Dear Division Members, This is the last – and shortest – edition of “Notes from the Chair” I’ll write as chair of the Law & Society Division. I first want to thank Mary Nell Trautner, our vice-Chair, who has done so much these past two years for this newsletter and for our division. She was always incredibly helpful and responsive, all the time, and I would not have been able to manage these past years without all of her help and assistance. Also, Michael Smyth, the editor of this newsletter, has been wonderful and has made this newsletter into an interesting and, more importantly, practical way for all of the members to connect and to learn about each other, and the division, in a meaningful and important way. Our members are most likely all aware of the recent passage of legislation in Arizona requiring all local law enforcement officers to determine a person’s immigration status when there is a “reasonable suspicion” that the person is in the Country unlawfully. The Society for the Study of Social Problems (SSSP) has responded strongly to this unjust and discriminatory law by drafting a letter to the Arizona Governor and proposing a resolution urging the rescission of the bill. SSSP has joined with a number of other professional and academic associations to condemn this law. I hope our members vote on this important issue – if you haven’t voted yet, I urge you to do so using the following link (http://www.sssp1.org/index.cfm/pageid/1017/fuseaction/user). Please note that that members will be required to input their SSSP login and password in order to access the poll. The upcoming SSSP meeting, this August in Atlanta, should be an ideal setting to discuss the problems with this bill and, more importantly, the context of fear, hysteria and hate that create conditions for bills like this to gain widespread support. As scholars and activists interested in the intersection of law and society, it is important to examine how this particular law (like other anti-immigration laws throughout U.S. history), emerged in a particular context of economic decline, rising (continued from page 1) joblessness, and extreme social anxiety. It is easy to protest the law, but, like the reality of most social problems, it is much more difficult to understand why the law passed and, more importantly, how to challenge the social and cultural conditions that create fertile ground for racist legislation. The SSSP meeting in August will feature the theme of “social justice work.” I am sure that our members will be discussing and debating how laws like that recently passed in Arizona create barriers for social justice. At the same time, they will also will thinking about how laws can create conditions for social justice. The majority of our members, simply by teaching and writing about social problems, engage in some form of work for social justice, and it is crucial that we use our meeting as a place to share ideas about how we can make the world a more just and fair place – and we need to be open and forceful when we see injustice taking place. The forceful stance of the SSSP against the Arizona law is an example of social problems scholars connecting their work to the real world, and I look forward to a meeting where we figure out ways to take stands on a broad range of issues. Thank you for allowing me to serve as Chair of the Law and Society Division for these past two years. It has been a pleasure getting to know many of you (even it is was only electronically!)…and I can’t wait to see you in person at our reception this year. Thank you,. Emily Horowitz NOTES FROM THE CHAIR SUMMER 2010 VOL. 16 NO. 2 PRO BONO SOCIETY FOR THE STUDY OF SOCIAL PROBLEMS 60TH ANNUAL MEETING SOCIAL JUSTICE WORK AUGUST 13-15 2010 SHERATON ATLANTA HOTEL 165 COURTLAND ST NE ATLANTA, GA NOTES FROM THE CHAIR NOTES FROM THE CHAIR Page # LAW AND SOCIETY DIVISION ANNOUNCEMENTS Page # Newsletter of the Law and Society Division Society for the Study of Social Problems Page # PRO BONO VOL. 16, NO. 2 PRO BONO VOL. 16, NO. 2 2010 SSSP ANNUAL MEETING ROSTER OF SESSIONS AND ACTIVITIES SPONSORED BY THE LAW AND SOCIETY DIVISION PRO BONO VOL. 16, NO. 2 Page # RECENT PUBLICATIONS OF NOTE Contents Notes from the Chair…………...…page 1 2010 Lindesmith Award Announced……………… page 2 Announcement: 2010 Sutherland Award for Outstanding Scholarship ……….….......page 3 Notable Publicaions...……………....page 5 Roster: Law and Society Division-sponsored Sessions and Events…..…...…………page 7 Essay: Changing Breadwinners in the American Household…..