ASRXXX10.1177/0003122419833386American Sociological ReviewElliott and Reid research-article8333862019

American Sociological Review 2019, Vol. 84(2) 197­–219 Low-Income Black Mothers © American Sociological Association 2019 https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122419833386DOI: 10.1177/0003122419833386 Parenting Adolescents in the journals.sagepub.com/home/asr Mass Incarceration Era: The Long Reach of Criminalization

Sinikka Elliotta and Megan Reidb

Abstract Punitive and disciplinary forms of governance disproportionately target low-income Black Americans for surveillance and punishment, and research finds far-reaching consequences of such criminalization. Drawing on in-depth interviews with 46 low-income Black mothers of adolescents in urban neighborhoods, this article advances understanding of the long reach of criminalization by examining the intersection of two related areas of inquiry: the criminalization of Black youth and the institutional scrutiny and punitive treatment of Black mothers. Findings demonstrate that poor Black mothers calibrate their parenting strategies not only to fears that their children will be criminalized by mainstream institutions and the police, but also to concerns that they themselves will be criminalized as bad mothers who could lose their parenting rights. We develop the concept of “family criminalization” to explain the intertwining of Black mothers’ and children’s vulnerability to institutional surveillance and punishment. We argue that to fully grasp the causes and consequences of mass incarceration and its disproportionate impact on Black youth and adults, sociologists must be attuned to family dynamics and linkages as important to how criminalization unfolds in the lives of Black Americans.

Keywords criminalization, mothering, racism, adolescence, mass incarceration

Punitive and disciplinary governance struc- Perry 2016; Rios 2011; Shedd 2015; Skiba tures the everyday lives of low-income Black et al. 2011). Relatedly, studies find that Black people in the United States (Alexander 2010; mothers are deemed responsible for causing, Desmond and Valdez 2012; Goffman 2009; and thus remedying, any challenges they and Hancock 2004; Roberts 2002; Schram et al. their children encounter, including criminal 2009; Wacquant 2009), including children. Research shows that, compared to white1 children, Black children experience dispro- aUniversity of British Columbia portionate and more severe punishment from bUniversity of Wisconsin-Madison school authorities, law enforcement, and the criminal justice system and are marked in Corresponding Author: popular discourse as criminally-inclined and Sinikka Elliott, University of British Columbia, 6303 NW Marine Drive, Vancouver, BC, Canada “at risk” for negative outcomes (Byfield V6T 1Z1 2014; Ferguson 2000; Jones 2010; Morris and Email: [email protected] 198 American Sociological Review 84(2) justice involvement (Elliott and Reid 2016; foster more severe crime (Kelling and Wilson Gurusami 2017, 2019). Long constructed as 1982). Researchers have consistently found unfit mothers, Black women face heightened that this type of discretionary policing, includ- scrutiny and punitive treatment related to ing stop-and-frisk policing in New York City their parenting and children’s actions in a (Greene 1999), results in the disproportionate variety of institutional contexts, making their targeting and punishment of people of color motherhood status contested and precarious and “creates a ubiquitous form of street-level (Collins 2000; Roberts 2002; Schram et al. criminalization in which mundane daily behav- 2009; Soss, Fording, and Schram 2011). iors become subjected to intense police suspi- Analyzing in-depth interviews with 46 cion, interrogation, and intervention” (Stuart low-income urban Black mothers of teenage and Benezra 2018:175; see also Brayne 2014; children, we introduce the concept of family Goffman 2009; Jones 2010, 2018; Rios 2011; criminalization to explain the intertwining of Shedd 2015). This article will advance under- mothers’ and children’s vulnerability to insti- standing of the consequences of the long reach tutional surveillance and punishment. We find of criminalization for Black families by bring- that poor Black mothers calibrate their parent- ing together research on the criminalization of ing strategies not only to fears that their chil- youth of color, protective parenting in low- dren will be criminalized by mainstream income urban neighborhoods, and marginal- institutions and the police, but fears that they ized motherhood. themselves will be criminalized as bad moth- ers and even risk losing their parental rights. The Criminalization of Youth of Color The findings advance sociological under- standing of the criminalization of Black peo- Children of color experience disproportionate ple in the United States by examining targeting for surveillance and punitive pun- mothering at the intersection of two related ishment, or criminalization, in their neighbor- but often separately examined social phenom- hoods and schools (Ferguson 2000; Jones ena: the criminalization of Black childhood 2010; Perry and Morris 2014; Rios 2011; and the subordination of Black motherhood. Shedd 2015). Studies find that authority fig- Following three decades of mass incarceration ures respond to Black youths’ behavior more disproportionately targeting low-income punitively than identical behavior of non- Black Americans (Alexander 2010; Pettit and racialized children, stemming from the con- Western 2004; Wacquant 2009), it is important trolling image of Black children as dangerous to examine this intersection as a key compo- troublemakers with malicious intent (Crenshaw, nent of the long reach of criminalization. Ocen, and Nanda 2015; Ferguson 2000; Rios 2011). Controlling images are caricatures of subordinated groups that justify unequal Conceptual Background treatment and outcomes on the basis of subor- Over several decades, government initiatives dinated group members’ undesirable traits such as the “war on crime” and “war on drugs,” and behaviors (Collins 1986, 2000). Control- both of which came with increased street sur- ling images inform attitudes directed at and veillance and prison sentences for non-violent potentially internalized by subordinated crimes, have escalated the militarization of groups (Beauboeuf-Lafontant 2009; Dow policing and the incarceration of people of 2015; Harris-Perry 2011) and “are key in color. These broad initiatives have been accom- maintaining intersecting oppressions” (Col- panied by “broken windows” or “quality-of- lins 2000:69). life” policing and criminal justice system One controlling image of Black boys (Goff responses in which punishments for minor et al. 2014) and girls (Epstein, Blake, and crimes, such as loitering, are aggressively González 2017) is that they are less innocent enforced under the idea that these behaviors and more adult-like than white children of the Elliott and Reid 199 same age. This “adultification” of Black chil- punishment in school, as part of the “universal dren—informing the widely-disseminated carceral apparatus.” The concept of family myth of the “super-predator” in the 1990s criminalization contributes to this body of (Byfield 2014)—influences how authority work on the ubiquitous and far-reaching crim- figures treat Black youth (Crenshaw et al. inalization of youth by revealing how it 2015; Ferguson 2000) and is evident in grow- reaches not only into public institutions such ing racial disparities in youth arrests and as schools and law enforcement but also into sentencing. Black youth are over twice as family relationships. likely to have been arrested as white youth (Gase et al. 2016; Rovner 2016). Among Parenting in Low-Income Urban arrested juveniles, Black youth are less likely Neighborhoods to have their cases diverted pre-trial, less likely to receive probation, and more likely to Researchers have found that parents living in be committed to a juvenile facility than white low-income urban neighborhoods undertake youth (Stevens and Morash 2015). In addi- multiple protective carework strategies to try tion, over the past few decades, schools have to prevent their children’s exposure to crime become highly punitive institutions, espe- and violence (Elliott and Aseltine 2013). These cially for minority students (Perry and Morris strategies generally fall into three related types 2014; Shedd 2015). Irwin, Davidson, and of “preventative family management” (Furst- Hall-Sanchez (2013), building on the work of enberg et al. 1999) that involve constant over- Wacquant (2000), argue that the harsh and sight of children’s environments (Jarrett and retributive style of disciplining in schools Jefferson 2003). One strategy involves warn- serves to criminalize children of color and ing children and telling cautionary tales about funnel them into the “school-to-prison pipe- the dangers they may face, such as talking to line.” Research finds that Black boys and children about the risk of violence in their girls are three times more likely to be sus- neighborhoods (Furstenberg et al. 1999) or pended or expelled from school, and dispro- using consejos—the passing of conventional portionately more likely to be referred to law wisdom down from older to younger family enforcement or arrested at school, than white members—to try to protect children from vio- boys and girls (U.S. Department of Education lence from afar (Hershberg 2017). Second, Office for Civil Rights 2014; see also Ferguson parents physically shelter children from expo- 2000; Perry and Morris 2014; Shedd 2015; sure to violence and crime by keeping them Skiba et al. 2011). close to or inside the home (Elliott 2012; In summary, punitive surveillance and Elliott and Aseltine 2013; Furstenberg et al. treatment pervades the lives of low-income 1999; Jarrett and Jefferson 2003; Rosenblatt urban youth of color. Rios (2011) found that and DeLuca 2012). Third, parents limit chil- low-income Black and Latino boys in Califor- dren’s socializing, both with peers and other nia were subject to symbolic and material community members (Chan Tack and Small criminalization in their everyday lives at 2017; Rosenblatt and DeLuca 2012). For school and out in public, a phenomenon he example, Rosenblatt and DeLuca (2012) found calls the “youth control complex.” Flores that low-income parents taught their children (2016) found that wraparound services to “mind their own business” to reduce the designed to provide support to Latina girls chance of conflict with drug dealers or other leaving a juvenile detention center had the exposure to neighborhood violence. effect of further surveilling and punishing Highlighted within this body of work is them, calling this “wraparound incarceration.” parents’ concerns that peer relationships or Shedd (2015) identifies the surveillance of even conversations with neighbors may Black children as they travel to and from expose their children to gangs and violence, school, in combination with surveillance and and that intensive oversight and monitoring of 200 American Sociological Review 84(2) children is necessary for their protection. punitive social control (Gurusami 2017, 2019; Relatedly, studies find that parents of color Roberts 2002). across the socioeconomic spectrum undertake Black mothers’ vulnerability to punish- racial socialization to teach their children ment is rooted in racialized, classed, and about and protect them from everyday racism gendered controlling images of Black moth- (McHale et al. 2006), including by police and erhood as neglectful and dependent on the other