Abolition and Social Work: Dismantling Carceral Logics to Build Systems of Care

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please see the attached file. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Thank you for the feedback on our manuscript, “Towards abolition and social work: Unmasking the carceral 2 logics in youth serving systems,” for publication in Social Sciences. We have reviewed the comments and have made the requested revisions. We have renamed our paper “Abolition and Social Work: Dismantling Carceral Logics to Build Systems of Care.” Below is a table that describes how each suggestion was addressed. Please note that we marked our revisions in the manuscript by underlining the text.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I thoroughly enjoyed reading this paper and I commend the authors on their analysis. I encourage publication however I have some notes that I hope will strengthen it further.

Primarily, the authors argue for a new social work: “We conclude this paper by calling for a profound reimagining of social work through an abolitionist lens.” This is commendable, but social work’s history is riddled with unheeded calls for reform, in the context of a social system that expects social work to be a function of the carceral state. The authors state that “The historical trajectory of social work, which has seen an upshift in many conversations, reveals a troubling alignment with state-sanctioned violence and control.” How, in this context, can social work become truly abolitionist? Is it suggested that individual social workers, whose employment contracts require them to act in carceral roles, be abolitionist? I feel that this systemic issue is fundamental but largely unaddressed. The solutions proposed are very valuable contributions for what social workers can do while working towards abolition but, to my analysis, will not result in an abolitionist social work.

Secondly, the location of the paper, in the US social work context, is entirely appropriate, but, like much US literature, seems to completely ignore the world outside of the US. This may be a discussion to have with the journal editor, but I would see the paper as much more relevant to non-US readers if it were given an international framing, with US social work as a case study. For example, in many jurisdictions, youth justice is generally much more focused on rehabilitation and much less on punishment – hyper incarceration is a peculiarly US issue. Similarly, there is a growing body of work in other jurisdictions on the issues addressed in the paper that would increase its accessibility to international readers, while also strengthening the paper’s arguments – particularly colonial welfare policies and their impact on First Nations people, but also social work’s racist roots across the globe. Social work is a globalised discipline, not US centric.

4.1, on education, is convincing but does not link back to social work. If, in this context, social workers are responsible for classroom management (rather than I suspect, teachers and school administrators) this should be made clear. Otherwise this argument is about educational practices, not social work. Compare this to 4.2, which is clearly social work’s domain. 4.3 makes this link back to social work convincingly. It is unclear why these practices would be limited to working with young people, when so much carceral practice occurs with adults.

I am unconvinced that unconditional positive regard works towards abolitionism – although the point about reducing punishment mindsets does resonate. It should be made clearer for the reader how these interpersonal aspects relate to abolitionism. This is done well in the discussion of security and safety.

The claim at line 298 that children of color are actively criminalized in classroom settings, should probably have some citation in support. This whole paragraph makes some very strong claims that are not supported with references to the literature. There are a number of instances where I personally would expect to see citations where they are missing, but perhaps this is an editorial decision.

The claim that testimonial injustice arrived with enslaved Africans may be misinterpreted to exclude the testimonial injustices of First Nations people, which I am sure is not the author’s intention.

Bergen & Abji, 2019, does not appear in the reference list.

 

Line 271 has a capital A typo. Line 451 is missing a space before the word “In” – an issue repeated throughout the paper. There are probably others that I have missed. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for the feedback on our manuscript, “Towards abolition and social work: Unmasking the carceral 2 logics in youth serving systems,” for publication in Social Sciences. We have reviewed the comments and have made the requested revisions. We have renamed our paper “Abolition and Social Work: Dismantling Carceral Logics to Build Systems of Care.” Below is a table that describes how each suggestion was addressed. Please note that we marked our revisions in the manuscript by underlining the text.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. 

In this conceptual paper, the authors apply the concept of  “carceral seepage” to social work practice with youth (specifically in family policing and schools) to explicate social work’s complicity in criminalization. They then discuss abolitionist alternatives to transform social work practice. 

Please see the attached PDF for direct comments on the manuscript. Below are some summative notes. The authors make many strong points in this manuscript. It is clear the authors have engaged deeply and extensively with recent and relevant literature on carceral and abolitionist social work. The authors, I believe, are faced with a common challenge — finding and clearly articulating how their conceptual work is in conversation with, extends, counters, deepens, etc. existing scholarship in this area. Ultimately, I could not identify the paper’s clear contribution to existing literature surrounding social work, youth, and carcerality. 

Language

While the authors can assume readers may be familiar with many terms (in the context of this special issue), it would be helpful to define terms they rely on more heavily, both to bring the reader along and to offer clarity/sharpness to abolitionist scholarship (helping avoid the slippage of language into nonmeaningful or non-abolitionist uses). 

I encourage the authors to reduce the number of terms they use to describe the various facets of carceral praxis. Reducing the terms used to describe similar things/processes can make the writing more intentional and invite the reader deeper into the paper’s analyses.  

The manuscript seems to focus on U.S.-based professional social work and related institutions/governance. Establish this geopolitical context up front, in the introduction and abstract, and reinforce throughout the manuscript when needed.  

Binaries & Juxtapositions

The authors frequently frame ideas or claims in ways that are fairly binaristic. Sometimes this is happening via totalizing language, presenting activities or providers as always or necessarily a certain way. Othertimes, this is happening via juxtapositions, comparing two or more things using contrasting language (e.g., however, while, instead) – when those things may be substantively different or deserving of more context. 