……………....page 8 Announcements, etc…page 10 SSSP LAW AND SOCIETY DIVISION ANNOUNCES 2010 LINDESMITH AWARD WINNER The Alfred R. Lindesmith Award is presented annually by the Law and Society Division for the most outstanding law-related paper submitted by a graduate student or untenured faculty member. To be eligible, the paper must not have been accepted for publication prior to the April 1 deadline for submissions. This year, the Lindesmith Award will be presented to Aubrey L. Jackson, Department of Sociology, The Ohio State University for her paper “The Right to Refuse Sex - Gender Conflict and Marital Rape Laws in the U.S.” In recognition her accomplishment, Jackson will receive a commemorative plaque, as well as a complimentary ticket to the SSSP awards banquet. ? PRO BONO VOL. 16, NO. 2 Stephen J. Morewitz, Sociology Department, San Jose State University/Stephen J. Morewitz, Ph.D., & Associates, will present a poster on: “Gender Differences in the Classification of Foul Play in Missing-Persons Reports,” at the 10th Annual Conference of the European Society of Criminology, in Liege, Belgium, September 8-11, 2010. Phoebe Morgan has been reappointed as Northern Arizona University’s Faculty Ombuds Program Coordinator. On August 2, 2010, she will facilitate a dispute resolution workshop for the Women, Management and Leadership Conference entitled "Confronting Unmet Expectations and Broken Promises." The Conference is sponsored by the Union Graduate College, Schenectady, NY. To register for the workshop please visit www.uniongraduatecollege.edu/conference or contact the conference organizer, Michele Paludi, at the following address: mpaludi@aol.com. Stephen J. Morewitz's book, Death Threats: New Research and Clinical Perspectives (New York: Springer, 2008) will be discussed at an Author Meets Critics Session of the American Society of Criminology Meetings in San Francisco, CA, November 17-20, 2010. - Ptacek, James (Editor). 2009. Restorative Justice and Violence Against Women. New York: Oxford University Press, USA. (ISBN 0195335481). Despite significant accomplishments over the past 35 years, antiviolence activists know that justice for most abused women remains elusive. Most victims do not call the police or seek help from the courts, making it crucial to identify new ways for survivors to find justice. This path-breaking book examines new justice practices for victims that are being used in the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. These informal, dialogue-based practices, referred to as "restorative justice," seek to decrease the role of the state in responding to crime, and increase the involvement of communities in meeting the needs of victims and offenders. Restorative justice is most commonly used to address youth crimes and is generally not recommended or disallowed for cases of rape, domestic violence, and child sexual abuse. Nevertheless, restorative practices are beginning to be used to address violent crime. Restorative Justice and Violence Against Women considers both the dangers and potential benefits of using restorative justice in response to these crimes. The contributors include antiviolence activists and scholars from the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Some are strongly in favor of using restorative practices in these cases, some are strongly opposed, and many lie somewhere in between. Their chapters introduce a range of perspectives on alternative justice practices, offering rich descriptions of new programs that combine restorative justice with feminist antiviolence approaches. Friday, August 13, 6:30 -- 7:30 pm Joint reception with other SSSP divisions Room: Athens The Community Research and Development; Conflict, Social Action, and Change; Crime and Juvenile Delinquency; Disabilities; Educational Problems; Environment and Technology; Family; Global; Health, Health Policy, and Health Services; Institutional Ethnography; Labor Studies; Law and Society; Poverty, Class, and Inequality; Racial and Ethnic Minorities; Sexual Behavior, Politics, and Communities; Sociology and Social Welfare; Sport, Leisure, and the Body; Teaching Social Problems; and the Youth, Aging, and the Life Course divisions will host a joint reception on Friday, August 13 from 6:30pm – 7:30pm. Friday, August 13, 8:30 -- 10:10 am Session 3: Pursuing Justice: Examinations of Disparities and Marginalizing Experiences Room: Georgia 5 Sponsors: Law and Society, Institutional Ethnography Organizer: Jeralyn Faris, Purdue University Presider & Discussant: Michael K. Corman, University of Calgary Papers: “Institutional and Organizational Challenges to Social Justice within Sports-Based Positive Youth Development Programs: Lessons from Girls on the Run of Los Angeles,” Lauren Rauscher, California State University Long Beach 2. “Racial/Ethnic Disparities in the Criminal Justice/Legal Systems’ Responses to Missing Persons,” Stephen J. Morewitz, California State University, East Bay 3. “Stigma, Culture, and Exiting Homelessness in Los Angeles and Tokyo,” Matthew D. Marr, Florida International University 4. “When Water Stops Flowing: Inequality and Technology,” Wenda Bauchspies and Jennifer Green, Georgia Institute of Technology Friday, August 13, 12:30 -- 2:10 pm Session 21: Justice for the Marginalized Room: Georgia 5 Sponsors: Institutional Ethnography; Law and Society Organizer, Presider & Discussant: Jeralyn Faris, Purdue University Papers: On the Streets: The Criminalization of Survival Strategies Used by the Homeless,” Sondra J. Fogel, University of South Florida and Gina Gibbs, c/o University of South Florida 2. “Prison’s Dirty Little Secret: The Law and Sexual Assault in Carceral Settings,” Michael A. Smyth, Susquehanna University 3. “Seeking Social Justice on the Margins of Rural Communities,” Susan Tracey Machum, St. Thomas University, Fredericton, NB, Canada 