authority figures (Dow 2016; Rendón state (i.e., “the welfare queen”), aggressive 2014). Fears of children’s criminalization may and domineering (i.e., “the Black matriarch”), thus additionally inform protective parenting and superstrong (i.e., “the strong Black practices. There is also evidence that individu- woman”). These images bolster and repro- als’ formal contact with the criminal justice duce the widespread notion that Black moth- system (e.g., through arrest, incarceration, ers’ individual decisions and behaviors are probation, or parole) reverberates through solely responsible for their children’s out- families. Research documents the “collateral comes (Dow 2015; Elliott and Reid 2016; consequences” of criminal justice system con- Gurusami 2019; Soss et al. 2011; Windsor, tact on loved ones (Comfort 2008; Kirk and Dunlap, and Golub 2011). In political and Wakefield 2018), including how parental popular discourse, Black mothers have been incarceration is related to parenting (Gurusami blamed for transferring deviant attitudes to 2017, 2019; Turney and Wildeman 2013) and their children, resulting in successive genera- to child outcomes (Haskins, Amorim, and tions of poverty and delinquency (Collins Mingo 2018). We expand this area of inquiry 2000; Elliott, Brenton, and Powell 2018; by analyzing how Black mothers perceive, Hancock 2004; Roberts 2002). experience, and navigate their children’s crim- Controlling images have real consequences inalization, and the collateral consequences of for mothers’ interactions with state systems. child criminal justice system contact (or the Drawing on experimental and administrative threat of it) for Black mothers. data, Schram and colleagues (2009) found that welfare caseworkers apply the harshest sanctions to Black, relative to white or Latina, Marginalized Parents and Social clients. In a landmark study of the U.S. child Control welfare system, Roberts (2002) found that A corpus of work over the past two decades Black mothers are disproportionately targeted documents the primary responsibility parents, for surveillance and intervention—including especially mothers, carry for their children’s removing children from their care—due to behavior and development (Blair-Loy 2003; racialized gendered assessments of their par- Elliott and Bowen 2018; Elliott and Reid enting. Consequently, Black children are dis- 2016; Hays 1996; Kaplan 1997; Kurz 2002; proportionately represented in the foster care Lareau 2011). In her study of Black teen preg- system (Reich 2005). School personnel may nancy, Kaplan (1997:82) argues that a crucial also judge parental involvement in children’s element of what she calls “the motherhood schooling differently by race and class mandate” is that “mothers should be able to (Dumais, Kessinger, and Ghosh 2012; Lareau exert control over their [children’s] behavior.” and Horvat 1999). Dumais and colleagues Kaplan found that mothers of teen moms (2012) found that when college-educated expressed a sense that they would be judged Black parents made special requests, teachers as moral failures for not adequately passing on more negatively evaluated their children, an moral values to their children. While all moth- effect that did not emerge among white par- ers may fear and feel the judgmental glare of ents and students. These studies demonstrate others, Black mothers must also contend with how intersecting raced, classed, and gendered the ways they and their children are mutually axes of inequality and oppression (Collins imbricated in systems of surveillance and 2000) underlie unequal and punitive Elliott and Reid 201 treatment of Black mothers (Yi and Wilde- criminalization and mass incarceration in man 2018). low-income Black families by demonstrating In this context, marginalized mothers may how children’s and mothers’ criminalization strategize to mitigate their vulnerability to are mutually imbricated through what we call state sanctions (Fong 2018; Gurusami 2017, family criminalization. Family criminaliza- 2019; Levine 2013). Fong (2018) found that tion encompasses the ways mothers grapple fear of having their children taken from their with and feel a deep sense of accountability custody led low-income mothers to carefully for protecting their children from criminaliza- undertake strategies of selective visibility in tion, and how mothers too face criminal jus- their interactions with systems that might tice threats and sanctions through their report them to Child Protective Services (see parenting role. As a whole, family criminali- also Brayne 2014). Low-income urban par- zation underscores family linkages in how ents may also use the carceral state as a strat- carceral surveillance and punishment unfold egy to protect their children from committing in the lives of Black Americans. or being the victim of crime and violence (Richardson, Johnson, and St. Vil 2014; Rios 2011). Richardson and colleagues (2014:508) Methods found that impoverished African American We took an innovative methodological parents in New York City who had few sup- approach and analyzed data collected for two portive parenting resources “turned to formal separate but parallel projects focused on the resources of social control, primarily the experiences of urban low-income Black juvenile justice system.” Juvenile confine- mothers of adolescent children. Both authors ment as a parenting strategy of last resort had previously analyzed their data separately speaks to the extensive role of the criminal for other papers, and upon Megan Reid read- justice system in the lives of low-income ing Sinikka Elliott’s draft of a paper before urban families of color (see also Jones 2010). journal submission, we realized both projects Given that mothers are broadly held account- were similar with regard to sample and inter- able for controlling children’s behaviors, and view topics. We compared our prior analyses that marginalized mothers may face state and discovered that the data from both proj- sanctions themselves, we would expect the ects were also similar with regard to mothers criminal justice system and criminalization to sharing deep concern about and experiences be evident in low-income Black mothers’ of their children being criminalized in every- discussions of their parenting and this would day life and discussing strategies they be related not only to their children’s safety deployed to protect their children. and autonomy but also their own. Our data come from in-depth interviews In what follows, we detail the protective conducted with 46 urban low-income Black carework strategies undertaken by 46 low- mothers of adolescents. Qualitative methods income Black mothers of adolescents: telling are best suited for investigating how and why cautionary tales, sheltering, and complying people behave the way they do, as well as the with institutional sanctions. These strategies processes and mechanisms that underlie are similar to those used by low-income par- social behavior (Luker 2008). In-depth ents in disadvantaged neighborhoods to pro- interviews, in particular, are well-suited to tect their children from neighborhood crime understanding people’s worldviews and and violence. Our contribution is to show explanations for their decision-making and how these strategies are also tied to mothers’ the strategies they undertake in their social fears for their children’s criminalization, as contexts (Esterberg 2002). This method is well as their own, based on controlling images ideal for centering how mothers perceive of Black youth and mothers. The findings their parenting contexts and their experiences advance understanding of the long reach of and decisions therein. 202 American Sociological Review 84(2)

New York Study the family’s home or a convenient location selected by the participants, such as a park, The New York project was composed of a restaurant, or the interviewer’s car. Follow-up longitudinal quantitative panel study of 136 interviews were conducted with 10 of the 15 low-income Black cohabiting stepfamilies, mothers an average of 22 months after initial and a qualitative substudy with 15 of those interviews. Mothers were asked about their families. This article’s analysis draws on the relationships with their partner and the focal longitudinal qualitative data collected from child, their parenting activities, and their day- 15 mothers over two waves. To be eligible for to-day family life. Interviews ranged between study inclusion, participants had to be low 30 and 90 minutes and were digitally recorded. income (below 200 percent of the federal Recordings were transcribed and entered into poverty line when considering both partners’ ATLAS.ti software for analysis. In initial incomes), identify as Black (one mother and project coding, Reid met monthly with field three focal children identified as both Black staff, who were Black men and women living and Hispanic), and live in a low-income in low-income neighborhoods of New York neighborhood of New York City. All mothers City and were conducting the survey portion had to be the residential custodial parent of at of the study, to ask for their perspectives and least one adolescent focal child between ages interpretations of emergent themes and codes. 11 and 17. To protect the confidentiality of They also shared memos with Reid about participants, in addition to the National themes based on their experiences in the field. Development and Research Institutes IRB approval, Reid obtained a Certificate of Con- North Carolina Study fidentiality from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to guard against The North Carolina study was a qualitative being compelled to release any information interview study of 31 low-income Black single about project participants. Participants gave mothers residing in two mid-sized urban coun- verbal and written consent and received $40 ties in North Carolina. As in the New York for participating in an interview. study, inclusion eligibility involved partici- Project field staff members experienced in pants being low income, identifying as Black, working with low-income Black residents of and living in a low-income urban neighbor- New York City recruited study participants. hood. All mothers also had to be the residential They used existing networks of research custodial parent of at least one teenage child study participants, field informants, street between ages 13 and 18 and, per the definition recruiting, snowball sampling, and social ser- of “single” in the study criteria, had to be vices agency contacts to recruit potential par- unmarried and parenting without a co-residential ticipants. Participants in the qualitative adult partner for at least three years prior to the substudy lived in Manhattan, Brooklyn, and interview (some were dating). The research the Bronx. Families in the substudy were was approved by the Institutional Review selected on the basis of the diversity of their Board at North Carolina State University. All characteristics and their willingness to par- participants provided written consent to par- ticipate. The qualitative sample includes fam- ticipate in the study and were compensated ilies that varied by adult age, child age, child $30 for sharing their experiences. gender, adult educational attainment, and Elliott and two graduate students conducted adult length of cohabitation and past relation- interviews in two separate rounds of data col- ship experience. lection to elaborate and refine concepts identi- Reid conducted two waves (2012–13 and fied in the first round (i.e., theoretical sampling) 2014–15) of qualitative interviews with each (Charmaz 