The Underlife Oppositional Behavior at Urban Public High School

Nolan, Kathleen

doi:10.5749/minnesota/9780816675524.003.0007

Cited by 12 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Second, by developing the framework of institutional offloading with the case of crossover youth, the findings challenge the (often implicit) assumption that more coercive institutions automatically assume responsibility for people sent their way, resulting in the funneling of marginalized state subjects toward increasingly coercive control over the life course. The present study does not question the wealth of evidence documenting how institutional actors direct members of marginalized groups-particularly those who are poor and Black or Brown-toward coercive control (Fong 2020;Gowan and Whetstone 2012;Harris 2009;Kohler-Hausmann 2018;Nolan 2011;Rios 2011;Shedd 2015;Simmons 2020;Stuart 2016), nor am I disputing the notion that penal institutions often become "warehouses" or "dumping grounds" for populations perceived as unmanageable by other state institutions (Emerson 1969;Garland 1985;Jacobs 1990;Wacquant 2009). Rather, the framework of institutional offloading developed here encourages us to understand coercive control as an interlocking state process.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 57%

“…A wealth of evidence illustrates how institutional actors direct people perceived as unmanageable toward more coercive control, resulting in transfers from schools and hospitals to the child welfare system (Fong 2020); the child welfare system to juvenile delinquency court (Emerson 1969;Jacobs 1990;Simmons 2020); schools to police (Nolan 2011;Rios 2011;Shedd 2015); juvenile court to adult court (Harris 2009); and drug treatment programs to incarceration (Gowan and Whetstone 2012). Together, these accounts offer important takeaways.…”

Section: Governing Marginalized Groups Across the Life Coursementioning

confidence: 99%

“…The social worker fears that if her difficult-tomanage crossover clients remain with Social Services, they will ultimately end up incarcerated as adults. Because crossover youth are predominantly Black children from poor families, this perspective is likely shaped by racialized and classed narratives around who should be managed with more coercive control (Ferguson 2000;Soss et al 2011a) and the inevitability of the pipeline to prison (Nolan 2011). Like legal actors who feel they have to "do something" for court defendants presumed to need social control (Kohler-Hausmann 2018), social workers fear the worst outcomes for their young clients if they do not try another type of state intervention.…”

Section: Social Workers Seek To Optimize Resources and Minimize Blamementioning

confidence: 99%

“…The state relies on bureaucratic institutions to govern marginalized groups, but the complexity of people's lives defies institutional boundaries. Consider, for example, how people span the borders of schools and police (Nolan 2011), child welfare and juvenile probation (Emerson 1969;Jacobs 1990), juvenile and adult court (Harris 2009), or drug rehabilitation and jail (Gowan and Whetstone 2012). How then do marginalized groups become the responsibility of one institution over another?…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Contested by the State: Institutional Offloading in the Case of Crossover Youth

Sirois

2023

Am Sociol Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How do people become the responsibility of one state institution over another? Prevailing theory suggests that marginalized groups are funneled toward increasingly coercive control over the life course, yet more coercive institutions may not always assume responsibility for people sent their way. This article uses the unique case of crossover youth—children at the junction of child welfare and juvenile justice systems—to illustrate how state institutions negotiate and contest responsibility for marginalized groups. To explain this process, I advance a conceptual framework of institutional offloading, which contends that institutional actors seek to offload responsibility for eligible tasks or clients they perceive to unduly strain the resources at their disposal and expose them to blame. Drawing on ethnographic data from a California juvenile court and interviews with court actors, the analysis demonstrates how actors from Social Services, on one side, and Probation, on the other, attempt to offload responsibility for crossover youth. In this process, institutional actors construct and contest crossover youths’ status as dependent or delinquent. The findings highlight the importance of analyzing governance decisions as interlocking state processes and illuminate mechanisms by which the pipeline to prison for marginalized groups may be perpetuated and potentially disrupted.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 57%

Section: Governing Marginalized Groups Across the Life Coursementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Social Workers Seek To Optimize Resources and Minimize Blamementioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Contested by the State: Institutional Offloading in the Case of Crossover Youth

Sirois

2023

Am Sociol Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…At the same time, “successful” bracketing—considering harassment that occurs between girls or toward girls based on sexuality as HIB—should not be automatically taken to be the primary solution to this issue, as punitive intervention at the level of the individual student likewise does not address broader structural issues that work to generate gendered, racialized, and classed forms of bullying. Law enforcement in school contexts exacerbates justice disparities (Crenshaw et al, 2015; Nolan, 2011; Shedd, 2015). In short, we are not trying to argue that the HIB law is necessarily the best mechanism for addressing peer harassment, but instead that it serves a function of marking what is blatantly unacceptable peer behavior.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Outside the brackets: Why school administrators fail to see gendered harassment within an antibullying law

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Much of school bullying involves students policing the gender roles and sexuality of other students. The proliferation of antibullying laws presents an opportunity to formally punish and mark gendered harassment as unacceptable. However, when this form of peer policing involves girls, administrators often consider it to fall outside the purview of the law. We use bracketing theory to understand how middle school administrators in New Jersey assess whether student behavior violates a statewide harassment, intimidation, and bullying law. We find that, according to administrators, violations require relational asymmetry between an aggressor and victim: an imbalance of power and disproportionate participation. Administrators rarely see gendered harassment as bullying because of the relational stereotypes they attach to girl students, which often preclude interpretations of relational asymmetry. We discuss how gender beliefs among administrators and "bracketing failures" explain the ways antibullying laws allow hegemonic beliefs about gender and sexuality to remain untroubled.

show abstract

Statement on the effects of law enforcement in school settings

Tocci,

Stacy,

Siegal

et al. 2023

American J of Comm Psychol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

School‐based law enforcement (SBLE) have become increasingly common in U.S. schools over recent decades despite the controversy surrounding their presence and lack of consensus around their associated benefits and harms. Drawing on the history and evidence base regarding SBLE, we advocate for an end to SBLE programs. Grounding our argument in principles of Community Psychology and positive youth development, we outline how the presence and actions of SBLE negatively affect individual students as well as school systems, with particularly harmful outcomes for students with minoritized and marginalized identities. Research on SBLE and school crime does not provide consistent evidence of positive impacts, and many studies find null effects for the relationship between SBLE and school crime or increases in crime and violence in schools. Though funding for SBLE is often prompted by high‐profile acts of gun violence in schools, evidence suggests that SBLE neither prevents these incidents, nor lessens the severity when they do occur. Thus, we advocate for removing law enforcement from school settings and redirecting resources into inclusive, evidence‐informed responses that are generally safer and more effective than SBLE. We close by outlining the policy landscape governing SBLE programs and ways communities can lobby for change.

show abstract

The Underlife Oppositional Behavior at Urban Public High School

Cited by 12 publications

References 0 publications

Contested by the State: Institutional Offloading in the Case of Crossover Youth

Contested by the State: Institutional Offloading in the Case of Crossover Youth

Outside the brackets: Why school administrators fail to see gendered harassment within an antibullying law

Statement on the effects of law enforcement in school settings

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About