4. “Transgender Inmates: A Triangulated View of Cultural ‘Location’ in California Prisons,” Jennifer Sumner, Penn State Harrisburg and Valerie Jenness, UC Irvine. Saturday, 12:30 -- 2:10 pm Law and Society Divisional Meeting (open to all members) Room: Georgia 13 Saturday, August 14, 2:30 -- 4:10 pm THEMATIC Session 66: Changing Laws and Changing Minds Room: Georgia 11 Sponsor: Law and Society Organizers: Claire M. Renzetti, University of Kentucky; Paul D. Steele, Morehead State University Presider & Discussant: Kimberly J. Cook, University of North Carolina, Wilmington Papers: 1. “Because God Says So: Faith-based Groups Lobbying for Social and Legal Change,” Claire M. Renzetti, University of Kentucky 2. “Changing Their Minds, Among Others: Overcoming College Administrators’ Reluctance to Effectively Respond to Sexual Assault,” Walter S. DeKeseredy, University of Ontario Institute of Technology 3.“The Ideological Dimensions of Justice Work: The Challenges of Linking Offender Control and Victim Support Perspectives of Child Sexual Abuse,” Paul D. Steele, Morehead State University 4. “The Progress and Pitfalls of the Rape Reform Movement: Attitude Change as Problematic, Symbolic, or Advancement?” Susan Caringella, Western Michigan University Sunday, August 14, 4:30 -- 6:10 pm Session 77: Social Justice and Harm Room: Georgia 11 Sponsor: Law and Society Organizers: Emily B. Horowitz, St. Francis College; William Chambliss, George Washington University Presider & Discussant: Emily B. Horowitz, St. Francis College Papers: “1. Commodification of Addiction: Media, Drugs and Crime,” Nickie Phillips, St. Francis College 2. “Pro-Immigrant Activism in an “All-American City“: Global Problems, Local Limitations,” Jamie G. Longazel, American Bar Foundation/University of Delaware (continued on page 7) Leo, Richard A. 2009. Police Interrogation and American Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press (ISBN 0674035313). "Read him his rights." We all recognize this line from cop dramas. But what happens afterward? In this book, Richard Leo sheds light on a little-known corner of our criminal justice system--the police interrogation. Incriminating statements are necessary to solve crimes, but suspects almost never have reason to provide them. Therefore, as Leo shows, crime units have developed sophisticated interrogation methods that rely on persuasion, manipulation, and deception to move a subject from denial to admission, serving to shore up the case against him. Ostensibly aimed at uncovering truth, the structure of interrogation requires that officers act as an arm of the prosecution. Skillful and fair interrogation allows authorities to capture criminals and deter future crime. But Leo draws on extensive research to argue that confessions are inherently suspect and that coercive interrogation has led to false confession and wrongful conviction. He looks at police evidence in the court, the nature and disappearance of the brutal "third degree," the reforms of the mid-twentieth century, and how police can persuade suspects to waive their Miranda rights. An important study of the criminal justice system, Police Interrogation and American Justice raises unsettling questions. How should police be permitted to interrogate Session 77: Social Justice and Harm (continued) 3. “Seesaw Injustice: At the Interface of Underpolicing and Overpolicing in Marginalized Neighborhoods,” Shaun Ossei-Owusu, University of California, Berkeley/American Bar Foundation 4. “Women Who Hate Women: Right-Wing Women and the Fight Against Progressive Social Reforms,” Emily B. Horowitz, St. Francis College. Sunday, August 15, 8:30 -- 10:10 am Session 84: Families and Criminal Justice Room: Georgia 4 Sponsors: Crime and Juvenile Delinquency; Family; Law and Society Organizer & Presider: Ebonie Cunningham Stringer, Wilkes University Papers: 1. “An Empirical Analysis of Containment Theory using Multi-Level Modeling,” Aimée Delaney Lutz, University of New Hampshire 2. “Identity Salience for Incarcerated Mothers: Before, During, and After Incarceration Effects of Familial Relationships and Maternal Expectations,” Sandra L. Barnes, Vanderbilt University and Ebonie Cunningham Stringer, Wilkes University 4. “Narrative as Social Control: Storytelling and the Construction of Model Citizens,” Marc R. Settembrino, University of South Florida. Sunday, August 15, 12:30 -- 2:10 pm Session 101: Crime, Drugs and Social Policy Room: Georgia 4 Sponsors: Crime and Juvenile Delinquency; Law and Society Organizer, Presider & Discussant: Stacy Burns, Loyola Marymount University Papers: 1. “Perceptions of Immigrant Criminality,” Deenesh S. Sohoni, The College of William and Mary and Tracy WP Sohoni, University of Maryland, College Park 2. “The Future of Problem-Solving: Inside the Courts and Beyond,” Stacy Burns, Loyola Marymount University 3. “The Intersection of Injection Drug Users and Health Care: Overview of the Literature and Theoretical Underpinnings,” Kelly E. Szott, Syracuse University Sunday, August 15, 2:30 -- 4:10 pm Session 109: Law and Education Room: Georgia 5 Sponsors: Educational Problems; Law and Society Organizer, Presider & Discussant: Emily B. Horowitz, St. Francis