2014). Sixteen mothers were inter- family member (both partners and the adoles- viewed in 2010 and an additional 15 mothers cent focal child, all interviewed separately) in in 2012. In both rounds, mothers were recruited Elliott and Reid 203 through flyers posted in various targeted loca- getting in trouble at school or with police. tions (e.g., Laundromats), at afterschool and Mothers also discussed concerns about the community programs, and by referrals from threat of neighborhood violence, and our participants in an unrelated research project analysis attends to how concerns about crimi- Elliott was also working on. Targeted and nalization sometimes intersect with concerns word of mouth recruitment is ideal for hard to about violence. To conduct joint analysis, we reach populations. All but two participants shared interview transcripts and codes, and we were residents of a mid-sized urban county and read each other’s transcripts, coded, and their teen children attended public schools in memoed about similarities and differences. the county. Two participants lived in a contigu- We then conducted additional analysis of all ous county of a similar size. All mothers iden- the transcripts focused on themes we identi- tified as single parents, but some mothers’ fied in the transcript sharing and memoing networks included fathers who were actively processes. We used this two-person joint itera- participating in their children’s lives, and some tive coding and memoing process to assess the had non-cohabiting boyfriends. robustness and validity of our findings. Interviews lasted approximately 90 min- We used deductive and inductive tech- utes and were digitally recorded. Most took niques to analyze the interview transcripts place in participants’ homes; others were in a (Bradley, Curry, and Devers 2007; Crabtree convenient public place of the interviewee’s and Miller 1999; Fereday and Muir-Cochrane choosing. The interviewing goal was to 2008). First, we conducted a deductive coding develop an understanding of mothers’ lives process focused on the topics of criminaliza- from their perspectives and without homoge- tion and mothers’ strategies to address it, in nizing their experiences (Collins 2000; which we identified common perceptions and DeVault 1996). Each interview began by ask- tactics. Next, according to the principles of ing participants to describe their neighbor- inductive grounded theory, we cycled back hood, probing for their perceptions of safety, and forth between reading transcripts and police presence, and social ties. The interview developing additional conceptual frames and continued in this vein, asking broad questions coding systems to further clarify these themes and following up to construct detailed stories (Charmaz 2007, 2014; Strauss and Corbin of the mothers’ lives, with a particular focus 1990). We identified thematic codes by read- on their parenting experiences. ing through the initial data codes using an open coding technique. We created and shared memos over email about common themes, and Joint Analysis then moved to focused coding, using and The two samples share many commonalities expanding the most frequent codes to further and some differences. They are similar in sort the data (Charmaz 2007, 2014). Inductive terms of women’s race, socioeconomic status, coding revealed the theme of the extension of urban residence, marital status, and children’s children’s potential or actual criminalization ages. However, they are in two different geo- to mothers themselves. All names used in the graphic locations, and one study recruited findings are pseudonyms. participants in cohabiting relationships, Our analysis of similar data collected for whereas the other was limited to participants different projects in two different geographic who identified as single and did not have a regions of the United States revealed similar co-residential partner. In prior separate coding thematic codes, serving as a form of triangula- before our joint analysis, we both found that tion and adding credence to the validity of our mothers discussed surveillance or punitive findings. Nevertheless, we cannot make claims social control in their communities, how crim- of population generalizability with these meth- inalization might affect their children, and ods; rather, our goal is to theorize the mecha- strategies to prevent their children from nisms that informed the mothers’ parenting 204 American Sociological Review 84(2) practices. The findings reflect our analysis of individuals for surveillance and punishment mothers’ descriptions of the criminalization of based on the presupposition that they are their children in daily life, strategies they used deviant. First, mothers saw criminalization as to parent in this context, and processes under- a severe threat to their children’s lives that pinning their own collateral criminalization. they themselves must try to mitigate. They expressed deep concerns about the unjust, ubiquitous, and high-stakes nature of crimi- Positionality nalization, and their parenting practices were Both authors are middle- to upper-middle- attuned to this reality. Second, mothers feared class white women—one is a mother, the and sometimes faced loss of parenting auton- other is not. A commitment to antiracist, inter- omy and even parental rights due to their sectional, and feminist principles guides our children’s contact with mainstream institu- research efforts, and we conducted this work tions. Their narratives underscore the suspi- with an awareness of the politics, dangers, and cion of their parenting and lack of support limitations of affluent white academics writ- they experience from these institutions. We ing about the lives of low-income Black first discuss mothers’ characterizations of the Americans. For example, white academics features of criminalization facing their chil- and policymakers have long participated in dren and then examine their descriptions of creating and perpetuating controlling images incorporating their understandings of this of Black people and their family lives (Sarki- reality—sometimes ambivalently—into their sian and Gerstel 2004), and such work often parenting strategies. utilizes white racial framing (Feagin 2013) and “others” rather than centering the experi- Criminalization as Unjust, ences of Black Americans. Our application of Ubiquitous, and High Stakes critical race feminist theory to the analysis privileges the participants’ standpoints (Collins Although neither study focused on the topic 2000; Few 2007) with the goal of highlighting of criminalization, the need to protect chil- everyday relations of power through lived dren from it emerged as a highly salient ana- experience (Smith 2005). As with all interper- lytic theme across the majority of interviews. sonal interactions, the dynamics of our inter- Our analysis identifies three key features of views, all conducted by middle-class white criminalization that are consistent with past women, were shaped by broad social inequali- work in this area: mothers described criminal- ties and power relations, and we understand ization as unjust, ubiquitous, and high stakes. that this shapes the data obtained and pro- These components of criminalization were duces a situated knowledge (Haraway 1988). not discrete and they overlapped in the moth- In our analysis, we examine the intersections ers’ narratives. Together, mothers said they of race, class, gender, place, and family while posed a severe threat with which they must being mindful of the larger contested arena— contend in their parenting, one way children’s including the context of controlling images— criminalization shaped family life. in which participants shared their stories with us and we, in turn, analyze and share their Unjust. Overall, mothers described a experiences with others. broad social context in which their children faced unjust surveillance and punitive social control. They revealed that law enforcement Findings and sometimes schools were not there to pro- Family criminalization involves the ways tect their children and might instead unfairly wide-ranging fears and realities of criminal- target and criminalize them. When explaining ization permeate the lives of low-income her concern for letting her 13-year-old daugh- urban Black mothers and children. By crimi- ter run errands on her own, Tanisha described nalization, we are referring to the targeting of a recent incident in which the police shot a Elliott and Reid 205 boy trespassing: “This boy just went into a (Byfield 2014). Nationwide, popular dis- house and the cops shot him in the house. It course linked youth and criminality to poor was right up the block.” Malaya, too, expressed parental and neighborhood influences, sug- doubts about the safety of her 16-year-old gesting that the “moral poverty” in which daughter Jayla amid heavy police presence in urban youth of color were being raised gave their New York neighborhood. She worried way to a deeply disturbed and dangerous the police might accuse Jayla of something if “super-predator” (Byfield 2014). Much of the she were simply nearby when police responded research on the school-to-prison pipeline to an incident. In light of this concern, she said focuses on boys, demonstrating that racist she advised Jayla to “keep moving” when out stereotypes about Black boys as less childlike in public and not to stop and talk with anyone. and more criminally-inclined than their white Malaya said she avoided casual conversations peers lead to disproportionate harsh punish- with neighbors or people she saw on the street ment, including referral to the criminal justice to limit her exposure to becoming guilty by system (Ferguson 2000; Morris 2012). Recent perceived association. As she explained to work shows that Black girls, too, face dispro- Jayla: “I don’t know what that dude was doing portionate school discipline as they are also five, eight hours ago, and I’m not going to “adultified” by authority figures and are six want no cops to come to my home. I’m not times more likely to receive an out-of-school going down for something that I don’t even suspension than their white peers (Crenshaw know about.” Other mothers shared Malaya’s et al. 2015), leading to their entrance into the concern that their children could become vic- criminal justice system (Morris 2016). tims of unjust criminalization in the context of Some mothers discussed the injustice of heavy law enforcement surveillance in their criminalizing processes in terms of the neighborhoods. broader racist social context. Theresa high- Some mothers also spoke about their chil- lighted her understanding of how controlling dren’s unjust treatment by school authorities. images of the “thug” or “troublemaker” shape Adrianna said her sons faced harsh and unfair the way authority figures view Black boys discipline because of gendered racism in the like her 11- and 16-year-old sons: “When a school system. Asked how her three chil- Black male walk into the room, or walk dren—11- and 14-year-old sons and a 17-year- around somewhere, it’s like an instant fear old daughter—were doing at school, Adrianna that, ‘Oh my god, he’s going to do some- replied: thing.’ And, it’s like they’re followed around. Just because he’s a Black male, you already Disciplinary actions are taken more severely assume that he’s trouble.” Theresa said Black upon my sons than more so my daughter, girls faced the same level of surveillance: “I and I think they’re basically discriminated mean, there are some females that have faced against. You know, I have a big fear for my that type of [racial profiling]. And it’s not fair. sons living in this world period. Because the They’ve been followed around just because system is set up for them to fail. That’s my of the way they look.” Theresa pointed to the belief as a parent. . . . I’m very, very afraid broad context in which Black youth are for my children sending them off to school unjustly surveilled and presumed guilty, an every morning. You don’t know what’s aspect of criminalization confirmed by a body going to happen. of research (e.g., Ferguson 2000; Goffman 2009; Jones 2010; Miller 2008; Rios 2011). Sustained media references to Black boys as dangerous and threatening circulated nation- Ubiquitous. In talking about their con- ally in the wake of the 1989 Central Park Five cerns for their teenage children, mothers often case, in which five Black and Latino teenage focused on neighborhood violence and negative boys were found guilty of raping a white peer influences, consistent with previous studies female jogger (they were exonerated in 2002) about parents’ concerns in disadvantaged 206 American Sociological Review 84(2) neighborhoods (Furstenberg et al. 1999; Jarrett quick.” [Talking to people outside her apart- and Jefferson 2003; Rosenblatt and DeLuca ment]: “What the police comin’ up there for?” 2012). Yet examination of their narratives [Person outside]: “They just got through reveals their worries also had to do with how fightin’ at the bus stop.” [Christina to inter- neighborhood violence and peer influences viewer]: “That’s what them cops coming over could expose their children to criminalization there for. Them kids is terrible. See, that’s the on the streets and in school. Although some stuff I’m telling you about, like—it’s terri- mothers, particularly those in North Carolina, ble.” Christina’s reaction to the arrival of the reported that an active police presence made police pointed to her related concern that them feel safer, mothers also spoke of how fighting could draw police and that her son police could pose a threat to them and their might end up in law enforcement crosshairs. children, revealing their perceptions of a com- As we will examine, Christina discussed vari- plex relationship among neighborhood vio- ous strategies she was contemplating to teach lence, policing, and their children’s safety (see her son about the seriousness of the criminal also Shedd 2015). Delia, for example, described justice system in order to save him from a recent experience when 15 police officers prison. She explained, “Because if you don’t responded to a fight between two people in her do it now, when they get [older] . . . they’re New York apartment building. Rather than say going to jail . . . and there’s nothing you can the police response made her feel safer, she said do about it.” Hence, even as mothers directly in these situations “cops can come in off the centered their concerns for their children’s hook” with a mass display of force. She worried safety around peers and neighborhood vio- that this type of response would escalate vio- lence, they indirectly revealed that, in their lence: “that’s when I’ll be wary, because a lot of heavily surveilled communities, children get- people rebel when they’re young against the ting caught up in the criminal justice system cops.” Prior research has found that one was a ubiquitous threat. response youth of color have to what Rios Further underscoring the ubiquity of the (2011:6) terms “ubiquitous criminalization” is criminal justice system, in interviews with to commit petty crimes or “act ‘bad,’” which mothers who did not express concerns about can serve to further criminalize them (see also their children’s behaviors, the possibility of Alexander 2010; Ferguson 2000). Delia said criminalization still framed their narratives. fights in her building made her feel unsafe, but When asked how her 17- and 15-year-old a forceful police response could cause more sons were doing, Sydney replied that things conflict rather than diffuse it. were going well, adding: “Nothing drastic. Discussing the possibility of their own No police calls.” Similarly, Yashonda children being involved in neighborhood described her 17- and 13-year-old daughters fights, mothers directly and indirectly as respectful kids who made decent grades at expressed fears that this could result in police their magnet schools. She concluded: “I’m involvement. Concerned about her 13-year- not going to say they’re not going to have old son’s “temper,” Christina encouraged him their share of maybe issues, but nothing dras- to stay inside and to avoid peers in their North tic. I don’t think that I’ll ever have to get Carolina neighborhood who might try to pro- either one of them out of jail.” Mothers voke a fight. “I tell him, ‘If you got to fight, evoked the specter of police, prison, and pun- you don’t need to play with them. Come in ishment in talking about children who were, the house. You’ve got everything you need in by their accounts, flourishing, revealing the the house.’” Christina overtly focused on ubiquity of the system and the omnipresence worries about her son’s peers, yet, as she was of their fears about this outcome. talking, she looked out the window and observed the arrival of police in response to a High stakes. Mothers stressed the high- fight. Christina said, “Oh my god, what is the stakes consequences of contact with the crim- police doing? Let me check on my girls real inal justice system to their children. Once in Elliott and Reid 207 the system, many emphasized, one’s life Parenting in the Context of the could be ruined. Sonya said she emphasizes Criminalization of Youth to her 15- and 13-year-old daughters, “Every- thing is not about fighting and arguing and, Mothers used three sometimes overlapping you know, you don’t have to prove to nobody strategies as they sought to keep their children that you can fight. Really. I don’t need you to safe from criminalization: telling cautionary be doing that because once you do it, it’s over. tales, sheltering, and complying with institu- It really is. You go to jail, you have a record, tional sanctions. These strategies were remark- it’s going to be hard.” As Sonya’s description ably consistent across the two research sites of her warning underscores, mothers’ worries and are in line with previous literature on about fighting included fears of children get- protective parenting in low-income urban ting caught up in a high-stakes criminalizing neighborhoods. We extend this prior work to system. Research shows that controlling show that mothers described using these strat- images of “violent girls” underlie authority egies not just to protect their children from figures’ punitive responses to girls of color neighborhood violence and crime but also and rising female incarceration rates (e.g., from criminalization because, as described Jones 2010; Miller 2008). Marielle said she earlier, mothers saw these as linked threats. fervently hopes her 16-year-old son continues Moreover, consistent with the gendered racial- to “make the right decisions” to avoid getting ized controlling images of Black motherhood, a “criminal record.” She explained, “I hope mothers perceived and experienced the sur- he just do right. Don’t be in trouble, get a rounding punitive institutions as implicitly criminal record. Once you get one of them, and explicitly casting them as solely respon- it’s messed up.” Studies find that authority sible for their children’s well-being, while figures, such as teachers and police officers, simultaneously constraining their parenting subject criminally-labeled youth to height- autonomy. This is consistent with research ened surveillance and punitiveness that serves that finds that controlling images of Black to further criminalize them as they transition motherhood shape the way authority figures to adulthood (Flores 2016; Rios 2011; Shedd respond to Black mothers (Kaplan 1997; Roberts 2015). Once an adult, a criminal record can 2002; Soss et al. 2011). impose lifelong disadvantages, saddling indi- Rios (2011:82) found that schools, police, viduals with criminal-justice debt and legally and probation officers characterized low- barring them from employment, housing, and income urban Black and Latinx parents as welfare benefits (Alexander 2010; Brayne unwilling or unable to discipline their chil- 2014; Pager 2007; Soss et al. 2011). Black dren and often intervened in parents’ lives in families and communities may also impose their efforts to “teach parents the ‘right way’ silence, shame, and judgment around crimi- to parent.” In turn, Rios argues, some parents nally-labeled individuals in an effort to dis- came to identify with and take on the perspec- tance Blackness from criminality, further tive of the system, enacting similar practices cementing their “second-class status” (Alexander of surveillance and punishment. We also 2010). found that mothers at times used the language Overall, mothers described the ubiquitous and practices of the criminal justice system in and high-stakes presence of the criminal jus- describing their parenting. However, our tice system and, directly or indirectly, detailed research extends Rios’s argument by demon- how controlling images of youth of color strating that mothers did so out of an effort to disproportionately exposed their children to prevent their children’s criminalization. criminalization. Mothers’ awareness of their Moreover, mothers were vulnerable to harsh children’s heightened racialized exposure to state sanctions and punishment themselves. criminalization forms part of what we term Mothers feared losing their children if they family criminalization. were seen as contributing to their children’s 208 American Sociological Review 84(2) perceived delinquency, for example. Mothers there, they treat them just like criminals. thus discussed concerns for both their chil- They have to put on the orange suits or dren’s and their own criminalization as con- whatever color the facility wears. It’s just siderations in their parenting, indicating the like they are incarcerated. Then they have operation of family criminalization. the inmates in their face. I mean, literally in their face, fussing and cussing them out. Cautionary tales. Mothers described And some of them, it breaks them down. telling cautionary tales about the dangers of And then some of them, you know, it’s not the criminal justice system as a routine part of really getting to them, but then they’ll pull their parenting and a shared strategy among them to the side sometimes and they’ll have their family and friendship networks. Given inmates do one-on-one with them and that’s their understanding of criminalization as when they’ll finally break down. omnipresent, they emphasized the high stakes of minor “bad” decisions, even by young chil- Theresa thought the show helped her sons dren. Theresa’s ex-husband once disciplined fully understand the high-stakes conse- their son in elementary school for his misbe- quences of their behavior and that this, along havior by taking him to a local jail and getting with vigilance and careful monitoring of their a tour. She explained, “He went downtown to clothing and appearance (e.g., she did not talk to a police officer and they showed him allow her sons to “sag” their pants), would the jail. They showed him the cell. . . . He was help them avoid being criminalized. Another like, ‘Mommy, I am not ever going back mother also described watching this show there.’” Theresa praised the jail visit for teach- with her children. That programs such as this ing her child an important lesson about avoid- one were prevalent in popular culture at the ing