100.0 100.0 

Table 9 

Frequency and Chi Square Tests of Firm Acquisition of Venture Capital Funding 

by Gender and Industry from 1988-1998 

Industry a Male Female Women’s 

% w/in 

Industry 

Industry 

% of 

Total 

Total 

Investments 

Number % Number % % % 

Construction 4 .2 0 0 0 .15 4 

Manufacturing 992 42.5 77 35.6 7.2 41.9 1069 

Trans/Comm 4 .2 1 .3 20.0 .19 5 

Wholesale 191 8.2 10 4.6 4.9 7.9 201 

Retail 147 6.3 7 3.2 4.5 6.0 154 

FIRE 4 .2 0 0 0 .15 4 

Services 988 42.3 121 56.0 10.9 43.5 1109 

Public Administration 1 .04 0 0 0 .03 1 

Total 2331 100.0 216 100.0 100.0 2547 

X2 = 18.630 d.f. 7 sig. <.009 

Differences in sample size are due to missing data. Data is presented only for firms for which 

gender of owner is identifiable and SIC code is reported. Percents may not add to 100 due to 

rounding. 

30
 
 

 

Table 10 

Frequency and Chi Square Tests of Firm Acquisition of Venture Capital 

by Gender and Stage from 1988-1998 

Stage Male Female Total 

Number % Number % % Number 

Early Stage 1700 39.7 182 4.2 43.9 1882 

Expansion 1110 25.9 61 1.4 27.3 1171 

Later Stage 400 9.3 23 .5 9.9 423 

Buyout/Acquisition 770 17.9 23 .5 18.5 793 

Other 12 .3 1 .02 .3 13 

Total 3992 93.4% 290 6.6% 100% 4282 

X2 = 49.61 d.f. 4 sig. <.000 

Differences in sample size are due to missing data. Data is presented only for firms for which 

gender of owner is identifiable and SIC code is reported. Percents may not add to 100 due to 

rounding. 

31 
 

 

References 

Aldrich, H. 1989. “Networking Among Women Entrepreneurs.” In Hagan, O., Rivchun, C. & 

Sexton, D. (Eds.), Women-Owned Businesses, 103-132. NY: Praeger. 

Alimansky, B. 2000. “Eight Ways to Ruin Your Chances of Raising Equity Capital”, Journal of 

Private Equity, Summer, 78-83 

Banking World. 1992. "Ethnic Minority Business: Bringing Down the Barriers." September. 

Bartlett, J. 1999. “Negotiating the Best Valuation and Terms for Early Stage Investment”, 

Journal of Private Equity, Spring, 7-14 

Bates, T. 1991. "Commercial Bank Financing of White- and Black-Owned Small Business 

Start-ups. Quarterly Review of Economics and Business 31(1): 64-80. 

Bates, T. 1993. Banking on Black Business. Washington, D.C. Joint Center for Political and 

Economic Studies. 

Bates, T. 1997. "The Minority Business Enterprise Small Business Investment Program." 

Urban Affairs Review 32 (5): 683-703. 

Bates, T. & Bradford, W.D. 1992. “Factors Affecting New Firm Success and their Use in Venture 

Capital Financing”, Journal of Small Business Finance. 2;1, 23-38 

BenDaniel, D., Reyes, J. & D’Angelo, M. 2000. “Concentration in the Venture Capital Industry” 

Journal of Private Equity. Summer. 7-13 

Brophy, D. 1992. “Financing the New Venture: A Report on Recent Research.” In Sexton, D.L. 

& Kasarda, J. (Eds.), The State of the Art of Entrepreneurship 387-401. Boston: PWS 

Kent. 

Brophy, D. 1997. “Financing the Growth of Entrepreneurial Firms.” In Sexton, D.L. & Smilor, R. 

(Eds.), Entrepreneurship 2000, 5-28. Chicago, ILL: Upstart Publishing. 

Bruno, A. & Tyebjee, T. 1985. “The Entrepreneurs’ Search for Capital.” Journal of Business 

Venturing, 1: 61-74. 

Brush, C.G.1992. “Research on Women Business Owners: Past Trends, A New Perspective and 

Future Directions.” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 16(2): 5-30. 

Brush, C.G. 1997. “Women-owned Businesses: Obstacles and Opportunities.” Journal of 

Developmental Entrepreneurship, 2(1): 1-24. 

Butler, J. S. & Greene, P.G. . 1997. Ethnic Entrepreneurship: The Continuous Rebirth of 

American Enterprise. Pp. 267-289 In D.L. Sexton and R.W. Smilor (Eds.). 

Entrepreneurship: 2000. Upstart Publishing Co., Chicago, IL 

Buttner, E.H. & Rosen, B. H. 1988. “Bank Loan Officer’s Perceptions of Characteristics of Men, 

Women and Successful Entrepreneurs.” Journal of Business Venturing, 3(3): 249-258. 