College Papers: 1. “Gendered Preparations for Teaching: The Impact of Traditional Gender Ideologies on Processes of Teacher Education,” Judson G. Everitt, Loyola University Chicago 2. “Nontraditional Students, Retention Rates, and Deliberative Democracy: Does Process Matter?” David Foster Steele, Tucker Brown and Matthew Kenney, Austin Peay State University 3. “Pedagogy in Court: Student Ratings, Student Rights, and the Regulation of Faculty,” Jordan J. Titus, University of Alaska Fairbanks 4. “Who Deserves Good Schools? Cultural Categories of Worth and Education Reform,” Julie Swando and Emily Meanwell, Indiana University Sunday, August 15, 2:30 -- 4:10 pm SPECIAL Session 112: Student Award Winning Papers IV Room: Georgia 9 Sponsor: Program Committee Organizer: Glenn W. Muschert, Miami University Presider & Discussant: Paul D. Steele, Morehead State University Papers: 1. “Defining and Regulating Care Needs: The Power of the State and Professional Knowledge,” Li-Fang Liang, Syracuse University, 1st place Winner of the Institutional Ethnography Division’s Student Paper Competition 2. “The Right to Refuse Sex: Gender Conflict and Marital Rape Laws in the U.S.,” Aubrey L. Jackson, The Ohio State University, 1st place Winner of the Law and Society Division’s Student Paper Competition 3. “Putting the Double Standard in its Place: School Networks, Sexual Norms and Adolescent Non-Romantic Sex Behavior,” Brian Soller, The Ohio State University, 1st place Winner of the Sexual Behavior, Politics, and Communities Division Sunday, August 15, 4:30 -- 6:10 pm Session 114: Law and Sexuality Room: Georgia 4 Sponsors: Crime and Juvenile Delinquency; Law and Society; Sexual Behavior, Politics, and Communities Organizer & Presider: Lloyd Klein, St. Francis College Papers: 1. “Forty Years After Stonewall: Legal and Political Movement in Gay Rights,” Joan Luxenburg, University of Central Oklahoma and Lloyd Klein, St. Francis College 2. “Partner Rape/Sexual Assault, Marginal Legal Status, and Race/Ethnicity,” Stephen J. Morewitz, California State University, East Bay and J. Barry Gurdin, To Love and Work 3. “Sex Offender Policy and Public Perceptions Post-Moral Panic,” Kristen Budd, Purdue University 4. “Legislative Initiatives and Sex Offender Residency: Evaluating the Efficacy of Sex Offender Exclusion within Community Settings,” Lloyd Klein, St. Francis College PRO BONO VOL. 16, NO. 2 Page # PRO BONO VOL. 16, NO. 2 Page # PRO BONO VOL. 16, NO. 2 Page # Keaton played a laid-off factory worker who confronts traditional gender roles when his wife takes full-time employment and he takes over running the household. The film ends happily with Keaton maintaining an adequate home life, albeit with some comedic situations based on the juxtaposition of gender roles. However, not every situation will end in appreciative support of housekeeping chores. Thus, is it important that social scientists begin to explore this phenomenon and help with policy implementation that can hopefully constrain negative consequences of changing gender roles in the home. Possible Positive Outcomes There are many outcomes to a change in household roles. I would like to suggest some possibilities, while noting that this is not an exhaustive list. Some possible positive outcomes with a shift to a female breadwinner household include: Enhanced female self-esteem and independence Positive appreciation for traditional female role in the household Equity in the completion of household tasks, and; Enhanced physical health and well-being on the part of the stay- at-home partner. One of the persistent patterns in American homes is the unequal distribution of household tasks. The 2008 American Time Use Survey by the BLS estimates that, on a daily basis, women spend 2.1 hours on household tasks and 0.7 hours on child care. Men spend 1.3 hours on the household and 0.4 hours on care of household members. In the past, this imbalance persisted regardless of who was employed. Perhaps as the number of female breadwinner households increases, this inequity will be erased. Popular culture is replete with concerns, tips and suggestions to help the working mom balance the demands of work and home. Support mechanisms for unemployed fathers seem to be nonexistent or, at most, developing. Perhaps more attention should be focused on positive outcomes and the development of policy initiatives that can help foster self-esteem, equity and independence in social roles within the family. Possible Outcomes from a Change in Breadwinners Surprisingly, perhaps, to some, the consequences of female breadwinner households can be both positive and negative. Males need not react negatively to being replaced as the family breadwinner. The phenomenon of the “stay at home dad” is not unknown in American culture. As early as 1983, there was a popular culture reference to the househusband in Michael Keaton’s film Mr. Mom. Keaton played a laid-off factory worker who confronts traditional gender roles when his wife takes full-time employment and he takes over running the household. The film ends happily with Keaton maintaining an adequate home life, albeit with some comedic situations based on the juxtaposition