criminal behavior. Mothers also used their time of our interviews speaks to the larger own life experiences, or the lives of family cultural emphasis on punitive discipline as a members or close friends, as instructive exam- way to teach youth the high-stakes conse- ples and cautionary tales. Theresa said her quences of their actions (Alexander 2010; children’s father was previously incarcerated, McDowell, Harold, and Battle 2013). Moth- “So, you know, he tries . . . to let them know ers hoped their children’s good behavior and that, you know, you don’t want to go down the decisions would demonstrate to authorities road that I had to go down.” That mothers that they did not fulfill controlling images often pointed to direct or indirect experiences about Black youth and thus help them avoid with the criminal justice system speaks to the criminalization. major role of mass incarceration in the lives of Yet, mothers were also torn about using low-income Black families (Comfort 2008; cautionary tales. Despite speaking positively Murphey and Cooper 2015; Pettit and Western about her young son’s jail visit and the TV 2004; Wildeman and Western 2010). show “Beyond Scared Straight,” Theresa Cautionary tales were not always confined worried that the broader messages highlight- to the personal experiences of family or com- ing the hazards of being Black could pigeon- munity members. Theresa and her sons also hole her sons as criminals or school drop regularly watched the A&E reality show outs: “Beyond Scared Straight,” “so they’ll know, you go down the wrong path, this is where The way they look at our Black boys. I wish you’re going to head.” Theresa described the that would be a lot better. I wish they program: wouldn’t put that statistic out there on them, that “Oh you’re going to end up in jail or If there are kids acting out . . . parents will you’re not going to—you’re going to drop sign them up for this program and they will out of high school.” No. My child is not go and visit the jail. . . . Once they’re in going to do that. I’m sorry. And, I wish that Elliott and Reid 209

they just would let them be. Because it’s the reality of living in a racist context of adul- like, yeah you’re free, but you’re not. tification and punitive social control. Vivian said she routinely challenged Dixon by ask- Controlling images of Black boys as “at-risk” ing, “Which one do you want to be, a name or of winding up as statistics (e.g., incarcerated), a number? What I mean by that is, what do and Theresa’s observation that her sons are you want? A job or you want to go to jail?” “free but not,” point to a long-standing ten- Vivian stressed her efforts to make her son sion experienced by Black Americans, cap- Dixon aware of how combustible his environ- tured by Du Bois ([1903] 1994) in The Souls ment was in order to help him avoid “lighting of Black Folk. For Du Bois ([1903] 1994:1), that match” and “go[ing] to jail.” Although the experience of being racialized—viewed some scholars argue that parents reinforce and treated only in terms of a subjugated their children’s criminalization by issuing Black identity by dominant white U.S. such cautionary warnings (Rios 2011), given society—created a feeling of being “a prob- the ubiquity of the system, it is not surprising lem.” Similarly, in calling out the oft-repeated that mothers would highlight the ever-present statistics about Black male incarceration and possibility of criminal justice system involve- school drop-out rates, Theresa decried the ment to their children. Mothers’ narratives way these statistics shape how society and underscored that they did so not out of a desire authority figures look at her sons as social to criminalize their children, but to prevent problems, obscuring the fullness of their their children’s criminalization in a way they being such that they could be “free but not.” had some ability to direct: their children’s Theresa’s sentiment underscored her ambiva- behavior. When her 17- and 19-year-old sons lence in instructing her children to make good were younger and did something wrong, Nina decisions to avoid criminalization in a larger recalled telling them, “I don’t want you to be context that views Black children as irre- in and out of jail and prisons. I want you to deemable (Byfield 2014; Ferguson 2000). grow up and be men.” Vivian’s description of her 14-year-old son Mothers also underscored the belief that Dixon and the cautionary lessons she taught parents are wholly responsible for their chil- him further illustrate this ambivalence. Vivian dren’s behaviors. Vanessa expressed this spoke of wanting to give Dixon the freedom when she said, to test boundaries and make mistakes, and simultaneously deeply fearing how one mis- Teenagers today don’t have the respect. It’s take could lead to his incarceration. When like nobody’s teaching them. Nobody’s tak- asked how Dixon was doing, Vivian said, ing time with them. . . . It’s so much going “He’s a teen. So he’s going to do stupid teen on. It’s so much of their lifestyle with their, things—we expect for them to do stupid their parents, just like so many single par- things.” Yet Vivian said she taught Dixon ents like myself. They’re growing up, you about the severity of making mistakes, know, without the benefit of a family. A explaining, “I’m always in his ear, all the two-parent family and stuff like that. time, telling him what’s to come. It’s just how they say, ‘Only you can prevent a forest fire. The discourse of the value of a two-parent Because I already told you, don’t light that family was in heavy circulation during the match. I told you what was on the other side, time of this research, and marriage and father- but only you can prevent that.’” Vivian hood programs, especially those targeting the expressed a common refrain about expecting poor, were a common political response to her son to do “stupid teen things.” But she concerns about single motherhood (Gavanas had to balance the possibility that he might do 2004; Randles 2013). These discourses and something stupid—which is to be expected of policies reflect rhetoric around Black families teens as they test and learn boundaries—with rooted in the culture-of-poverty thesis, broadly 210 American Sociological Review 84(2) disseminated by Oscar Lewis and Daniel Pat- several more that’s actually growing up and rick Moynihan in the 1960s and more recently seeing what’s going on? You’ve got to do advanced by Charles Murray. According to something about it.” That’s what I tell them the culture of poverty, children raised by sin- [my friends]. “Find detention. You can’t gle mothers embrace actions and beliefs, such seem to keep them in sports and keep them as devaluing employment or endorsing crimi- out of the streets, so send them to detention, nal behavior, that perpetuate intergenerational give them a wakeup call. Because if you poverty (Elliott et al. 2018; Kaplan 1997; don’t do it now, when they get over the age Roberts 2002). Along with faulting single par- of 17, 16, they’re going to jail, you know, ents for the perceived bad behavior of teenag- and there’s nothing you can do about it. So, ers, Vanessa explained, “A lot of people are start them off early if you’ve got to.” That’s not being parents. They’re out here partying what I encourage. [My son] doesn’t give me like it’s alright. That’s why these kids are all those problems right now. But if I was to growing up crazy.” Similarly, in talking about experience it, that would be what I would do. what prevents teenagers from being “terrible” and “out there,” Sonya said, “I feel it’s got to Christina described the value of sending chil- do with the parenting. I feel that if the parent dren to juvenile detention as a way to impart a is on them from day one—I’m talking about lesson that would protect them from worse when they were born, day one—and stay with consequences and also as a cautionary tale for that, everything will be all right.” Hence, the younger siblings. However, Christina had not strategy of telling cautionary tales was shaped sent her son to juvenile detention and, in fact, by mothers’ fears for their children amid a no mother interviewed said she had done this, larger, ubiquitous system of criminalization even though a few said they would. By assert- and an arena of judgment in which parents ing their willingness to use the criminal justice were deemed fully responsible for the behav- system, mothers may have been discursively ior and outcomes of their children through the demonstrating their strict parenting and pre- transmission of good, or bad, values. paredness to go to whatever lengths necessary In this context, some mothers suggested a to protect their children. They did so amid willingness to use aspects of the criminal jus- dominant discourses of Black mothers as lack- tice system as a cautionary lesson in their ing the ability to control their children (Kaplan efforts to protect their children from worse 1997; Rios 2011) and the simultaneous valori- consequences. Christina worried about keep- zation of the strong Black woman (Dow 2015; ing her 13-year-old son, the oldest of her four Elliott and Reid 2016; Harris-Perry 2011). Yet children, “out of the streets” and about his mothers could also feel and be accused of temper: “If it’s not his way, it’s the highway. being overprotective, as we will discuss. I’ve been having a big problem with him destroying things around the house.” If things Sheltering. Another strategy mothers got worse, Christina said she would turn to described using in their parenting involved the juvenile system, as she advised her friends monitoring and restricting their children’s to do. In both North Carolina and New York activities in an effort to limit their children’s at the time of this research, 16- and 17-year- possible exposure to criminalization. Mothers’ old children could be prosecuted as adults. use of a sheltering strategy reveals their Hence, Christina speculated about sending ambivalence about the idea that merely her son to juvenile detention as a way to teach instructing children to make “good” decisions him a lesson that would help him avoid adult is enough to protect them. Mothers said that, incarceration in his later teens: in the absence of supportive law enforcement, community programs, or school resources, I’m like, “How can you put all your focus to simply being out in public could be dangerous one [child] when you have, you know, for their children. Their concerns had to do Elliott and Reid 211 with fears about negative peer influences and expressed ambivalence about this strategy, as street violence in their predominantly Black Vivian did when she said, “I’m not saying all neighborhoods (Furstenberg et al. 1999), and day.” Asked whether she liked her son play- also their children’s exposure to criminaliza- ing video games, Delia replied, “I like them, tion in these heavily surveilled communities. but sometimes too much is too much.” Moth- Marielle explained that the police labeled her ers expressed a feeling that long hours in neighborhood “a drug area” and noted, “You front of electronic entertainment was not see them riding all the time, the police riding ideal for their children, but it beat the danger- [around].” She instructed her son to be careful ous alternative of being outside in the streets while out in public to avoid police suspicion where they could be exposed to both crime which might lead to “a criminal record.” Like and criminalization. Marielle, mothers expressed the need to be Another sheltering approach some moth- vigilant in safeguarding their children not just ers discussed, but none were currently