Citations

When writing about observations (e.g., disproportionality, observed harms), cite empirical research when possible. Avoid citing conceptual papers as the sole source for claims that could be supported with existing empirical studies. The former risks creating a chain of secondary citations that can be difficult to trace for a reader wanting to understand more. Similarly, the authors should be careful about using qualifiers like “most” or “often” when making uncited claims. 

The paper almost exclusively uses parenthetical citations, which are helpful for conciseness but sometimes obscure the details/context of cited research. Consider reworking some citations into a narrative format to highlight the researchers and share more context for particularly important or frequently cited studies/research. 

Existing Literature & Contribution

To ensure your work is building from or extending existing literature, be careful to name the legacies of meaning-making and analysis upon which your work rests. What social work and social work-adjacent scholars have documented and interrogated carceral logics in social work settings? You might pay attention to settings or practices that are more and less covered in that literature to better articulate your manuscript’s unique contribution. Note that focusing on education opens you up to a much broader realm of scholarship on the school-to-prison nexus. 

The abstract and introduction prepared me for a manuscript that might extend existing analyses to youth settings/work in new or deeper ways. This specificity and application is very helpful and we need more of it! However, in its current form, the paper focuses in on child welfare (4.1) — a topic fairly extensively explored in social work literature—and schools (4.2)—not as explored in the social work literature but definitely explored in critical education and youth studies. The last six pages (sections 6-9) lose focus on these youth-specific sites of carceral practice and become more repetitive of existing literature on carceral and abolitionist social work.  

There is also something happening around “care” or “care work” that could be teased out for a more substantive or unique contribution. There is definitely a good body of work adjacent to and beyond social work literature on the politics and theory of care work and its intersection with abolitionist and aligned theories/praxis. 

2. Abolition and Social Work: Rejecting Reformist Carceral Care: The overall focus or intent of this section is unclear. I think the authors are wanting to juxtapose abolitionist and carceral social work, with a focus on reform. This is an important task, and one that has been taken up by other scholars/writers in clear and helpful ways—including in social work. Rather than attempting to rearticulate existing analyses, the authors might try to identify and concisely share a few key ideas that the reader needs to engage with what comes next in the manuscript.  
3. Carceral Seepage: The Spread of Punishment into Care Systems: In the comments, I ask the authors to consider Mimi Kim’s concept of “carceral creep.” The authors might also consider and cite Schenwar and Law’s (2020) book Prison By Any Other Name, which illustrates these concepts across several social welfare/service sites. Overall, this section of the paper provides examples of carceral seepage by briefly describing critiques of various social work practices (risk assessment tools, school discipline, and crisis response). These examples have been explored in previous works and I’m not clear that walking through them in the context of carceral seepage extends or expands our understanding of existing critiques/analyses. 

One particular scholar whose work could inform the authors’ writing around carcerality, abolition, and school settings is Erica Meiners e.g., Right to Be Hostile, For the Children, and various articles. 

4. Critiques of Youth Systems in Social Work: The Circuit of Carceral Control: In the comments, I ask the authors to conceptually define “circuit of control” and to check if any preexisting frameworks or theories already represent the concepts you’re speaking to. For example, Wacquant’s (2009) carceral-assistential complex, Tillman’s carceral liberalism, Richie & Martensen’s (2019) carceral services, and Foucault’s (1995) carceral continuum and carceral archipelago (extended from Solzhenitsyn). 
5. The Perpetuation of Carceral Logic in Youth Systems: This section seems largely repetitive of previous writing in this paper. I am unsure what the specific purpose or function of this section is.

Sections 6 - 9: These sections seem to engage a broader scope than the two youth-focused settings discussed previously (i.e., family policing and schools), and made me recall Jacobs et al.’s (2020) paper. I’m curious how the authors would describe what this section does differently than or how it engages/counters/extends that work. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for your review. Please see the attachments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a useful paper that extends current conversations on the role of abolitionist praxis in social work. Much of the information is not new, although the idea of carceral seepage applies a slightly new concept to existing publications on this topic. My primary recommendation for improvement has to do with the authors' conceptualizations of an abolitionist future and social work's role in this future. Several sections of the paper talk about decoupling law enforcement from child welfare, or decoupling police from schools. I understand these ideas as interim strategies to reduce harm, but ultimately, in an abolitionist future, these systems would not exist. Another example of this confusion is this sentence from the conclusion, "In an abolitionist future, social work is not tethered to policing, courts, or punitive child welfare interventions." Social work absolutely needs to untether itself from these systems, but also work toward their abolition. In an abolitionist future these systems no longer exist, so the untethering process is just a strategy to get to that future. In other words, the ultimate goal of the abolition movement needs to be more clearly articulated.

Author Response

My primary recommendation for improvement has to do with the authors' conceptualizations of an abolitionist future and social work's role in this future. Several sections of the paper talk about decoupling law enforcement from child welfare, or decoupling police from schools. I understand these ideas as interim strategies to reduce harm, but ultimately, in an abolitionist future, these systems would not exist. Another example of this confusion is this sentence from the conclusion, "In an abolitionist future, social work is not tethered to policing, courts, or punitive child welfare interventions." Social work absolutely needs to untether itself from these systems, but also work toward their abolition. In an abolitionist future these systems no longer exist, so the untethering process is just a strategy to get to that future. In other words, the ultimate goal of the abolition movement needs to be more clearly 

In final section of paper we revised to unpack abolitionist future