32 
 

 

Bygrave, W. D. 1992. “Venture Capital Returns in the 1980’s.” In Sexton, D.L. & Kasarda, J. 

(Eds.), The State of the Art of Entrepreneurship, 438-462. Boston: PWS Kent. 

Carter, N. M. & Allen, K.R. 1997. “Size Determinants of Women-Owned Businesses: Choice or 

Barriers to Resources?” Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 9(3): 211-220. 

Carter, N.M., Williams, M. & Reynolds, P.D. 1997. “Discontinuance Among New Firms in 

Retail: The Influence of Initial Resources, Strategy & Gender.” Journal of Business 

Venturing, 12(2): 125-146. 

Cliff, J. E. 1998. “Does One Size Fit All? Exploring the Relationship between Attitudes 

Towards Growth, Gender and Business Size.” Journal of Business Venturing, 13(6): 

523-542. 

Coleman, S. 2000. “Access to Capital and Terms of Credit: A comparison of Men and WomenOwned Businesses”, Journal of Small Business Management, 38, 37-52 

Fabowale, L., Orser, B. & Riding, A. 1995. “Gender, Structural Factors and Credit Terms 

between Canadian Small Businesses and Financial Institutions”, Entrepreneurship 

Theory and Practice. 19:4, 41-65 

Fried, V. & Hisrich, R.D. 1988. “Venture Capital Research: Past, Present & Future”, 

Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 13(1): 15-29. 

Gupta, A.K. & Sapienza, H. 1992. “Determinants of Venture Capital Firms’ Preferences 

Regarding the Industry Diversity and Geographic Scope of their Investments.” Journal of 

Business Venturing, 7(5): 347-362. 

Hall, J. & Hofer, C. 1993. “Venture Capitalist’s Decision Criteria in New Venture Evaluation.” 

Journal of Business Venturing, 8(1): 25-42. 

Hisrich, R. & Jancowicz, 1990. “Intuition in Venture Capital Decisions: An Exploratory Study 

Using a New Technique.” Journal of Business Venturing 5: 49-62 

Hustedde, R. & Pulver, G. 1992. “Factors Affecting Equity Capital Acquisition: The Demand 

Side.” Journal of Business Venturing. 7: 363-374 

Kelly, T. G. 1999. “Private Equity Investing: The Attractiveness of the Middle Market Buyout 

Segment”, Journal of Private Equity, Spring, 47-58 

Kirchhoff, B. 1994. Entrepreneurship and Dynamic Capitalism. Westport, CT: Praeger Press 

MacMillan, I., Siegel, R. & Subba Narasimha, P. 1985. “Criteria used by Venture Capitalists to 

Evaluate New Venture Proposals.” Journal of Business Venturing, 1: 119-128 

MacMillan, I., Zeman, L. & Subba Narasimha, P. 1987. “Criteria Distinguishing Successful from 

Unsuccessful Ventures in the Venture Screening Process.” Journal of Business 

Venturing, 2: 122-137. 

Manigart, S. 1994. “What Drives the Creation of a Venture Capital Firm?” Journal of Business 

Venturing, 9: 25-41 

33 
Mason, C. & Harrison, R. 1999. “Venture Capital: Rationale, Aims and Scope.” Venture 

Capital: An International Journal of Entrepreneurial Finance. 1:1, 1-47 

Moore, D.P. & Buttner, E.H. 1997. Women Entrepreneurs: Moving Beyond the Glass Ceiling. 

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 

Morales, A. & Saade, J. 2000. “Hispanic-American Venture Capital: Financing the Growth of the 

Latino Market”, Journal of Private Equity, Fall, 2000, 55-63 

National Foundation for Women Business Owners, 1996. Women Owned Businesses in the 

United States: 1996 Fact Sheets, NFWBO, Silver Spring, MD. 

National Foundation for Women Business Owners and Catalyst, 1998, Paths to 

Entrepreneurship: New Directions for Women in Business, NFWBO, Silver Spring, MD. 

National Foundation for Women Business Owners, 1998. Capital, Credit and Financing: An 

Update, NFWBO, Silver Spring, MD. 

Ooghe, H., Manigart, S. & Fassian, Y. 1991. “Growth patterns in the European Venture Capital 

Industry”, Journal of Business Venturing, 6, 381-404 

Pratt, S. E. 1998 "The Organized Venture Capital Community" in Pratt's Guide to Venture 

Capital Sources, 1998 Edition.75-79. NY: Securities Data Publishing. 

Phillips, B. & Dennis, W.D. 1997. “Databases for Small Business Analysis”. In Sexton, D.L. & 

Kasarda, J. (Eds.), The State of the Art of Entrepreneurship 341-359. Boston: PWS Kent. 