of gender roles. However, not every situation will end in appreciative support of housekeeping chores. Thus, is it important that social scientists begin to explore this phenomenon and help with policy implementation that can hopefully constrain negative consequences of changing gender roles in the home. There are many outcomes to a change in household roles. I would like to suggest some possibilities, while noting that this is not an exhaustive list. Some possible positive outcomes with a shift to a female breadwinner household include: Enhanced female self-esteem and independence; Positive appreciation for traditional female role in the household; Equity in the completion of household tasks, and; Enhanced physical health and well-being on the part of the stay-at-home partner. One of the persistent patterns in American homes is the unequal distribution of household tasks. The 2008 American Time Use Survey by the BLS estimates that, on a daily basis, women spend 2.1 hours on household tasks and 0.7 hours on child care. Men spend 1.3 hours on the household and 0.4 hours on care of household members. In the past, this imbalance persisted regardless of who was employed. Perhaps as the number of female breadwinner households increases, this inequity will be erased. Popular culture is replete with concerns, tips and suggestions to help the working mom balance the demands of work and home. Support mechanisms for unemployed fathers seem to be nonexistent or, at most, developing. Perhaps more attention should be focused on positive outcomes and the development of policy initiatives that can help foster self-esteem, equity and independence in social roles within the family. Possible Negative Outcomes Again, note that there are many possible consequences to changing breadwinners and the following is not an exhaustive list, but some feared outcomes of a female breadwinner household are: Domestic violence; Stress-related illnesses; Reduction in household income; Relationship conflict and divorce; Increased suicide rates for the stay-at-home male; Criminal behavior on the part of the stay-at-home male, and; Substance abuse and alcoholism. None of these consequences are inevitable and more research needs to be completed on these topics. As noted earlier, an increase in domestic violence has been associated with male unemployment. Crime and alcohol and substance abuse are complexly related to unemployment, but not necessarily in a direct linear fashion. Influential Factors Many factors will work in complex ways to affect the consequences of changing breadwinner families. Some of these factors will suppress negative consequences, others may enhance positive effects. It is important that this field of research begin to develop. A non-exhaustive list includes: Duration and stability of the relationship Age of family members Cultural and sub-cultural expectations of gender roles Circumstances for leaving employment, such as medical leave, early retirement or abrupt downsizing Industry of previous employment and work history Family history Individual personalities involved Socio-economic class Assets and debts Duration and amount of unemployment benefits Union membership Local support networks The manner in which the family reacts to the loss of a breadwinner is open to many influences. Breadwinners in industries such as construction have adapted to the cyclic nature of employment. Other workers, say in manufacturing with a year-round work schedule, may have more difficulty adapting to a change in circumstance. Cultural expectations will affect family roles tremendously. The hardships that unemployment places on family economic resources will have a huge I impact. Sustained unemployment benefits can ameliorate the impact Sustained unemployment benefits can ameliorate the impact of loss of income, which, in turn, can alleviate stress and reduce tension in the situation. The worst situation would appear to be one in which an unemployed male heavily invested in traditional family roles has lost a well-paying job in the manufacturing industry in an area of the country that is not constructively supportive of unemployed males. Personal Observations When the recession ends, as all recessions do, it will be interesting to note if this shift in household breadwinners continues. Women are increasingly invested in education, which should enhance their employment opportunities and career progression. While women continue to lag in pay, pay scale disparity should continue to diminish as it has over the last 15 years (BLS, 2009). However, one of the feared consequences of this change in employment patterns is a violent backlash from unemployed husbands. As noted above, male unemployment increases the risk of domestic violence directed at the female partner. Male unemployment has been less conclusively linked to the social ills of alcohol and substance abuse, and crime. Social mores are changing, of course. Rather than remaining in an abusive relationship for economic reasons, or entering into the potential of such a relationship, women increasingly opt for single head of household status. If males adapt to the change of breadwinner in a more positive