The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act (2008) and the Tenacity of the Sexual Family Form1

The new parenthood provisions set out in Part 2 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 have been attacked as dangerous and radical, offering a ‘lego‐kit model of family life’ and a ‘magical mystery tour’ in how legal fatherhood is to be determined. In this paper, we explain what is innovative about these new provisions but also explore what they owe to deep‐rooted traditional assumptions about the family. Relying both on published documentation relating to this reform process and a small number of key actor interviews, we trace the imprint of what Fineman has described as the ‘sexual family’ model on the provisions. We conclude that the way that parenthood is framed within the legislation relies on a number of important normative assumptions which received very little scrutiny in this process. We also highlight a number of tensions within this framing which, we suggest, may create future problems for judicial determination.     

The relationship between income and material hardship

This paper examines the relationship between income and the extent of material hardship and explores other factors that might affect hardship. Using panel data from the Women's Employment Study, we examine the incidence of material hardship from 1997 to 2003 among current and former welfare recipients. We then consider the extent to which income is associated with hardship. We show that hardship decreases monotonically across quintiles of the income distribution for several income measures. When we measure income as the average across the 6‐year study period, a 10 percent increase in average income is associated with a 1.1 percentage point decrease in the likelihood of experiencing a hardship, a drop of about 3.4 percent. We also find that the relationship between transitory changes in income and hardship is weak. These results are consistent with findings based on a nationally representative sample of disadvantaged households from the Survey of Income and Program Participation. Our results indicate that observable factors, such as measures of mental health, are more strongly related to hardship than current income. © 2008 by the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management.     

“No Father Required”? The Welfare Assessment in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008

Of all the changes to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 that were introduced in 2008 by legislation of the same name, foremost to excite media attention and popular controversy was the amendment of the so-called welfare clause. This clause forms part of the licensing conditions which must be met by any clinic before offering those treatment services covered by the legislation. The 2008 Act deleted the statutory requirement that clinicians consider the need for a father of any potential child before offering a woman treatment, substituting for it a requirement that clinicians must henceforth consider the child’s need for “supportive parenting”. In this paper, we first briefly recall the history of the introduction of s 13(5) in the 1990 Act, before going on to track discussion of its amendment through the lengthy reform process that preceded the introduction of the 2008 Act. We then discuss the meaning of the phrase “supportive parenting” with reference to guidance regarding its interpretation offered by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. While the changes to s 13(5) have been represented as suggesting a major change in the law, we suggest that the reworded section does not represent a significant break from the previous law as it had been interpreted in practice. This raises the question of why it was that an amendment that is likely to make very little difference to clinical practice tended to excite such attention (and with such polarising force). To this end, we locate debates regarding s 13(5) within a broader context of popular anxieties regarding the use of reproductive technologies and, specifically, what they mean for the position of men within the family.     

Social Justice and Moral Reasoning: An Empirical Integration of Two Paradigms in Psychological Research

Distributive and procedural justice are of central importance to past and current theories of the psychology of moral development and the social psychology of justice. In order to explicate the relationships among theories, participants responded to both a measure of moral reasoning and a measure of 15 various justice criteria. Analyses showed that each schema of moral reasoning was significantly predicted by different concerns about social justice. Furthermore, individuals' judgments about justice were best represented by four factors, offering a broader definition of justice in relation to moral schemas. The findings were consistent with Kohlbergian theory; moral reasoning appears to proceed from concerns about self-interest to distributive fairness to procedural justice.     

Procedural Fairness,Blame Attributions,and Presidential Leadership

The removal of the President of the United States from office is a rare and significant event. This study investigated the influence of procedural fairness and blame attributions on punishment and support attitudes during the 1998 impeachment of President Clinton. This study assessed the influence of the procedural fairness of Clinton's behavior, procedural fairness of the Kenneth Starr/Congress investigation, satisfaction with Clinton policies, and blame attributions on punishment attitudes (i.e., whether Clinton should be removed from office) and support attitudes (i.e., whether individuals would vote for Clinton if an election were held today). Both the procedural fairness of Starr/Congress and procedural fairness of Clinton' behavior significantly influenced punishment and support attitudes. Procedural fairness of Clinton had indirect effects on punishment attitudes (through perceived blame of Clinton) and direct effects on support attitudes. Procedural fairness of Starr/Congress had direct effects on both punishment and support attitudes.     

Woman pullers: pimping and sex trafficking in a Mexican Border City

Much has been written about sex trafficking in the past decade, although empirical studies have remained few. Even less research has been done on those who make a living by facilitating the movement of women and children in the sex industry. This paper is based on a three-year study in Tijuana, Mexico, in which 92 sex trade facilitators were interviewed. Findings suggest a far more complex social process than portrayed by the anti-trafficking literature. Men and women of diverse backgrounds developed niches in Tijuana’s sex industry, by bringing women into contact with customers. This business appeared to be dominated by Mexican entrepreneurs, with no evidence of any systematic collaborations with either local criminal organizations or foreign traffickers. There appeared to be no shortage of women willing to work in the sex industry, suggesting limited prospect for coerced prostitution. Still, a small number of pimps reported using “persuasion” to recruit women of particular types from interior Mexico. Commissions or referral fees were the most common form of income received by pimps for their services, and the rules on how money was to be made and split between sex workers and venue owners appeared well established. While a few respondents could sustain a livelihood through pimping, the majority held other jobs.     

An experimental evaluation of a nationally recognized employment-focused offender reentry program

Objectives

The need for re-entry assistance is widely acknowledged, but specifics about what services actually lead to reduced recidivism are hard to find—at least among rigorous studies. This is a critical issue: at a time when there appears to be unprecedented support for expanding rehabilitative programs for offenders, there is a dearth of rigorously vetted program options from which to choose.

Methods

Collaborating with a nationally known employment-focused reentry program in Southern California, the authors compared employment, housing, and recidivism outcomes of reentering offenders (n?=?217) who were either randomized into the program or simply provided with a list of community resources. This approach was possible because the number of applicants at the time exceeded program capacity. Outcomes were based on self-report interviews conducted 1-year post-randomization and arrest records reflecting a 2-year follow-up period. The follow-up rate for interviews was 87 %.

Results

No significant differences were found for any of the between-group comparisons on any of the major intervention outcomes.

Conclusions

Findings from the study suggest a greater need to apply randomized designs to more carefully evaluate current reentry efforts. Methodological challenges of field experiments are also discussed.     

Managing an on-the-spot lottery in reentry services

Objectives

Describe the authors?? experiences in designing and conducting a randomized field experiment of a community-based, reentry program for ex-offenders.

Methods

Two surveys: one with reentry clients not involved in our outcome evaluation, and a follow-up survey of participants who underwent randomization in order to participate in the outcome study. Qualitative input from program staff and clients were also recorded, supplemented with observations of the authors.

Results

Having a research staff member located at the program site proved to be a key advantage for monitoring frustrations voiced by program staff and prospective clients, thereby allowing for the modification of the selection procedures over time to minimize resistance. Ultimately, the simplest approach proved to be the most acceptable. The importance of certain procedural justice themes were suggested by the survey results and the observed acceptability of our on-the-spot lottery approach to randomization.

Conclusions

The survey results (and our onsite experiences) provided unequivocal evidence that randomization was unpopular, but that resistance can be partially mitigated by adhering to basic principles of procedural justice.