Riding, A. & Swift, C.1990. “Women Business Owners and Terms of Credit: Some Empirical 

Findings of the Canadian Experience”, Journal of Business Venturing. 5:5, 327-340 

Sapienza, H. 1992. “When do Venture Capitalists Add Value?” Journal of Business Venturing, 

7(1): 9-28. 

Sapienza, H. & Korsgaard, M.A. 1996. “Procedural Justice in Entrepreneur-Investor Relations”, 

Academy of Management Journal, 39, 54-74 

Seegull, F. 1998. “Female Entrepreneurs' Access to Equity Capital.” Harvard Business School 

Working Paper. 

Smart, G., Payne, S. & Yuzaki, H. 2000. “What Makes a Successful Venture Capitalist?”, 

Journal of Private Equity, Fall, 7-29 

Swartz, J. 1991. “The Future of the Venture Capital Industry”, Journal of Business Venturing, 

6:, 89-92 

Timmons, J.A. & Sapienza, H. 1992. “Venture Capital: The Decade Ahead.” In Sexton, D.L. & 

Kasarda, J. (Eds.), The State of the Art of Entrepreneurship, 402-437. Boston: PWS Kent. 

Timmons, J. A. & Bygrave, W.D. 1997. “Venture Capital: Reflections and Projections.” In 

Sexton, D.L. & Smilor, R. (Eds.), Entrepreneurship 2000, 29-46. Chicago, IL: Upstart 

Publishing. 

34 
 

 

The Diana Project: Women Business Owners and Equity Capital- The Myths Dispelled, 2001, 

Insight Report, Kansas City, MO: Kauffman Center for Entrepreneurial Leadership, 

forthcoming 

Thomas, P. "When Mars Decides to Invest in Venus's Promising Start-Up." Wall Street Journal. 

February 24, 1999. B1. 

US Small Business Administration. 1998. Women in Business, Office of Advocacy, APEC 

Women Entrepreneurs Report: United States/First Draft: 28 December 1998, 

Washington, D.C. 

US Small Business Administration. 1999. Minorities in Business, Office of Advocacy, 

Washington, D.C. 

US Small Business Administration. 1995. The State of Small Business. Office of Advocacy, 

Washington, D.C. 

Watson, W. Ponthieu, L. & Critelli, J. 1995. “Team Interpersonal Effectiveness in Venture 

Partnerships and its Connection to Perceived Success”, Journal of Business Venturing, 

10, 393-411 

Weeks, J.R. 1998. “A Study on Women Entrepreneurs in SMEs in the APEC Region: Report 

from the United States.” Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Project No. SME 02/98. 

NFWBO, Silver Spring, MD. 

Welbourne, T. & Cyr, L. 1999 “The Human Resource Executive Effect in Initial Public Offering 

Firms.” Academy of Management Journal. 39, 891-919 

Women Owned Businesses: The New Economic Force. 1992. Report by Ando, Faith & 

Associates, in The State of Small Business (1992), Washington, DC: U.S. Government 

Printing Office. 

Wright, M. Robbie, K. & Ennew, C. 1997. “Venture Capitalists and Serial Entrepreneurs.” 

Journal of Business Venturing, (12)3: 227-249. 

Zacharakis, A.L. & Shepherd, D.A. 2001. “The Nature of Information and Overconfidence on 

Venture Capitalist’s Decision-Making”, Journal of Business Venturing, 16:4, 311-332 

Zacharakis, A. & Shepherd, D.A. 2002. “Venture Capitalists’ Expertise: A Call for Research into 

Decision Aids and Cognitive Feedback”, Journal of Business Venturing, 17:1, 1-20 

35 
 

APPENDIX A 

Description of Coding 

Responses from companies were coded according to gender of firm owner or top 

management, year of first investment, stage at first investment, and industrial sector. The 

original data was not coded for gender. Therefore we screened 21,845 entries and coded 

male or female by first name or title (Mr./Mrs./Ms). Entries for which gender was not 

apparent by either criterion were coded "2," used to establish frequencies, and set aside 

for future investigation and consideration. The file also contains multiple entries for each 

firm. After we converted the data files from an Excel format to SPSS, we visually 

reviewed every record and deleted duplicates. In order to determine whether the firm is 

led by a male or female, we screened according to job title, selecting the highest-ranking 

role for each firm as the representative. In cases where both Chairman and 

President/CEO were listed, we chose the latter, reasoning that management capabilities 

was one of the key determinants in the decision to fund a new venture (MacMillan, et al, 

1985, Hisrich & Jancowicz, 1990). Almost half of the investments either were not 

identifiable by individual characteristics due to either first names that were not gender 

specific or both first name and title were missing. 

36