"Do Prisons Make Us Safer? is an important volume. Steven Raphael and Michael A. Stoll have brought together some of the best researchers in the country to address a crucial question: Does the marginal crime reduction benefit of increased incarceration outweigh its social and economic costs to society? The compelling findings are extremely thought provoking and the policy implications are profound. I very strongly recommend this timely publication."
-William Julius Wilson, Lewis P. and Linda L. Geyser University Professor. Harvard University

"This ambitious book tackles one of the most far-reaching phenomena of the modern American era, the relentless growth of our nation's prison population. Each chapter is a gem, shedding new light on the complex interactions between our prisons and our society. In the future, no serious assessment of our incarceration policies will be complete without reference to this ground-breaking scholarship."
-Jeremy Travis, president, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, The City University of New York

The number of people incarcerated in U.S. prisons and jails more than quadrupled between 1975 and 2005, reaching the unprecedented level of over two million inmates today. Annual corrections spending now exceeds 64 billion dollars, and many of the social and economic burdens resulting from mass incarceration fall disproportionately on minority communities. Yet crime rates across the country have also dropped considerably during this time period. In Do Prisons Make Us Safer? leading experts systematically examine the complex repercussions of the massive surge in our nation’s prison system.

Do Prisons Make Us Safer? asks whether it makes sense to maintain such a large and costly prison system. The contributors expand the scope of previous analyses to include a number of underexplored dimensions, such as the fiscal impact on states, effects on children, and employment prospects for former inmates. Steven Raphael and Michael Stoll assess the reasons behind the explosion in incarceration rates and find that criminal behavior itself accounts for only a small fraction of the prison boom. Eighty-five percent of the trend can be attributed to “get tough on crime” policies that have increased both the likelihood of a prison sentence and the length of time served. Shawn Bushway shows that while prison time effectively deters and incapacitates criminals in the short term, long-term benefits such as overall crime reduction or individual rehabilitation are less clear cut. Amy Lerman conducts a novel investigation into the effects of imprisonment on criminal psychology and uncovers striking evidence that placement in a high security penitentiary leads to increased rates of violence and anger—particularly in the case of first time or minor offenders. Rucker Johnson documents the spill-over effects of parental incarceration—children who have had a parent serve prison time exhibit more behavioral problems than their peers. Policies to enhance the well-being of these children are essential to breaking a devastating cycle of poverty, unemployment, and crime. John Donohue’s economic calculations suggest that alternative social welfare policies such as education and employment programs for at-risk youth may lower crime just as effectively as prisons, but at a much lower human cost. The cost of hiring a new teacher is roughly equal to the cost of incarcerating an additional inmate.

The United States currently imprisons a greater proportion of its citizens than any other nation in the world. Until now, however, we’ve lacked systematic and comprehensive data on how this prison boom has affected families, communities, and our nation as a whole. Do Prisons Make Us Safer? provides a highly nuanced and deeply engaging account of one of the most dramatic policy developments in recent U.S. history.

STEVEN RAPHAEL is professor of public policy at the University of California, Berkeley.

MICHAEL A. STOLL is professor and chair of public policy in the School of Public Affairs, University of California, Los Angeles.

CONTRIBUTORS: Shawn D. Bushway, John J. Donohue III, John W. Ellwood, Joshua Guetzkow, Harry J. Holzer, Rucker C. Johnson, Amy E. Lerman, Raymond Paternoster, Steven Raphael, Michael A. Stoll, David F. Weiman, and Christopher Weiss

"Civic Hopes and Political Realities represents a conjunction of important forces: rising as well as established scholars across several disciplines; recognition of the urgency of bringing immigrants into politics and civic activism; and the insights attainable by comparing across ethnic groups, countries, and local settings. Together these forces have generated a book that vividly illuminates how immigrants do-and do not-get incorporated into their new homes. Beneath the scholarly exterior lies tragedy as well as triumph, and these authors adeptly show both."
-JENNIFER L. HOCHSCHILD, Henry LaBarre Jayne Professor of Government, professor of African and African American Studies, and Harvard College Professor, Harvard University