enact- from neighborhood crime or violence but also ing, was homeschooling (some had transferred from hypersurveillance by the state. their children from one school to another). Isolating children from peers and the out- Black families have increasingly turned to side world was a commonly discussed shel- homeschooling, with “racial protection- tering strategy, related to mothers’ concerns ism”—avoiding school-related racism—as that social interactions and relationships their main reason (Mazama and Lundy 2012). could be pathways to criminalization. Vivian Adrianna’s 11-year-old son was facing a said she was concerned that hanging out in school suspension because of his Mohawk public with his friends could lead her son hairstyle, which violated the school dress Dixon “to go to jail.” She described pulling code, and Adrianna was contemplating home- her son out of his social environment and schooling both her sons. As prior work shows, separating him from those friends to shelter dress codes often contain implicit racist him: “I pushed those friends away from him. biases, such as bans on sagging pants, that And look at him now, he’s out there work- effectively target Black students (Ferguson ing.” Vivian emphasized her strength as a 2000; Morris 2012). Adrianna defended the mother in sheltering Dixon from peer ties that Mohawk “as part of who we are as a people” could lead to his incarceration. and said of the school system: “I think the Describing the world outside the home as system is set up for them to fail, especially as possibly exposing their children to law African American children.” Malaya enforcement surveillance, some mothers dis- described setting out to homeschool her cussed the value of electronic entertainment 3-year-old son based on concern about him for sheltering their children inside the home. developing friendships at school that could Vivian said Dixon now came home and lead to his criminalization. Her teenage played video games with his brother. She daughter Jayla had recently been skipping said, “If the video game keeps them out of the classes with friends from school, whom streets, they can play it all day, you know. Malaya characterized as bad influences. She Hey, if they keeps them under me, under my worried Jayla would be exposed to criminali- eye watch, go right ahead. I’m not saying all zation through these friendships and by vio- day, but it keeps them here, you know?” Delia lating school rules: “If she continue not going also saw video games as sheltering her son to school, that’s going to get her in trouble from “the streets”: “My son, he 15-years-old, with the law, wrong or right.” Malaya empha- he still plays the video games in the house. So sized being “scared” for her son if he “gets he’s not a kid that runs in the streets and stuff, out” of her purview, but a social worker con- thank god.” Even as mothers described the vinced her to enroll him in a public preschool. effectiveness of electronic entertainment for Other mothers mentioned authority figures, keeping their children at home, they also like social workers, parole officers, and 212 American Sociological Review 84(2) judges, who were monitoring their families context in which “anything can happen.” and intervening in their parenting practices Thus, mothers distanced themselves from (see also Rios 2011). controlling images of neglectful or permis- In describing their sheltering practices, some sive parents and enacted parenting practices mothers used the language of the criminal jus- that demonstrated their vigilance and care, tice system, reflecting the omnipresence of this even as their narratives underscored their framework in their lives. Discussing all she did sense of ever-present risks to their children. to keep her teen sons from experiencing crimi- Yet mothers could also feel and face accu- nalization outside the home, Dionne described sations of being overprotective. Berna said herself as “the warden” of the house: “I’m the the difficulties she was currently having with warden. I run the house . . . if the boys get in her 16-year-old son and 19-year-old daughter trouble, it’s [with] me.” Mothers stressed they stemmed from her strict sheltering strategies: were tough on their kids to protect them from “I could have given them a little more space.” tougher institutional consequences. Dionne Felicia wanted to shelter her 13-year-old son explained that she also had “a tight eye” and “a from harm but kept getting the message that close grip” on her 11-year-old daughter and was she was overprotective: “hard” on her because her daughter’s school was “strict.” “They are really strict and that is I have a tight grip on him. And it’s kind of why I’m strict on her,” she said. Mothers said hard to loosen up because you know what’s they mirrored the strict institutional practices out there, you know what to expect and they their children faced outside the home in their don’t. So it’s almost like you want to make parenting because they wanted their children to every decision for them knowing that they understand that even a minor misstep could lead have a mind of their own and they’re going to to punitive sanctions. do what they want to do. . . . I feel like I don’t Mothers also expressed a deep sense of have a, you know, a tight grip on him, but accountability for sheltering their children other people may say I hover [over] my son. from harm. In emphasizing the lengths she went to in her efforts to monitor her children, Felicia was torn between sheltering her son Doreen, for example, highlighted the ways and letting “life teach” him, as she said her parents could be blamed as irresponsible for father advised. “Guys [she’d] dated in the not doing so: past” had also called her overprotective. Her dilemma underscores a common challenge of Some parents don’t care what their kids do. modern mothering that emphasizes mothers’ But I do. You know, I make sure [to know] role in cultivating and protecting children where my kids are at and stuff. . . . It’s best (Elliott and Bowen 2018; Elliott and Reid to know where your kids are ’cause if some- 2016; Hays 1996; Lareau 2011; Reich 2014) thing happening in the street, they looking and how this expectation can intersect with at you like, “You didn’t know where your the controlling image of the Black matriarch. kids was?” And that’s something on your This long-standing controlling image is per- head. It’s best to know where your kids is at haps most clearly exemplified in Moynihan’s all times. ’Cause anything can happen. 1965 government report that depicted Black women as domineering “matriarchs” who In distancing herself from negligent “other” eschewed or undermined husbands’ and parents, Doreen reproduced the controlling fathers’ patriarchal authority, transmitting image of low-income urban parents as lax or deviance to their children and causing the indifferent to the risks their children face breakdown of Black families (Collins 2000; (Kaplan 1997; Rios 2011). Yet, she and other Hancock 2004; Kaplan 1997; Roberts 2002). mothers also revealed that their vigilance may The notion that parents are fully responsi- not be enough to keep their children safe in a ble for their children’s behavior was also Elliott and Reid 213 encoded in institutional practices. Mothers about his attendance record to preempt any shared examples of their parenting coming suspicion that she was not an involved parent. under suspicion when their children received She said, “I’m like [to son], ‘If you are not institutional discipline. For instance, when going to go to class, every class, I’m going to Tiffany’s 16-year-old son Corey got caught let them know to call me.’ Because I let him skipping school by truancy officers, rather know, like, ‘I’m not getting in trouble for you than extend a supportive or helpful hand to not going to school.’” Later, Tiana was even Tiffany, who agreed that Corey should attend more explicit about how she could face sanc- school and worried about the effect his tions because of her son’s behavior. When she absences and potential expulsion would have found a picture her son had posted on Face- on his future, school officials blamed her: book with a “blunt in his mouth,” she con- fronted him, asking, “‘Like are you trying to I get a phone call telling me that it is manda- get me sent off [to jail]? Are you trying to get tory that I makes the school meeting. . . . your sister and them taken from me?’” Simi- Basically, they were telling me the principal larly, when Janelle found pictures of her was going to call ACS [Administration for 16-year-old son with marijuana that he posted Children’s Services] on me because Corey on Facebook, she feared he could “go to jail is not coming to school. I was like, “I have and [I could] get in trouble behind [him] a 7-year-old and you can check, he has per- because that’s illegal.” Interviewees revealed fect attendance. So you cannot fault me for a deep sense of vulnerability to criminaliza- Corey’s mistakes.” tion by a system that presumed them to be inadequate mothers who deserved punish- The school reported Tiffany, subjecting her to ment rather than support. Some said they a 30-day investigation involving home visits strove to avoid such an outcome by under- without warning by ACS workers, which scoring and demonstrating their involvement included interviews with her minor children. and vigilance. Thus, mothers’ sheltering strat- At the end, she received a form “basically egy was informed by fears for their children’s saying that I wasn’t found to be doing any- and their own criminalization. thing wrong.” In the meantime, she researched a Job Corp schooling program a family mem- Complying. As research about the fre- ber recommended, and she enrolled Corey. quency of Black children’s contact with the The school treated Tiffany as guilty until criminal justice system would suggest, a few proven innocent of negligent parenting and mothers had children who experienced contact activated intrusive surveillance of her parent- with school punishment, police, or the courts. ing as a result. In these cases, mothers described trying to Several mothers spoke of the importance ensure their children complied with sanctions of demonstrating to authority figures in their they received to avoid facing further conse- children’s lives that they were involved, quences. As Flores (2016) found, juvenile active parents (see also Fong 2018). Yashonda system procedures and services can further discussed “requesting meetings all the time” criminalize children. For example, when at her daughters’ schools “because even Tiana’s now 15-year-old son Malik was 14, he though they might not expect me to be as received six months’ probation for kicking a involved or to request those meetings . . . motorcycle. The probation involved meeting a [with] me being a single parent and working number of conditions, including attending full time, I was.” A few mothers explicitly regular classes. When a judge threatened to said it was important to demonstrate their put Malik on probation for another six months active involvement in their children’s school- after he did not turn in some paperwork, Tiana ing to avoid being seen as negligent. Tiana agreed to take him to more classes to demon- described calling her 15-year-old son’s school strate her commitment as a mother and to keep 214 American Sociological Review 84(2) him from receiving additional time. Speaking school that she stressed to Amber “school is of all she had to do to help Malik, Tiana said, very important” and sent her to school each “[I felt] I was the one that committed the day, but she could not literally force