2. ASA MEMBERSHIP TRENDS AND FISCAL STATUS

Membership

Change in Definition of Membership
The 1982 Council made two important changes to membership practices, by changing (a) the definition of Association membership, and (b) the dues structure. The objective of the membership change was to "shift the focus of membership qualifications away from the 'status' or 'credentials' criteria to commitment to the purposes of the Association" (Footnotes, March 1982:1).

Prior to 1982, eligibility for membership was based on individuals having a PhD in sociology or in closely-related fields, or evidence of near attainment of that status. An Associates Membership was open to "any person interested in the field of sociology." In addition, sociology students in degree-granting institutions were eligible for Student Associate, and persons who were both non-citizens and non-residents of the U.S. could become International Members.

According to the 1982 summary of Council actions in Footnotes, membership in the Association was defined as follows: "Persons subscribing to the objectives of the Association may become Members. Those subscribing to the objectives of the Association, but desiring fewer membership services may become Associate Members. Students enrolled in undergraduate or graduate institutions can become Student Members." Also, Council, as the elected representatives of the members, voted to place authority with Council to set dues for the membership up to cost of living adjustments, with only increases above cost of living requiring approval of members through a mail ballot. These Council changes were implemented after amendments to the Constitution and Bylaws were approved by voting members (see below).

The shift in membership classification eliminated the need for the Committee on Classification and greatly reduced the work of the Membership Services Department of the Executive Office, necessary to verify the credentials of prospective members. The Membership Committee The Association pursued innovative campaigns to increase ASA membership (with particular emphasis on recruiting graduate students), and library subscriptions for its journals. Through an active Membership Committee, chaired by John Schnabel, and initiatives directed by Carla Howery at the Executive Office, ASA sought to make the renewal process more efficient by introducing use of credit cards for payment of dues, special discounts for early renewal, user-friendly approach to those slow to renew, and special brochures and other materials to better acquaint members and prospective new members about the ASA. The Committee explored options such as a dues structure based on a fee-for-services principle, alliances with regional associations, dues breaks for multiple association membership, and an introductory ASA membership fee. The Membership Committee articulated goals of "recruitment, retention, and research" in its strategy to stabilize and increase membership in ASA.

Membership Trends During the 1980s
Membership declined each year from 1980 when it was 12,868 to 1984 when it reached a low point at 11,223. From 1985 to 1990 membership again climbed steadily so that by the end of 1990, the membership stood at 12,841 (Appendix 12).

In an analysis of membership trends from 1984 to 1990, Executive Officer D'Antonio noted that: (1) most of the growth in membership was in the student membership category, (2) regular membership increased by only about 600, and (3) numbers in the emeriti category increased significantly. This analysis also revealed shifts in membership among income categories. In 1983, due to the dire effects of the recession, more than two-thirds of the ASA regular members were in the two lowest income categories (Less than or equal to $20,000). By 1990, there were significant increases in membership in the two highest categories ($40,000-$49,999 and $50,000+), and a dramatic decrease in the number reporting incomes in the ranges from $15,000 through $29,000. The number in the low dues category (under $15,000) remained steady at about 1,000 (Footnotes, February 1991:2).

Profile of ASA Members and Minority Participation in ASA in 1981
In the summer of 1981, ASA for the first time collected certain demographic information on its membership as part of the process of compiling information for the 1982 Directory of Members. Also, data were collected on characteristics of faculty and students through "audits" of 238 departments of sociology (audits had also been conducted from 1972-74). A report on the analysis of these data was presented by Paul R. Williams in the December 1982 issue of Footnotes. Williams emphasized that the results from the membership survey should be viewed as estimates because of several methodological issues-most notably the substantial non-response rates on certain key questions (16 percent of the members, for example, did not provide information on race/ethnicity). Nevertheless, Williams wrote that some general statements on the sex and racial/ethnic composition of ASA's membership were possible from these analyses.

These data indicate that in 1981, ASA membership was largely male (67 percent male and 33 percent female) and predominately white: Of those members who reported on race/ethnicity, 91 percent were white, 5 percent Asian, 3 percent black, 1 percent Hispanic, and less than 1 percent Native American (see Appendix 13). In 1981, more than half of ASA members in the student category were women; and except for the international category, which had large numbers of Asians, students were more likely to be minorities. Audits of graduate departments of sociology also show that numbers of minorities and women increased substantially from 1970 to 1981.

In terms of employment, the data show that ASA members were overwhelmingly employed fulltime in the academy. Both white males and minority males were more likely to work in universities and have a higher income. Women were more likely to be employed in the federal government and in non-profit organizations, and minority women were more likely to work in two- and four-year colleges. Minority women were also more disadvantaged both in terms of income and educational attainment.

Williams also examined trends in the participation of minorities and women in ASA leadership activities from 1970 to 1981. Comparisons of the 1981 data with those from an earlier study (published by Joan R. Harris in Footnotes in January 1975) show that women ASA members made substantial gains in ASA positions (i.e., as elected officers, on Council, on elected committees, via Council/Presidential appointments, as elected section officers and on section councils) during this time-to reach levels representative of their proportions in the Associations (the exception being on editorial boards). Minorities gained in some areas, but lost ground overall from the mid-1970s: There was one black member of Council on the 1982 Council, and minority representation in other governance areas had generally declined. Minority representation on committees of Council was considerably higher than their levels in the Association, but minorities were concentrated in committees such as the Committee on the Minority Fellowship Program, the Dubois-Johnson-Frazier Award Committee, and the Committee on Racial and Ethnic Minorities.

Budgets and Fiscal Policies
The budget of the ASA grew dramatically during the 1980s. At the end of 1980, the income of ASA was $1,161,886, with expenditures totaling $1,175,124; by the end of 1990, the income of ASA more than doubled to $2,632,649, with expenditures at $2,523,222. The total operating budget at the end of 1990 was $2,915,897, and reserves stood at $649,662 or about 25 percent of expenditures. In 1990, the value of ASA's equity was $1,371,071, and real estate taxes at the time suggest that the Association's property (its headquarters building) was worth about $1.4 million (Footnotes, May 1981 and August 1991).

In 1980, the equity of ASA was reported at $740,082, and the general reserves stood at $395,345 or about 34 percent of that year's expenditure. During 1980, 1981, and 1982, the Association sustained deficits of $15,067, $49,275, and $83,253, respectively. Several factors, including inflation, loss of membership, and the recession of the early 1980s reduced the reserves from a high of $410,000 in 1980 to $262,817 in 1982.

By 1990, ASA had balanced its budget for four straight years in a row, permitting it to rebuild the reserves of the Association, which had been greatly depleted in the early 1980s. The goal was to have reserves equal to at least one half of the size of the annual budget-generally considered prudent fiscal policy for a non-profit association like the ASA.

ASA also established an investment policy that took into account prudent finances as well as social policies and concerns. As articulated by Secretary Michael Aiken and recorded in the August 22, 1987 minutes of Council, EOB "endorsed a flexible program according to the formula of at least 20-25 percent in money markets, 30 percent in diversified equities, and 45-50 percent in bonds, utilities and preferred stocks. Investments would be made with the following restrictions: no investments in (1) South African companies, (2) companies that are notoriously anti-labor, (3) that are primarily defense related, and (4) that discriminate against women and minorities."

In 1989, Secretary Aiken described "the ASA as having reached certain limits or plateaus-in assets, in membership size, and in Executive Office capability. Although the current budget provides some flexibility, he said that an annual surplus is needed just to account for normal growth." (Council Minutes, January 1989)

Proceed to next section of this chapter