"Civic Hopes and Political Realities constitutes a superb addition to the rapidly growing scholarly literature on immigrant political incorporation! By commissioning an excellent set of case studies on immigrant civic engagement, and by tying them together in a well-done and innovative conceptual and theoretical introduction, Karthick Ramakrishnan and Irene Bloemraad importantly document the often unconventional and invisible ways through which immigrants organize themselves and generate participation in civic activities, driving home in the process the crucial necessity of coming to better policy and theoretical understandings of the multiple interdependencies between immigrant political and other kinds of integration."
-FRANK D. BEAN, director, Center for Research on Immigration, Population and Public Policy, and Chancellor's Professor of Sociology, University of California, Irvine

For many Americans, participation in community organizations lays the groundwork for future political engagement. But how does this traditional model of civic life relate to the experiences of today’s immigrants? Do community organizations help immigrants gain political influence in their neighborhoods and cities? In Civic Hopes and Political Realities, experts from a wide range of disciplines explore the way civic groups across the country and around the world are shaping immigrants’ quest for political effectiveness.

Civic Hopes and Political Realities shows that while immigrant organizations play an important role in the lives of members, their impact is often compromised by political marginalization and a severe lack of resources.  S. Karthick Ramakrishnan and Irene Bloemraad examine community organizations in six cities in California and find that even in areas with high rates of immigrant organizing, policymakers remain unaware of local ethnic organizations. Looking at new immigrant destinations, Kristi Andersen finds that community organizations often serve as the primary vehicle for political incorporation—a role once played by the major political parties. Floris Vermeulen and Maria Berger show how policies in two European cities lead to very different outcomes for ethnic organizations. Amsterdam’s more welcoming multicultural policies help immigrant community groups attain a level of political clout that similar organizations in Berlin lack. Janelle Wong, Kathy Rim, and Haven Perez report on a study of Latino and Asian American evangelical churches. While the church shapes members’ political views on issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage, church members may also question the evangelical movement’s position on such issues as civil rights and immigration. Els de Graauw finds that many non-profit organizations without explicitly political agendas nonetheless play a crucial role in advancing the political interests of their immigrant members. Recent cuts in funding for such organizations, she argues, block not only the provision of key social services, but also an important avenue for political voice. Looking at community organizing in a suburban community, Sofya Aptekar finds that even when immigrant organizations have considerable resources and highly educated members, they tend to be excluded from town politics.

Some observers worry that America’s increasing diversity is detrimental to civic life and political engagement. Civic Hopes and Political Realities boldly advances an alternative understanding of the ways in which immigrants are enriching America’s civic and political realms—even in the face of often challenging circumstances.

S. KARTHICK RAMAKRISHNAN is associate professor of political science at the University of California, Riverside.

IRENE BLOEMRAAD is assistant professor of sociology at the University of California, Berkeley.

CONTRIBUTORS: Kristi Andersen, Sofya Aptekar, Maria Berger, Irene Bloemraad, Caroline B. Brettell, Els de Graauw, Shannon Gleeson, Rebecca Hamlin, Rahsaan Maxwell, Haven Perez, S. Karthick Ramakrishnan, Deborah Reed-Danahay, Kathy Rim, Laurencio Sanguino, Floris Vermeulen, Celia Viramontes, and Janelle Wong.

"For twenty years, Lee Rainwater and Timothy Smeeding have developed and enhanced the Luxembourg Income Study to provide comparable data on living standards in industrialized economies. In Poor Kids in a Rich Country, they document that the relative rate of child poverty depends more on how a government regulates the labor market and provides social benefits to those who fare badly in the market than on that country's overall standard of living. They show, that even though average real income in the United States is well-above that of most countries, low-income American children have fewer material resources than their counterparts in ten of fourteen comparison countries. Poor Kids in a Rich Country is the best source for detailed information on variations in living standards across industrialized countries; it should be read by anyone interested in understanding how income poverty is measured and how differences can be interpreted."
-SHELDON DANZIGER, Henry J. Meyer Collegiate Professor of Public Policy, Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy, University of Michigan

