discussion, reading, social justice, journal

Volume 44 • Number 4 • May/June 2016

inside

footnotes • May/June 2016 To view the online version, visit <www.asanet.org/footnotes/mayjune16/index.html> 1

5 The Value of Social Science Examined The COSSA Annual Meeting addressed peer review and national interest in federal funding of social science research.

7 An Update on ASA's Archiving Project Between 10 and 15 tons of paper ASA editorial records are being retained into a relational database.

11 Liberals and Conservatives on Campus Two sociologists and a political scientist discuss myths and realities of conservatives ion campus.

13 Sociology in Turkey Hundreds of academics, many sociologists, in Turkey are being prosecuted and interrogated for the political beliefs they expressed

17 Measuring College Learning An SSRC panel of sociologists set out to empirically measure “essential concepts and competencies” in the discipline.

From the Executive Officer .................2 Science Policy .........................................3 ASA Forum ............................................ 17 Announcements ................................. 18 Obituaries .............................................. 22

Is ASA “Only for the Rich”? Mary Romero, ASA Secretary, Arizona

State University

Some ASA members and elected leaders ask me periodically whether ASA is getting too expen- sive for the majority of sociologists to join. This is something that the ASA Committee on the Executive Office and Budget, which I chair, and Council regularly discuss. Such concerns are always part of our decision-making process about cost-of-living dues increases, Annual Meeting and related fees, and the selection of benefits that are part of membership dues including journals, TRAILS, and various sub- sidies for students, emeriti/retired, and International Associates from low-income countries.

Expressed broadly, this issue is difficult for the Association to judge directly because we do not ask members what they earn, and the data that are published regularly on faculty salaries give us only general parameters for a portion (albeit

a large portion) of our members. There is also the question of under- standing who among all sociologists tend to view ASA membership as a professional priority.

Nevertheless we can look at the ASA membership over time and address meaningfully whether ASA membership is “only for the rich.” First, however, some context.

Fifty Years of Membership Ups and Downs

As with most member organi- zations, ASA’s membership has fluctuated over the last half century. It grew rapidly in the 1960s to an historic high of 14,934 in 1972, and then declined steadily in the 1970s to a low of 11,223 in 1984. A period of resurgence followed with membership reaching just over 13,000 by 1991. While it remained relatively constant across the 1990s, membership dropped to 12,368 by 2001. It then climbed rapidly back to near its historic peak, reaching

ASA Names Nancy Weinberg Kidd New Executive Officer She Succeeds Sally T. Hillsman, Who Is Retiring After Leading ASA for 14 Years

Daniel Fowler, ASA Media Relations

The American Sociological Association (ASA) announced in March that Nancy Weinberg Kidd will succeed the retiring Sally T. Hillsman as the Association’s Executive Officer in September.

Kidd, who earned a PhD in sociology from Stanford University, is currently the Executive Director of the National Communication

Continued on Page 8 Continued on Page 6

Jennifer McKinney and Karen A. Snedker, Seattle Pacific University

Homelessness in Seattle has consistently made newspaper headlines, locally and nationally. The New York Times recently ran a headline story, “Violence at a Homeless Camp Exposes Seattle’s Underbelly.” The article stated that the shooting of five people, two fatally, in a homeless camp known as “The Jungle” exposed a shadow within the city. The violence in this sprawling 3-mile area of 200 tents/ structures beneath the Interstate 5 and 90 roadways, illustrates the par- adox that is Seattle—on one hand, a thriving urban area with a technol- ogy-driven economic base and, on

the other hand, an area with one of the nation’s highest proportions of

people who are homeless. Homelessness is rising

dramatically in certain regions of the country despite slight declines nationally. The spatial concentration of homeless- ness is becoming a topic of great importance for local

governments and city residents. Homelessness in Seattle has reached crisis levels. In the 2016 Seattle/King County annual “One-Night Count” more than 4,500 people were found to be without shelter—living in cars, tents, under bridges and doorways, or riding the late night buses—rep- resenting a 19 percent increase since 2015 (which saw a 21 percent increase from 2014). In 2015 more

than 10,000 people in Seattle/King County were without permanent shelter. With a population of approximately 2 million in King County, the homeless population now rivals only the New York and Los Angeles metropolitan areas. As Seattle experiences a significant rise in home prices (February saw a 24 percent increase in the median home price) and rent prices, home- lessness is becoming an increasingly divisive local topic.

A State of Emergency In January 2015 Seattle Mayor Ed

Murray announced a shift in city policy, sanctioning three new tent encampments. In November the Mayor and City Council declared a

Continued on Page 10

Homeless in Seattle: A State of Emergency

Nancy Kidd

American Sociological Association footnotes.asanet.org

10 footnotes • May/June 2016

state of emergency on homelessness, a declaration unusual outside of nat- ural disasters. The city also hired a consultant, who concluded that the city simply does not have resources on the scale needed to effectively combat homelessness. Seattle is not alone. Several West Coast cities have made similar declarations, petition- ing Congress to increase funding to address housing and homelessness.