fashion, however, relationships may be more sustainable in households where the female is the main breadwinner and the male is “unemployed”. These stable relationships then become role models for the next generation. Finally, some comments from personal experience. We are all observers of our immediate social environment and often draw conclusions from our observations. For the last ten years, my wife has been the primary earner in our household while I worked in academia. The flexibility of the academic schedule has allowed me to become the primary child care arranger and household minder. This year, I have been on sabbatical and I plan an unpaid leave of absence next year, leaving me solidly in the female breadwinner household. So it is with some personal interest that I suggest this topic of research. My personal experiences, acknowledging selective observation, overgeneralization and at the risk of stereotyping, are that women are more likely to feel guilty about working and men are more likely to feel guilty about not working. Most men would be quite happy to be the super-earner in the family who can afford to have his wife stay at home. It is a point of pride for some men that they can provide for the comfort of their family, and they are less likely to feel guilty about unavailability in the household domain. Women are more likely to feel guilt if they are unable to balance home and work demands, particularly if children are involved. Working women are generally supportive of my situation as the househusband, sometimes to the point of backlash from their husbands, because I do the laundry and make dinner. Stay-at-home mothers are often more critical and engage in some turf protection. Many, not all, have an initial expectation that I am incompetent in the household and often treat me as suspect category (i.e. pedophile, bum, drunk, mentally ill). The more interesting approach is to ignore me. Some mothers refuse to speak to me and speak only to my wife, ignoring my immediate presence in the conversation circle outside the school playground as if I were not there. Some have gone so far as to speak through my daughters even as I stand there. This is an interesting phenomenon to witness. I have been excluded, segregated and “watched” in many preschool settings. American women seem more than happy to let me take over the housework in my own home, but become defensive around childrearing. This is not unjustified if they are protecting children from predators, but it seems more of an issue of turf protection if I am consistently precluded from committee assignments and other socially recognized tasks within the social circle. The “lace curtain” sometimes falls between me and the organization’s tasks. I might be figuratively patted on the head and sent off to lift heavy things or simply forgotten to be included on the email list. Males invariably make comments, some slightly derogatory and others “helpful” in nature. I have been asked about my laundry load, my housekeeping skills and my cooking practices in less than kind tones by other males. I presume they are implying that I am effete and dominated by my wife. The helpful males give me an excuse. They will ask if I am writing a book or publishing research. Most males feel the need to comment in some manner on my situation. Never has a male congratulated me for choosing home over career, for choosing my children over employment. I have lived and learned from these experiences, all the while knowing that I have the great advantage of being a tenured full professor, and that being a stay-at-home dad, trailing spouse, house-husband or any other such moniker is not my sole form of self-identification. In any event, one notes persistent patterns in the social environment, all of which are rich ground for future social research as our social-gender roles in relation to employment change over time. Sources Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2010. Employment Situation Ettner, Susan. 1997. “Measuring the Human Cost of a Weak Econ omy.” Social Science and Medicine. Volume 44, Issue 2, 251-260. Hammer, Torild. 2006. “Unemployment and use of drug and alcohol among young people: a longitudinal study in the general popula- tion.” British Journal of Addiction. Volume 87, Issue 11, 1571- 1578. Hartmann, H., Ashley English and Jeffery Hayes. 2010. “Women and Men’s Employment and Unemployment in the Great Recession.” Institute for Women’s Policy Research. Macmillan, R. and Catherine Kruttschnitt. 