"Poor Kids in a Rich Country easily reaffirms Lee Rainwater's and Timothy Smeeding's reputation as the leading international poverty researchers. With unrelenting scientific rigor, they tackle a great paradox of our times, namely that the world's richest nation produces more child poverty than any other advanced country. The mass of evidence they assemble points to one set of overwhelming and, alas, bleak conclusions. The United States performs badly indeed, with one-fifth of its children living in poverty, and the situation is actually worsening. Equally worrisome is the finding that American children are less likely to escape from poverty. Upon reading this book one begins to wonder whether a country with so many underprivileged children can sustain its economic leadership much further into the future."
-GØSTA ESPING-ANDERSEN, professor of sociology and university dean, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona

"Lee Rainwater and Timothy Smeeding have given us a wonderful gift. Poor Kids in a Rich Country is smart, readable, and attentive to the important questions. Researchers and students of child poverty will long be in their debt."
-SARA MCLANAHAN, professor of sociology and public affairs and director of the Bendheim-Thoman Center for Research on Child Wellbeing, Princeton University

In Poor Kids in a Rich Country, Lee Rainwater and Timothy Smeeding ask what it means to be poor in a prosperous nation - especially for any country's most vulnerable citizens, its children. In comparing the situation of American children in low-income families with their counterparts in fourteen other countries—including Western Europe, Australia, and Canada—they provide a powerful perspective on the dynamics of child poverty in the United States.

Based on the rich data available from the transnational Luxembourg Income Study (LIS), Poor Kids in a Rich Country puts child poverty in the United States in an international context. Rainwater and Smeeding find that while the child poverty rate in most countries has been relatively stable over the past 30 years, child poverty has increased markedly in the United States and Britain—two of the world's wealthiest countries. The book delves into the underlying reasons for this difference, examining the mix of earnings and government transfers, such as child allowances, sickness and maternity benefits, unemployment insurance, and other social assistance programs that go into the income packages available to both single- and dual-parent families in each country. Rainwater and Smeeding call for policies to make it easier for working parents to earn a decent living while raising their children—policies such as parental leave, childcare support, increased income supports for working poor families, and a more socially oriented education policy. They make a convincing argument that our definition of poverty should not be based solely on the official poverty line—that is, the minimum income needed to provide a certain level of consumption—but on the social and economic resources necessary for full participation in society.

Combining a wealth of empirical data on international poverty levels with a thoughtful new analysis of how best to use that data, Poor Kids in a Rich Country will provide an essential tool for researchers and policymakers who make decisions about child and family policy.

LEE RAINWATER is professor emeritus of sociology at Harvard University and research director of the Luxembourg Income Study.

TIMOTHY M. SMEEDING is Maxwell Professor of Public Policy, professor of economics and public administration, and director of the Center for Policy Research at Syracuse University. He is also the director of the Luxembourg Income Study.

An Institute for Research on Poverty Affiliated Book on Poverty and Public Policy

This book offers a systematic study of those individuals who derive their livelihood and professional satisfactions from foundation employment above a clerical level. Replies to questionnaires addressed to foundations and to foundation staff, supplemented by other research, enabled the authors to secure a wealth of data, not previously available, concerning such staff personnel. The data relates to their origin, education or training, professional or occupational background, personal qualities, recruitment for foundation service, job specialization in foundations and in-service and on-the-job training, salary levels, retirement, fringe benefits and perquisites of various kinds. These data are systematically analyzed according to the employing foundation's asset size, program, founding auspices, staff size, geographical location, and other variables. The comprehensiveness of the data also makes possible a census of full-time and part-time staff employed by all foundations and better reveals the rather distorted pattern of the distribution of that staff among the employing foundations.

A feature of the study is a chapter that tabulates and analyzes the comments on foundation employment of some 420 foundation executives—on their satisfactions, dissatisfactions, and frustrations and on how foundation employment might be made more attractive. The pros and cons of the related issue of increased professionalization of foundation service is considered in the light of these comments and from the standpoint, also, of the current philanthropic policies of different kinds of foundations. The probable long-term effect on foundation service of certain provisions of the Tax Reform Act of 1969 is also examined.

ARNOLD J. ZURCHER was formerly Executive Director of the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation and is Professor of Politics at New York University.

JANE DUSTAN is Associate for Program Development of the Association for the Aid of Crippled Children.