Any governmental action plan addressing homelessness must respond to immediate needs and coordinate systems connecting transitional and permanent hous- ing solutions. The shelter system largely reflects impersonal bureaucracies and resem- bles a triage model lacking adequate beds, safety, privacy, and cleanli- ness. Critics contend that it continues the cycle of homeless- ness and perpetuates the “homeless industry,” rather than serving as a pathway out of homelessness. City governments and non-profit orga- nizations are trying to move beyond accommodative strategies while rec- ognizing the need for an emergency response. Seattle—like other cities— is responding to a lack of affordable housing and a rise in homelessness with a mixture of short- and long- term solutions. While the end goal is permanent affordable housing, and in some cases supportive hous- ing with “wrap-around services,” immediate responses may include

options such as Housing First, tent cities, and tiny houses.

Housing First Housing First is based on a

harm-reduction paradigm whose basic premise is that housing should come without any preconditions for entrance—before treatment com- pliance, sobriety, or participation in service requirements. Supportive services are offered, but are not required, to increase housing sta- bility. The Housing First approach recognizes that the consequences of homelessness trigger or exacer- bate existing vulnerabilities, which once alleviated allows for the time, space, and energy to address other concerns. This is in stark contrast to

the competing paradigm of treatment-ori- ented housing, which is often coercive. Seattle is home to DESC (Downtown Emergency Services

Center), a comprehensive home- less services agency. It is playing a leading role in pioneering Housing First approaches and advocating it as federal policy. DESC’s innovative “wet house” known by its address, 1811 Eastlake, allows its residents— chronic alcoholics—to continue to drink. Data suggest that this is a cost-effective model, reducing the revolving door into emergency rooms and jails, and it’s associated with reduced adverse behaviors (e.g., fewer alcoholic beverages). While this was controversial at its inception, it is now known worldwide as a model embraced by advocates and legislators for provid-

ing a humane and fiscally responsible response to homelessness.

Tent Cities Tent cities

are portable encampments that can be sanctioned or unsanc- tioned by local authorities.

Sanctioned tent cities are regulated, having gone through the necessary permitting processes, while unsanc- tioned tent cities illegally squat on public or private land. Tent cities are alternatives to residing on the streets, under bridges, in cars or in “welfare motels.” Unlike shelter environments, sanctioned tent cities are self-managed with codes of conduct adjudicated by the residents, providing a safe envi- ronment for those who lack shelter. The violence in “The Jungle”, an unsanctioned encampment, underscores public health, crime and safety concerns, and highlights the differences between legally authorized and unauthorized tent encampments. Tent City 3 (TC3), formed in 2000, is the oldest sanctioned tent city in Seattle and has successfully maintained its mobile encampment by partnering with the city and various commu- nity organizations—principally churches and universities. Some core principles of TC3 in Seattle (and Tent City 4 on the East side) are sobriety, non-violence, cooperation, and participation. Studies show that this well-or- ganized self-governance model produces community and individ- ual accountability. Mayor Murray’s advocacy of three new tent encampments has received a mixed reception. The city’s consultant on homelessness stated that tent cities distract from real solutions. While permanent and sustainable housing might be ideal, there is a pressing need for short-term solutions.

Tiny Houses The tiny houses movement—

small portable homes usually 100-220 square feet—is a response to a lack of affordable housing. It also represents a countercultural movement premised on downsiz- ing, coupled with a desire for com- munity living. The movement faces similar legal and zoning challenges

of tent cities with the additional challenges of design and portability. In some ways tiny house villages can build from the strength of self-governed and sanctioned tent cities. In fact, the third newly sanc- tioned tent encampment in Seattle reflects a hybrid model—tents and tiny houses in the same space. Tiny house villages try to combine the strengths of well-functioning tent cities with more permanent and durable housing structures. Seattle City Councilwoman Sally Bagshaw recently formulated a radical plan where all city districts would be responsible to provide emergency housing, using tiny houses similar to FEMA trailers, for 100-150 peo- ple. This plan would eliminate the concern associated with clearing out unsanctioned camps, giving those within them a place to go (given the inadequacy of the shelter system) until the city could provide permanent housing. Unsanctioned tiny houses are meeting resistance in some cities, such as Los Angles, where a tiny house village was recently dismantled. There is still much uncertainty, and in some cases, consternation about tiny villages from residents including NIMBYism, fiscal, health, and safety concerns, as well as frustra- tion from advocates wanting more permanent solutions. To be suc- cessful the tiny house village model requires local support services and legal status.

Seattle’s approach to homeless- ness provides insights regarding the challenges and possibilities of interim solutions to permanent housing. During the ASA meetings there will be a tour of DESC and a local panel addressing the policies outlined here.

Homelessness in Seattle From Page 1

In November the Mayor and City Council declared a state of emergency on homelessness, a declaration unusual outside of natural disasters.