2004. “Patterns of Vio lence Against Women: Risk Factors and Consequences.” United States Department of Justice, electronic form only. Raphael, S. and Rudolf Winter-Ebmer. April 2001. “Identifying the Effect of Unemployment on Crime.” Vol. 44, The Journal of Law and Economics. PRO BONO VOL. 16, NO. 2 Page # RICHARD LEO RECEIVES EDWIN H. SUTHERLAND AWARD FOR OUTSTANDING SCHOLARSHIP The Law and Society Division of SSSP wishes to announce the result of its inaugural Edwin H. Sutherland Outstanding Scholarship competition. This year, the Sutherland award goes to Richard A. Leo for his book entitled Police Interrogation and American Justice (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2008). In this work, Leo offers an expansive analysis of the nature and impact of police interrogation and stands as a comprehensive and interdisciplinary piece that nicely places the idea of interrogation within the contexts of criminology, law, sociology, and psychology. The work reveals a very good interweaving of the principles of law and society, a fundamental knowledge of interdisciplinarity and of the specific disciplines as well. Leo clearly understands the role of the police, its history, tactics, and technological methodologies. He also demonstrates good knowledge of comparative systems, providing useful historical insight into the 19th century and confessions in UK law. The book offers an excellent analysis of policy directions in the protection of legal rights. Overall, the book deals extensively with the policy implications of false or wrong confessions. There is a good balance between the empirical, which is stressed, and the theoretical, which is nicely integrated within the text. Please join the members of the 2010 Sutherland Committee in offering our congratulations to Professor Leo on this well deserved honor. Note: The Sutherland Award for Outstanding Scholarship will be awarded every other year in rotation with the William Chambliss Award for Outstanding Life Achievement in Law and Society. The 2010 Sutherland Committee, composed of Cary Federman, Lloyd Klein, and Shela Van Ness, wishes to acknowledge the contributing authors in this year’s competition and their interesting books; along with the support of the Law and Society Division for the creation of this award. when society needs both crime control and due process? How can order be maintained yet justice served? Already considered the definitive work on the subject, Police Interrogation and American Justice was named 2010 Edwin H. Sutherland Outstanding Scholarship Award winner by the Law and Society Division of SSSP (see p. 3). Dr. Leo is an associate professor of law at the University of San Francisco and a leading authority on police interrogation and confession. He has won numerous awards for research excellence from a variety of organizations including the Law and Society Association, the American Society of Criminology, the American Psychological Association, the American Academy of Forensic Psychology, the American Sociological Association, and the Pacific Sociological Association. Savelsberg, Joachim. 2010. Crime and Human Rights: Criminology of Genocide and Atrocities. London: Sage Publications (ISBN:9781847879257). Crimes against humanity are among the most shocking violations imaginable. Savelsberg’s text provides a much-needed criminological insight to the subject, exploring explanations of and responses to human rights abuses. Linking human rights scholarship with criminological theory, the book is divided into three primary parts: Part 1: Examines the legal and historical approach to the topic within a criminological framework; Part 2: Unpicks the aetiology of human rights offending, using detailed case studies such as the Holocaust and the Darfur genocide; Part 3: Explores institutional responses to crimes and uses criminological theory to offer solutions. Seminal yet concise, Crime and Human Rights is written for advanced students, postgraduates and scholars of crime, crime control and human rights. With its fresh and original approach to a complex topic, the book’s appeal will span across other disciplines from politics and sociology to development studies, law, and philosophy. Dr. Joachim Savelsberg, is Professor of Sociology at the University of Minnesota. Atlanta 2010 CHANGING BREADWINNERS IN THE AMERICAN HOUSEHOLD Michael Kaune, Ph.D. Professor, Department of Sociology and Criminal Justice St. Francis College The ongoing economic downturn provides social scientists with numerous opportunities for research. The “great recession”, as it has come to be known, has impacted American households in many ways. Most families are suffering from losses in housing values and pension funds. Others are affected by unemployment. For many families, the loss of housing value is an abstract concept and a reduction in potential retirement income seems to be an issue best dealt with in the future. However, when the breadwinner in the family is unemployed, the family faces an immediate and consequential social problem. Unfortunately, the current official (U3) unemployment rate is near 10% and is projected to remain there through 2010 (BLS, 2010). It is safe to say that unemployment has a significant negative impact on the family. Its pervasive effect is a diminished quality of life as a consequence of loss of income. Unemployment has also been associated with such social problems as crime, alcohol/substance abuse and domestic violence. The cause and effect relationships between crime, substance abuse and unemployment are complex and sometimes indirect (e.g. Ettner, 1997; Raphael and Winter-Ebmer, 2001). Surprisingly, unemployment can result in the decreased consumption of alcohol, generally during the initial period of unemployment, as a result of loss of income (e.g. Hammer, 2006). However, Macmillan and Knittschnitt (2004) seem secure in concluding that the rate of domestic violence against women increases with male unemployment. They find that relationship violence, specifically male abuse of their wives, occurs in 4.7% of couples in which the male partner is employed. This increases to 7.5% during the first period of unemployment and nearly doubles, to 12.3%, for couples experiencing two or more periods of male unemployment. Changes in Employment A subtle social change in the employment data for the American household is beginning to emerge within this rather bleak picture of unemployment. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that the recession has had more of an impact on male employment than female employment. The male unemployment rate at the end of 2009 was 11.0%; the equivalent rate for females was 8.8%. This difference was in part due to recession-driven layoffs in the male-dominated occupations of manufacturing and construction. It appears that the traditionally female fields of health care and education are more layoff-resistant in the current economic environment. As a consequence of these different unemployment patterns, amongst other factors, females are expected to make up more than 50% of the American workforce in 2010, the first time this has ever happened. Moreover, The Institute for Women’s Policy Research estimates that in December 2009, there were 2.1 million wives, the husbands of whom were unemployed, who acted as the breadwinners for their families (Hartmann, English and Hayes, 2010). This shift in employment may have immediate and long-lasting effects on the structure and functioning of the American household. As a result, it is appropriate for social scientists to begin a discussion on what happens when the male is replaced by a female as the sole, or principal, breadwinner in the household. In this essay, I shall explore some of the issues surrounding this emerging social pattern and identify possible areas of future research. I would like to review some of the trends in employment data and how breadwinners are changing in the traditional American household, then proceed to a brief discussion of possible consequences and causal patterns should the female partner become the primary breadwinner. In conclusion, I would like to supplement the discussion with a few personal observations from my experiences as This shift in employment may have immediate and long-lasting efThis This shift in employment may have immediate and long-lasting ef a “stay at home dad”. The first question to ask is whether or not a change in employment patterns will result in an increase in female breadwinner couples. More women in the workforce does not necessarily equate to increased numbers of households in which the woman is the primary breadwinner. An increase in the proportion of the workforce that is female may be a result of more single mother earners; increased numbers of women in dual earner couples with a concurrent reduction in male breadwinner couples; or, employed women may be taking a second or third job to supplement the household income, but not necessarily replacing the male breadwinner. At the end of 2009, it was estimated that there were 2.1 million employed wives who were the primary breadwinners for their families. To place this in context, the civilian workforce, both employed and unemployed workers, was estimated at 137 million in December 2009; thus less than 2% of the workforce was made up of females who were primary wage earners in couples-households. At the same time, it was reported that there were 8.4 million single mother earners, or 6.1% of the working force. The majority of working couples continue to exist as dual earners, see Figure 1. Based on a summary of Bureau of Labor Statistics information, Figure 1 shows the dual breadwinner couple as the most common type of household in America. The number of these households has slightly declined in the last decade, but most households in America need both wage earners to maintain their desired standard of living. Figure 1 also shows a decline in male breadwinner couples over the last thirty years and an increase in single mother earners since the mid-1990s. If an increase in female breadwinner couples is projected, it would most likely coincide with a decrease in the number of dual earner couples. In other words, the male earner becomes unemployed or under-employed in what was formerly a dual earning household. We see two indicators of this trend: the specificity of layoffs traditionally male-dominated fields of employment and the decline in the number of dual earning couples. Figure 1. (Source: U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics) Possible Outcomes from a Change in Breadwinners Surprisingly, perhaps, to some, the consequences of female breadwinner households can be both positive and negative. Males need not react negatively to being replaced as the family breadwinner. The phenomenon of the “stay at home dad” is not unknown in American culture. As early as 1983, there was a popular culture reference to the househusband in Michael Keaton’s film Mr. Mom. Keaton played SSSP 2011 Annual Meeting August 12 – 14 Renaissance Blackstone Chicago Hotel Chicago, IL