"Americans have for more than a century had an ambivalent view of philanthropic foundations-on the one hand they are the source of largesse for the improvement of the well- being of mankind; on the other hand they represent the tax-advantaged private creation of public policy. Throughout the twentieth century there were periodic public challenges to the legitimacy of foundations, and at the beginning of a new century we are once again witnessing Congressional suspicion and possibly hostility. The value of this volume is that it puts these American controversies into both historical and theoretical perspective-while at the same time describing the ways in which Europeans are both imitating the American foundation form and beginning to experience some of our ambivalence. These are nicely crafted essays that raise the question of foundation legitimacy to a higher level, enabling readers to evaluate the public role of private philanthropy. The Legitimacy of Philanthropic Foundations is a necessary book for anyone interested in foundations and public policy."
-STANLEY N. KATZ, director, Center for Arts and Cultural Policy Studies, Woodrow Wilson School, Princeton University

"Private foundations are powerful and sometimes efficacious, but their power is always precarious, dependent upon the tolerance of the nation-states by which they are chartered and within whose territories they operate. The authors represented in this trailblazing volume, who include many of the leading authorities on philanthropy from two continents, explore the paradoxical dependence of private philanthropy on public legitimacy with skill and wisdom. Their essays demonstrate that the diversity of the foundation world-both within the United States and internationally-is reflected in the diversity of external stakeholders they must please and the diversity of issues they confront."
-PAUL DIMAGGIO, professor of sociology, Princeton University

"In an era in which foundations have acquired much greater scale and power than ever before, The Legitimacy of Philanthropic Foundations asks the question that is on everyone's mind-how to square foundation independence with the accountability expected in a democracy. No one will agree with all the answers given, but everyone who considers foundations and nonprofits essential to a vibrant democracy will find this book 'must' reading."
-JOEL L. FLEISHMAN, professor of law and public policy, Terry Sanford Institute of Public Policy, Duke University

Though privately controlled, foundations perform essential roles that serve society at large. They spearhead some of the world’s largest and most innovative initiatives in science, health, education, and the arts, fulfilling important needs that could not be addressed adequately in the marketplace or the public sector. Still, many people have little understanding of what foundations do and how they continue to earn public endorsement. The Legitimacy of Philanthropic Foundations provides a thorough examination of why foundations exist and the varied purposes they serve in contemporary democratic societies.

The Legitimacy of Philanthropic Foundations looks at foundations in the United States and Europe to examine their relationship to the state, the market, and civil society. Peter Frumkin argues that unlike elected officials, who must often shy away from topics that could spark political opposition, and corporate officers, who must meet bottom-line priorities, foundations can independently tackle sensitive issues of public importance. Kenneth Prewitt argues that foundations embody elements of classical liberalism, such as individual autonomy and limited government interference in private matters and achieve legitimacy by putting private wealth to work for the public good. Others argue that foundations achieve legitimacy by redistributing wealth from the pockets of rich philanthropists to the poor. But Julian Wolpert finds that foundations do not redistribute money directly to the poor as much as many people believe. Instead, many foundations focus their efforts on education, health, and scientific research, making investments that benefit society in the long-term, and focusing on farsighted issues that a myopic electorate would not have patience to permit its government to address.

Originating from private fortunes but working for the public good, independently managed but subject to legal prescriptions, philanthropic foundations occupy a unique space somewhere between the public and private sectors. The Legitimacy of Philanthropic Foundations places foundations in a broad social and historical context, improving our understanding of one of society’s most influential—and least understood—organizational forms.

KENNETH PREWITT is Carnegie Professor of Public Affairs in the School of International and Public Affairs at Columbia University.

MATTEI DOGAN is senior fellow at the National Center for Scientific Research in Paris, and chair of the research committee on Comparative Sociology of the International Sociological Association.

STEVEN HEYDEMANN is director of the Center for Democracy and the Third Sector and political scientist in the Department of Government at Georgetown University.

STEFAN TOEPLER is assistant professor of nonprofit studies in the Department of Public and International Affairs at George Mason University.

CONTRIBUTORS: Helmut K. Anheier, Siobhan Daly, Peter Frumkin, Giuliana Gemelli, Kirsten A. Gronberg, Divid C. Hammack, Diana Leat, Rupert Graf Strachwitz, Steen Thomsen, Julian Wolpert.