her to go crime,” pointing to the ways her son’s crimi- to school as she cared full-time for her two nalization extended to her. young grandchildren. The school nevertheless Some mothers described their children’s said she was responsible. Caught in this bind, schools as conduits to criminal justice system Tasha imagined Amber being confined to jail involvement, consistent with the school-to- on the weekends to underscore the necessity prison pipeline research. Mothers routinely of attending school: “I really believe . . . emphasized the value of education for their either they go to school or they do some type children; they did not want their children to of—. You know, be in jail every weekend. If drop out of school or be excluded from edu- you can’t go to school, you need to be sitting cational opportunities (Elliott, Powell, and up there [in jail] every weekend until y’all can Brenton 2015). They also described being get it, because school is very important. I try tasked with trying to get their children to to tell her.” Tasha wanted to protect Amber comply with harsh, zero-tolerance school from the consequences the school was threat- policies. Victoria’s 17-year-old son was fac- ening but viewed her power over her as lim- ing a 365-day school suspension for drinking ited, whereas the school positioned Tasha as alcohol on school grounds. Victoria said she fully responsible for ensuring Amber’s com- was doing everything she could to prevent the pliance. Mothers often noted that the state suspension. She explained, “Under no cir- doled out punishment but did not offer sup- cumstances am I gonna just sit by and let port or resources to assist mothers in parent- them try to suspend my son for 365 days of ing their children. his life. Everybody’s entitled to an educa- When resources were offered, they further tion.” An administrator told Victoria that her cemented the idea of mothers’ sole responsi- son might be able to come back to school but bility. For example, as part of the conditions would face dire consequences if he was out of of her 15-year-old son’s probation, Mariah compliance with school rules again. “The was required to take parenting classes: lady said, ‘Well if he comes back, he can’t get in any trouble.’ But I know he will. . . . I don’t It’s through his probation. They send a guy know if he gonna drop out, they’ll throw him over here to do a parenting [class]. He out, or he’ll be incarcerated. It boils down to shows us some videos of other parents and three possibilities and [none] of them I like.” their children, going through probably the Victoria desperately wanted her son to get an same things. [And teaches us] maybe the education but worried she would not be able different things that maybe I can do instead to ensure he complied with the school’s stipu- of yelling and screaming, you know. lations and that, subsequently, he might face even worse consequences, for which she Mariah said the classes were “sometimes” would feel and be held accountable. helpful, but they did not acknowledge the Governments have long tasked parents challenges she was facing: “You tell them, with controlling children’s behavior (Donzelot ‘Don’t go, or you can’t go outside today.’ 1979), and these expectations persist in the Soon as you turn your back, he’s out the modern era of personal responsibility (Elliott door.” The mandatory parenting classes, in and Reid 2016; Kaplan 1997; Reich 2005, contrast to Mariah’s personal experiences, 2014). Tasha’s 17-year-old daughter Amber sent the message that, with the right kind of was facing a school suspension for repeated parenting, mothers could—and should—gain absences. School administrators told Tasha control over their children (see also Gengler that it was her responsibility to ensure 2012). Ferguson (2000) found that elemen- Amber’s attendance. Tasha explained to the tary school teachers and administrators Elliott and Reid 215 characterized families of “at-risk” children as the criminal justice system affects individuals lacking in nurturing skills. As low-income and their family members (e.g., Comfort Black youth transition to adolescence, author- 2008) by revealing how informal contact, ity figures may condemn their mothers for such as concerns about children’s criminali- ineffectual disciplinary skills based on con- zation, also shapes family life. Second, moth- trolling images of Black mothers as irration- ers feared and received collateral sanctions ally angry (the angry Black woman) or when their children faced institutional pun- negligent (the welfare queen) (Elliott and ishment, another way criminalization extends Aseltine 2013; Elliott and Reid 2016; Harris- to families. Black mothers must prove their Perry 2011; Kaplan 1997; Rios 2011). innocence under suspicion of guilt, and this may necessitate demonstrating law-and-order parenting. Family criminalization thus reveals Discussion the intertwining of fears and realities of both Mass incarceration is one of the most signifi- children’s and mothers’ criminalization. cant civil rights issues today. Laws and poli- Mothers commonly used three strategies— cies that disproportionately and punitively telling cautionary tales, sheltering, and enacting target Black Americans, coupled with popular compliance—in the face of family criminaliza- imagery and rhetoric of Black criminality, pro- tion. Paying attention to their ambivalent pel high rates of Black incarceration. Children responses to oppressive and unequal conditions are not immune to the machinery of mass (Collins 2000) highlights the ways mothers incarceration. Studies find Black children are resist and try to protect their children from rac- disproportionately surveilled and punished by ist institutions, as prior work has found (e.g., authority figures who view their behavior Dow 2016), even as they at times use the through controlling images based on negative language or practices of the carceral system stereotypes ascribing criminal natures to Black (Richardson et al. 2014; Rios 2011). Our analy- children. Research demonstrates Black women sis demonstrates the ways mothers’ strategies also face a plethora of controlling images are linked to their contextual understandings of about Black motherhood that demean their criminalization as ubiquitous, unjust, and high mothering, position them as transmitting devi- stakes, and how they use these methods to try ance to their children, and shape their interac- to prevent their children’s entrance into the tions with institutional authorities. By bringing criminal justice system. Mothers expressed insights from these bodies of literature together ambivalence about these strategies, and some with research on parenting in low-income explicitly critiqued the rhetoric and institutions neighborhoods, we advance understanding of with which they had to engage, but they never- parenting in disadvantaged contexts and the theless felt these tactics were necessary for long reach of criminalization. their children to grow up safely and have Drawing on in-depth interviews with 46 happy, successful lives. low-income Black mothers of adolescents in Parents across racial and social class cate- New York and North Carolina, we develop gories may use similar parenting strategies as the concept of family criminalization to those described in this article. However, the explain the relationship between criminaliza- mothers interviewed felt they had no choice tion and family life for Black Americans. but to parent in these ways. They explained First, mothers described criminalization as a that without their vigilance, strictness, and ubiquitous and threatening presence in chil- compliance with institutional rules, their chil- dren’s lives—even if a child had no formal dren risked arrest, incarceration, and even contact with the criminal justice system—and death. Mothers were also aware of their own said they had sole responsibility to protect vulnerability to criminalization. In this way, their children from it. This finding extends fears around criminalization restricted moth- previous research on how formal contact with ers’ parental autonomy, another meaningful 216 American Sociological Review 84(2) way family criminalization reproduces ine- work demonstrates that family criminalization quality.2 Moreover, whereas privileged moth- punishes and further marginalizes both chil- ers express great confidence in their ability to dren and mothers. protect their children from risk (Reich 2014), the low-income Black mothers described Acknowledgments their deep investment and efforts in protect- We warmly thank the interview participants for sharing ing their children from harm but also the their experiences, both studies’ research teams for their limits of what they were capable of given the assistance in data collection, and the anonymous review- larger context of punitive social control, ers and ASR editors Omar Lizardo, Rory McVeigh, and neighborhood disadvantage, and structural Sarah Mustillo for their helpful feedback. racism. These mothers also noted that others accused them of being too lax and too protec- Funding tive in their parenting. Part of this research was funded by a grant from the Alexander (2010) argues that mass incar- National Institute of Child Health and Human Develop- ceration has become “the New Jim Crow,” ment (R01 HD064723) to the National Development and shaping every aspect of life and excluding Research Institutes. Partial funding also came from the Black Americans from full participation in College of Humanities and Social Sciences and the Department of Sociology and Anthropology at North society. Family criminalization expands exist- Carolina State University. ing studies of the consequences of the surveil- lance and punishment of Black people in the United States. We find that as the criminal Notes justice system reaches into the everyday lives 1. Consistent with many Black authors, scholars, and of low-income Black children it extends to publications (e.g., Essence and Ebony magazines), we capitalize “Black” to signify that Black Americans their mothers, shaping their parenting strate- constitute a group with a common history and experi- gies and subjecting them to collateral conse- ences of racial injustice and resistance to oppression. quences. The findings are similar across two We do not capitalize “white” “in deference to Black different geographic sites, suggesting the writers who argue in favor of this racialized gram- policing of Blackness shapes family life matical disruption” (Gurusami 2019:129). 2. We thank an anonymous reviewer for this observation. nationally. That neither study focused on crim- inalization and yet it emerged as highly salient lends credence to the findings but poses limita- References tions. Because interviewers were not attuned to Alexander, Michelle. 2010. The New Jim Crow: Mass criminalization, they missed opportunities to Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness. New ask direct questions and, occasionally, did not York: The New Press. follow up when the issue was raised. Future Beauboeuf-Lafontant, Tamara. 2009. Behind the Mask of qualitative research should continue to investi- the Strong Black Woman: Voice and the Embodiment of a Costly Performance. Philadelphia: Temple Uni- gate the meanings and experiences of family versity Press. criminalization. Quantitative, nationally repre- Blair-Loy, Mary. 2003. Competing Devotions: Career sentative studies are needed to test the theory and Family among Women Executives. Cambridge, of family criminalization by, for example, MA: Harvard University Press. using surveys to assess the intertwining of Bradley, Elizabeth H., Leslie A. Curry, and Kelly J. Devers. 2007. “Qualitative Data Analysis for Health Services surveillance and punishment of parents and Research: Developing Taxonomy, Themes, and The- children. Court records should be investigated ory.” Health Services Research 42(2):1758–72. for race, gender, and class patterns in parents Brayne, Sarah. 2014. “Surveillance and System Avoid- being sentenced on their children’s behalf, ance: Criminal Justice Contact and Institutional such as with truancy. Overall, future work can Attachment.” American Sociological Review 79(3):367–91. further elucidate how punitive carceral policies Byfield, Natalie. 2014. Savage Portrayals: Race, Media, affect both parents and children and the far- and the Central Park Jogger Story. Philadelphia: reaching effects of family criminalization. Our Temple University Press. Elliott and Reid 217