"We need you, Madame Curie. Please don't leave. This is a compelling study of why women leave science. It links qualitative and quantitative evidence in a way that is social science at its best. It explains why women exit science more than men and suggests ways to remedy this problem. Leaving Science should be read by everyone concerned with maintaining a healthy U.S. science work force, from the science advisor to the president to members of for the American Association for the Advancement of Science."
-RICHARD B. FREEMAN, Herbert Ascherman Chair in Economics, Harvard University

"Leaving Science provides an exceedingly thorough examination of factors leading individuals to exit science. It is a must read for anyone concerned with the United States' capacity to continue to innovate, especially given recent events that discourage the entrance of foreign- born and foreign-trained into U.S. science. Anne Preston's focus on retention reminds the reader that the pipeline in is only half of the story. A vibrant scientific workforce depends on retaining those already trained, as well as recruiting new talent to science. Preston's analysis of factors leading to exit is well crafted. The combination of recounting interview data with a careful analysis of survey data provides a rich framework for exploring why individuals leave science and how exit factors vary by gender."
-PAULA STEPHAN, professor of economics, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University

"Leaving Science is fascinating. It is rich social science, augmenting statistical analysis with interviews and individual work histories and applying these insights to policy. I hope that it will be widely read by academic administrators and research managers, as well as by experts on the scientific and engineering workforce. The picture it presents of why men and women leave science is highly nuanced, but there are lessons to be learned by everyone involved in managing and living scientific careers."
-CHARLOTTE KUH, deputy executive director, Policy and Global Affairs Division, The National Academies

The past thirty years have witnessed a dramatic decline in the number of U.S. students pursuing advanced degrees in science and an equally dramatic increase in the number of professionals leaving scientific careers. Leaving Science provides the first significant examination of this worrisome new trend. Economist Anne E. Preston examines a wide range of important questions: Why do professionals who have invested extensive time and money on a rigorous scientific education leave the field? Where do these scientists go and what do they do? What policies might aid in retaining and improving the quality of life for science personnel?

Based on data from a large national survey of nearly 1,700 people who received university degrees in the natural sciences or engineering between 1965 and 1990 and a subsequent in-depth follow-up survey, Leaving Science provides a comprehensive portrait of the career trajectories of men and women who have earned science degrees. Alarmingly, by the end of the follow-up survey, only 51 percent of the original respondents were still working in science. During this time, federal funding for scientific research decreased dramatically relative to private funding. Consequently, the direction of scientific research has increasingly been dictated by market forces, and many scientists have left academic research for income and opportunity in business and industry. Preston identifies the main reasons for people leaving scientific careers as dissatisfaction with compensation and career advancement, difficulties balancing family and career responsibilities, and changing professional interests. Highlighting the difference between male and female exit patterns, Preston shows that most men left because they found scientific salaries low relative to perceived alternatives in other fields, while most women left scientific careers in response to feelings of alienation due to lack of career guidance, difficulty relating to their work, and insufficient time for their family obligations.

Leaving Science contains a unique blend of rigorous statistical analysis with voices of individual scientists, ensuring a rich and detailed understanding of an issue with profound consequences for the nation's future. A better understanding of why professionals leave science can help lead to changes in scientific education and occupations and make the scientific workplace more attractive and hospitable to career men and women.

ANNE E. PRESTON is associate professor of economics at Haverford College, Pennsylvania.

"Harriet Presser has provided us with an extraordinary, well-written, important piece of research that greatly reduces our ignorance about shiftwork. The book deserves a wide audience among academics and policy-makers."
-INDUSTRIAL AND LABOR RELATIONS REVIEW

"An impressive analysis of the impact of working time on the American family. Working in a 24/7 Economy should be required reading for everyone engaged in work scheduling policy, practice, or research!"
-DONALD I. TEPAS, PROFESSOR EMERITUS, UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT AND SECRETARY, SHIFTWORK COMMITTEE, INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH

"Noted demographer Harriet Presser has spent much of the last two decades investigating the implications of shift work for families. Her masterful synthesis of the literature reveals that nonstandard hours are not only here to stay, but also that they pose important, often unrecognized challenges for families, especially for couples and single parents raising young children. This book is must reading, not only for scholars who are interested specifically in the work-family interface but for researchers in the fields of business and management, work and occupations, labor economics, industrial-organizational psychology, family studies, and child development. Presser's conclusions provide important insights not only for the research community, but for corporate management, policy makers, and community leaders. An important take-home message is that we can no longer ignore the timing of work hours and how those hours dovetail-or wreak havoc-with family life."
-NAN CROUTER, PROFESSOR OF HUMAN DEVELOPMENT AND DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR WORK AND FAMILY RESEARCH, PENN STATE UNIVERSITY

"Few studies have even touched on this topic, yet Harriet Presser covers it thoroughly, deliberately, and even-handedly. In other words, while some explorers are content to proclaim that they have discovered new land, Presser sends back a surprisingly complete map, filled with the main rivers, mountains, plains, and more than a few hidden valleys. I cannot remember the last time I read a book containing so much thoroughly original work. This is the place to learn about night, evening, and weekend work and how it impacts family life."
-JERRY A. JACOBS, MERRIAM TERM PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA

"The complicated and difficult lives of workers forced to work at times others sleep, play, and have normal family time together is documented in this meticulous study. Harriet Presser describes the severe problems of broken marriages and problematic child care arrangements that two-fifths of our work force confronts in an economy in which there are no time boundaries. This is must reading for scholars, policy-makers, and the public."
-CYNTHIA FUCHS EPSTEIN, DISTINGUISHED PROFESSOR, GRADUATE CENTER, CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK

An economy that operates 24/7—as ours now does—imposes extraordinary burdens on workers. Two-fifths of all employed Americans work mostly during evenings, nights, weekends, or on rotating shifts outside the traditional 9-to-5 work day. The pervasiveness of nonstandard work schedules has become a significant social phenomenon, with important implications for the health and well-being of workers and their families. In Working in a 24/7 Economy, Harriet Presser looks at the effects of nonstandard work schedules on family functioning and shows how these schedules disrupt marriages and force families to cobble together complex child-care arrangements that should concern us all.

The number of hours Americans work has received ample attention, but the issue of which hours—or days—Americans work has received much less scrutiny. Working in a 24/7 Economy provides a comprehensive overview of who works nonstandard schedules and why. Presser argues that the growth in women's employment, technological change, and other demographic changes over the past thirty years gave rise to the growing demand for late-shift and weekend employment in the service sector. She also demonstrates that most people who work these hours do so primarily because it is a job requirement, rather than a choice based on personal considerations. Presser shows that the consequences of working nonstandard schedules often differ for men and women since housework and child-rearing remain assigned primarily to women even when both spouses are employed. As with many other social problems, the burden of these schedules disproportionately affects the working poor, reflecting their lack of options in the workplace and adding to their disadvantage. Presser also documents how such work arrangements have created a new rhythm of daily life within many American families, including those with two earners and absent fathers. With spouses often not at home together in the evenings or nights, and parents often not at home with their children at such times, the relatively new concept of "home-time" has emerged as primary concern for families across the nation.

Employing a wealth of empirical data, Working in a 24/7 Economy shows that nonstandard work schedules are both highly prevalent among American families and generate a level of complexity in family functioning that demands greater public attention. Presser makes a convincing case for expanded research and meaningful policy initiatives to address this growing social phenomenon.

HARRIET B. PRESSER is Distinguished University Professor in the Department of Sociology at the University of Maryland.

"A stimulating, provocative collection of some of the best minds studying racism, culture, and identity, this intelligent volume does not flinch at the tough issues in multicultural relations. Novice readers will walk away informed; experts will come away intrigued; everyone will be enriched, thinking a lot harder about the role of social science in confronting these crucial challenges to our country and our world."
- SUSAN T. FISKE, University of Massachusetts

"Prentice and Miller have assembled a stellar cast of leading researchers in the areas of culture, identity, and intergroup relations to tackle perhaps the most pressing social psychological problem facing us as we start the new millennium-the problem of cultural identity and its relationship to intergroup conflict and social harmony. The refreshing juxtaposition of research on social identity, intergroup conflict, stigma, diversity, culture, ethnicity, race, and gender provides a salutary framework for new theoretical advances in this area."
- MICHAEL A. HOGG, University of Queensland

"A timely, interesting, and important book with contributions from some of the most eminent scholars studying the psychology of culture, ethnicity, and racism. It asks and answers fundamental questions about the consequences of multiculturalism in America- especially those consequences relevant to ethnic conflict. Each chapter is provocative and illuminating. Taken together, these chapters reveal many subtle differences between peoples that have very unsubtle consequences when these peoples come into contact. As a whole, the book offers a forceful argument that the psychological implications of multiculturalism are not only fascinating, but they really, really matter."
- MARK SCHALLER, University of British Columbia

"Now, more than ever, it is essential to probe the cultural foundations of intergroup conflict-both in the United States and internationally. This important book presents the latest psychological research on the cultural diversity debate by renowned scholars in the field. They provide much-needed insights into current intergroup conflict while suggesting some optimism for the future."
- VICTORIA ESSES, University of Western Ontario

Thirty years of progress on civil rights and a new era of immigration to the United States have together created an unprecedented level of diversity in American schools, workplaces, and neighborhoods. But increased contact among individuals from different racial and ethnic groups has not put an end to misunderstanding and conflict. On the contrary, entrenched cultural differences raise vexing questions about the limits of American pluralism. Can a population of increasingly mixed origins learn to live and work together despite differing cultural backgrounds? Or, is social polarization by race and ethnicity inevitable? These are the dilemmas explored in Cultural Divides, a compendium of the latest research into the origins and nature of group conflict, undertaken by a distinguished group of social psychologists who have joined forces to examine the effects of culture on social life.

Cultural Divides shows how new lines of investigation into intergroup conflict shape current thinking on such questions as: Why are people so strongly prone to attribute personal differences to group membership rather than to individual nature? Why are negative beliefs about other groups so resistent to change, even with increased contact? Is it possible to struggle toward equal status for all people and still maintain separate ethnic identities for culturally distinct groups? Cultural Divides offers new theories about how social identity comes to be rooted in groups: Some essays describe the value of group membership for enhancing individual self-esteem, while others focus on the belief in social hierarchies, or the perception that people of different skin colors and ethnic origins fall into immutably different categories. Among the phenomena explored are the varying degrees of commitment and identification felt by many black students toward their educational institutions, the reasons why social stigma affects the self-worth of some minority groups more than others, and the peculiar psychology of hate crime perpetrators. The way cultural boundaries can impair our ability to resolve disputes is a recurrent theme in the volume. An essay on American cultures of European, Asian, African, and Mexican origin examines core differences in how each traditionally views conflict and its proper methods of resolution. Another takes a hard look at the multiculturalist agenda and asks whether it can realistically succeed. Other contributors describe the effectiveness of social experiments aimed at increasing positive attitudes, cooperation, and conflict management skills in mixed group settings.

Cultural Divides illuminates the beliefs and attitudes that people hold about themselves in relation to others, and how these social thought processes shape the formation of group identity and intergroup antagonism. In so doing, Cultural Divides points the way toward a new science of cultural contact and confronts issues of social change that increasingly affect all Americans.

DEBORAH A. PRENTICE is associate professor of psychology at Princeton University.

DALE T. MILLER is professor of psychology at Princeton University.

CONTRIBUTORS: Robert P. Abelson, Brenda S. Banker, Marilynn B. Brewer, Sharmaine Vidanage Cheleden, Incheol Choi, Jack Citrin, Jennifer Crocker, John F. Dovidio, Christopher M. Frederico, George M. Fredrickson, Samuel L. Gaertner, Margaret Garnett, Martin P. Gooden, Donald P. Green, Patricia Gurin, Sheena S. Iyengar, James M. Jones, Jason S. Lawrence, Mark R. Lepper, Shana Levin, Leah R. Lin, Gretchen Lopez, Hazel Rose Markus, Dale T. Miller, Biren (Ratnesh) A. Nagda, Jason A. Nier, Richard E. Nisbett, Ara Norenzayan, Timothy Peng, Deborah A. Prentice, Joshua L. Rabinowitz, Lee Ross, David O. Sears, David A. Sherman, Jim Sidanius, Claude Steele, Colette van Laar, William von Hippel, and Christine M. Ward.

The Association of the Bar of the City of New York (ABCNY) is no ordinary professional organization. Formed in 1870 and housed in an imposing mid-town edifice, it was the first modern bar association, nationally known for its eminent membership, its reformist stance—and its intimidating selectivity. During much of its history, the ABCNY appeared to be more an upper-class, WASP legal club than an open, collegial association.

How did such an organization fare in the face of post-war pressures for inclusiveness? From Patrician to Professional Elite offers a rare view of the internal dynamics of an institution adapting to a changed environment. The ABCNY maintained its elite identity by adopting a meritocratic organizational model in place of a class-based model. By shedding its overt exclusivity, the ABCNY asserted its legitimacy; by embracing an "open elite" or meritocratic model, the associate retained its high standing and relative homogeneity. In fact, the ABCNY today is dominated by the same functional group of lawyers as before, the corporate legal elite.

This fascinating study of organizational change prompts a re-examination of fundamental questions about the class basis of modern professionalism and the dominance of elites within professions, in addition to illuminating the larger question of the role of elite institutions in democratic societies.

MICHAEL J. POWELL is associate professor of sociology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

"While other people have been applying tired old models of assimilation and market response to recent American immigration, economic sociologists have been organizing a small analytic revolution. Alejandro Portes and his splendid band of collaborators make clear that the causes, processes, and consequences of migration vary dramatically from group to group, that a group's history makes a profound difference to its fate in the American economy. They have produced a sinewy book, a book worth arguing with."
-Charles Tilly, New School for Social Research

The children of the past decade's influx of immigrants comprise a second generation far different than any this country has known before. Largely non-white and from the world's developing nations, these children struggle with complex problems of racial and ethnic relations in multicultural urban neighborhoods, attend troubled inner city schools, and face discriminatory labor markets and an economy that no longer provides the abundant manufacturing jobs that sustained previous generations of immigrants. As the contributors to The New Second Generation make clear, the future of these children is an open question that will be key to understanding the long-range consequences of current immigration.

The New Second Generation chronicles the lives of second generation youth in Miami, New York City, New Orleans, and Southern California. The contributors balance careful analysis with the voices of the youngsters themselves, focusing primarily on education, career expectations, language preference, ethnic pride, and the influence of their American-born peers. Demographic portraits by Leif Jensen and Yoshimi Chitose and by Charles Hirschman reveal that although most immigrant youths live at or below the official poverty line, this disadvantage is partially offset by the fact that their parents are typically married, self-employed, and off welfare. However, the children do not always follow the course set by their parents, and often challenge immigrant ethics with a desire to embrace American culture. Mary Waters examines how the tendency among West Indian teens to assume an American black identity links them to a legacy of racial discrimination. Although the decision to identify as American or as immigrant usually presages how well second generation children will perform in school, the formation of this self-image is a complex process. M. Patricia Fernandez-Kelly and Richard Schauffler find marked differences among Hispanic groups, while Ruben G. Rumbaut explores the influence of individual and family characteristics among Asian, Latin, and Caribbean youths.

Nativists frequently raise concerns about the proliferation of a non-English speaking population heavily dependent on welfare for economic support. But Alejandro Portes and Richard Schauffler's historical analysis of language preferences among Miami's Hispanic youth reveals their unequivocal preference for English. Nor is immigrationan inevitable precursor to a swollen welfare state: Lisandro Perez and Min Zhou and Carl L. Bankston demonstrate the importance of extended families and ethnic community solidarity in improving school performance and providing increased labor opportunities.

As immigration continues to change the face of our nation's cities, we cannot ignore the crucial issue of how well the second generation youth will adapt. The New Second Generation provides valuable insight into issues that may spell the difference between regeneration and decay across urban America.

ALEJANDRO PORTES is the John Dewey Professor and Chair of the Department of Sociology at Johns Hopkins University.

CONTRIBUTORS: Carl L. Bankston III, Yoshimi Chitose, Patricia Fernández Kelly, Charles Hirschman, Leif Jensen, Lisandro Perez, Alejandro Portes, Rubén G. Rumbaut, Richard Schauffler, Mary C. Waters, Min Zhou