Chan Tack, Anjanette M., and Mario L. Small. 2017. Elliott, Sinikka, and Sarah Bowen. 2018. “Defending “Making Friends in Violent Neighborhoods: Strate- Motherhood: Morality, Responsibility, and Double gies among Elementary School Children.” Sociologi- Binds in Feeding Children.” Journal of Marriage and cal Science 4:224–48. Family 80(2):499–520. Charmaz, Kathy. 2007. “Grounded Theory: Objectivist Elliott, Sinikka, Joslyn Brenton, and Rachel Powell. 2018. and Constructivist Methods.” Pp. 249–91 in Strate- “Brothermothering: Gender, Power, and the Parenting gies for Qualitative Inquiry, edited by N. K. Denzin Strategies of Low-Income Black Single Mothers of and Y. S. Lincoln. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Teenagers.” Social Problems 65(4):439–55. Charmaz, Kathy. 2014. Constructing Grounded Theory: Elliott, Sinikka, Rachel Powell, and Joslyn Brenton. A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis, 2nd 2015. “Being a Good Mom: Low-Income, Black Sin- ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. gle Mothers Negotiate Intensive Mothering.” Journal Collins, Patricia Hill. 1986. “Learning From the Outsider of Family Issues 36(3):351–70. Within: The Sociological Significance of Black Femi- Elliott, Sinikka, and Megan Reid. 2016. “The Super- nist Thought.” Social Problems 33(6):S14–32. strong Black Mother.” Contexts 15(1):48–53. Collins, Patricia Hill. 2000. Black Feminist Thought: Epstein, Rebecca, Jamilia J. Blake, and Thalia González. Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics of 2017. “Girlhood Interrupted: The Erasure of Black Empowerment, 2nd ed. New York: Routledge. Girls’ Childhood.” Washington, DC: Georgetown Comfort, Megan. 2008. Doing Time Together: Love and Law, Center on Poverty and Inequality. Family in the Shadow of the Prison. Chicago: Univer- Esterberg, Kristin G. 2002. Qualitative Methods in Social sity of Chicago Press. Research. Boston: McGraw-Hill. Crabtree, Benjamin F., and William F. Miller. 1999. “A Feagin, Joe R. 2013. The White Racial Frame: Centuries Template Approach to Text Analysis: Developing and of Racial Framing and Counter-Framing. New York: Using Codebooks.” Pp. 163–77 in Doing Qualitative Routledge. Research, edited by B. Crabtree and W. Miller. New- Fereday, Jennifer, and Eimear Muir-Cochrane. 2008. bury Park, CA: Sage. “Demonstrating Rigor Using Thematic Analysis: A Crenshaw, Kimberlé, Priscilla Ocen, and Jyoti Nanda. 2015. Hybrid Approach of Inductive and Deductive Coding Black Girls Matter: Pushed Out, Overpoliced, and and Theme Development.” International Journal of Underprotected. New York: Center for Intersectionality Qualitative Methods 5(1):80–92. and Social Policy Studies at Columbia University. Ferguson, Ann Arnett. 2000. Bad Boys: Public Schools in Desmond, Matthew, and Nicol Valdez. 2012. “Unpolic- the Making of Black Masculinity. Ann Arbor: Univer- ing the Urban Poor: Consequences of Third-Party sity of Michigan Press. Policing for Inner-City Women.” American Socio- Few, April L. 2007. “Integrating Black Consciousness logical Review 78(1):117–41. and Critical Race Feminism into Family Studies DeVault, Marjorie L. 1996. “Talking Back to Sociology: Research.” Journal of Family Issues 28(4):452–73. Distinctive Contributions of Feminist Methodology.” Flores, Jerry. 2016. Caught Up: Girls, Surveillance, and Annual Review of Sociology 22(1):29–50. Wraparound Incarceration. Berkeley: University of Donzelot, Jacques. 1979. The Policing of Families. California Press. Translated by R. Hurley. New York: Pantheon Books. Fong, Kelley. 2018. “Concealment and Constraint: Child Dow, Dawn Marie. 2015. “Negotiating ‘The Welfare Protective Services Fears and Poor Mothers’ Insti- Queen’ and ‘The Strong Black Woman’: African tutional Engagement.” Social Forces (online first; American Middle Class Mothers’ Work and Family https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/soy093). Perspectives.” Sociological Perspectives 58(1):36–55. Furstenberg, Frank F., Thomas D. Cook, Jacquelynne Dow, Dawn Marie. 2016. “The Deadly Challenges of Eccles, Glen H. Elder, and Arnold Sameroff. 1999. Raising African American Boys: Navigating the Managing to Make It: Urban Families and Adoles- Controlling Image of the ‘Thug.’” Gender & Society cent Success. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 30(2):161–88. Gase, Lauren Nichol, Beth A. Glenn, Louis M. Gomez, Du Bois, W.E.B. [1903] 1994. The Souls of Black Folk. Tony Kuo, Moira Inkelas, and Ninez A. Ponce. 2016. Mineola, NY: Dover Publications Inc. “Understanding Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Dumais, Susan A., Richard J. Kessinger, and Bonny Arrest: The Role of Individual, Home, School, and Ghosh. 2012. “Concerted Cultivation and Teachers’ Community Characteristics.” Race and Social Prob- Evaluations of Students: Exploring the Intersection lems 8(4):296–312. of Race and Parents’ Educational Attainment.” Socio- Gavanas, Anna. 2004. Fatherhood Politics in the United logical Perspectives 55(1):17–42. States: Masculinity, Sexuality, Race, and Marriage. Elliott, Sinikka. 2012. Not My Kid: What Parents Believe Chicago: University of Illinois Press. About the Sex Lives of Their Teenagers. New York: Gengler, Amanda M. 2012. “Defying (Dis)Empower- NYU Press. ment in a Battered Women’s Shelter: Moral Rheto- Elliott, Sinikka, and Elyshia Aseltine. 2013. “Rais- rics, Intersectionality, and Processes of Control and ing Teenagers in Hostile Environments: How Race, Resistance.” Social Problems 59(4):501–21. Class, and Gender Matter for Mothers’ Protective Goff, Phillip Atiba, Matthew Christian Jackson, Brooke Carework.” Journal of Family Issues 34(6):719–44. Allison Lewis Di Leone, Carmen Marie Culotta, and 218 American Sociological Review 84(2)

Natalie Ann DiTomasso. 2014. “The Essence of Inno- Kurz, Demie. 2002. “Poor Mothers and the Care of Teen- cence: Consequences of Dehumanizing Black Chil- age Children.” Pp. 23–36 in Child Care and Inequal- dren.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology ity: Rethinking Carework for Children and Youth, 106(4):526–45. edited by F. M. Cancian, D. Kurz, A. S. London, R. Goffman, Alice. 2009. “On the Run: Wanted Men in a Reviere, and M. C. Tuominen. New York: Routledge. Philadelphia Ghetto.” American Sociological Review Lareau, Annette. 2011. Unequal Childhoods: Class, 74(3):339–57. Race, and Family Life, 2nd ed. Berkeley: University Greene, Judith A. 1999. “Zero Tolerance: A Case Study of California Press. of Police Policies and Practices in New York City.” Lareau, Annette, and Erin McNamara Horvat. 1999. Crime & Delinquency 45(2):171–87. “Moments of Social Inclusion and Exclusion: Race, Gurusami, Susila. 2017. “Working for Redemption: For- Class, and Cultural Capital in Family-School Rela- merly Incarcerated Black Women and Punishment in tionships.” Sociology of Education 72(1):37–53. the Labor Market.” Gender & Society 31(4):433–56. Levine, Judith A. 2013. Ain’t No Trust: How Bosses, Boy- Gurusami, Susila. 2019. “Motherwork Under the State: friends, and Bureaucrats Fail Low-Income Mothers The Maternal Labor of Formerly Incarcerated Black and Why It Matters. Berkeley: University of Califor- Women.” Social Problems 66(1):128–43. nia Press. Hancock, Ange-Marie. 2004. The Politics of Disgust: Luker, Kristin. 2008. Salsa Dancing into the Social Sci- The Public Identity of the Welfare Queen. New York: ences. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. NYU Press. Mazama, Ama, and Garvey Lundy. 2012. “African Amer- Haraway, Donna. 1988. “Situated Knowledges: The Sci- ican Homeschooling as Racial Protectionism.” Jour- ence Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Par- nal of Black Studies 43(7):723–48. tial Perspective.” Feminist Studies 14(3):575–99. McDowell, Deborah E., Claudrena N. Harold, and Juan Harris-Perry, Melissa V. 2011. Sister Citizen: Shame, Ste- Battle, eds. 2013. The Punitive Turn: New Approaches reotypes, and Black Women in America. New Haven, to Race and Incarceration. Charlottesville: Univer- CT: Yale University Press. sity of Virginia Press. Haskins, Anna R., Mariana Amorim, and Meaghan McHale, Susan M., Ann C. Crouter, Ji-Yeon Kim, Linda Mingo. 2018. “Parental Incarceration and Child Out- M. Burton, Kelly D. Davis, Aryn M. Dotterer, and comes: Those at Risk, Evidence of Impacts, Meth- Dena P. Swanson. 2006. “Mothers’ and Fathers’ odological Insights, and Areas of Future Work.” Racial Socialization in African American Fami- Sociology Compass 12(3):1–14. lies: Implications for Youth.” Child Development Hays, Sharon. 1996. The Cultural Contradictions of 77(5):1387–402. Motherhood. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Miller, Jody. 2008. Getting Played: African American Hershberg, Rachel M. 2017. “Consejos as a Family Pro- Girls, Urban Inequality, and Gendered Violence. cess in Transnational and Mixed-Status Mayan Fami- New York: New York University Press. lies.” Journal of Marriage and Family 80(2):334–48. Morris, Edward W. 2012. Learning the Hard Way: Mas- Irwin, Katherine, Janet Davidson, and Amanda Hall-San- culinity, Place, and the Gender Gap in Education. chez. 2013. “The Race to Punish in American Schools: New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Class and Race Predictors of Punitive School-Crime Morris, Edward W., and Brea L. Perry. 2016. “The Pun- Control.” Critical Criminology 21(1):47–71. ishment Gap: School Suspension and Racial Dispari- Jarrett, Robin L., and Stephanie R. Jefferson. 2003. “‘A ties in Achievement.” Social Problems 63(1):68–86. Good Mother Got to Fight for Her Kids’: Maternal Morris, Monique W. 2016. Pushout: The Criminalization Management Strategies in a High-Risk, African- of Black Girls in Schools. New York: The New Press. American Neighborhood.” Journal of Children and Murphey, David, and P. Mae Cooper. 2015. Parents Poverty 9(1):21–39. Behind Bars: What Happens to Their Children? Jones, Nikki. 2010. Between Good and Ghetto: African Bethesda, MD: Child Trends. American Girls and Inner-City Violence. New Bruns- Pager, Devah. 2007. Marked: Race, Crime, and Finding wick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Work in an Era of Mass Incarceration. Chicago: Uni- Jones, Nikki. 2018. The Chosen Ones: Black Men and versity Of Chicago Press. the Politics of Redemption. Berkeley: University of Perry, Brea L., and Edward W. Morris. 2014. “Suspend- California Press. ing Progress: Collateral Consequences of Exclu- Kaplan, Elaine Bell. 1997. Not Our Kind of Girl: Unrav- sionary Punishment in Public Schools.” American elling the Myths of Black Teenage Motherhood. Sociological Review 79(6):1067–87. Berkeley: University of California Press. Pettit, Becky, and Bruce Western. 2004. “Mass Imprison- Kelling, George L., and James Q. Wilson. 1982. “The ment and the Life Course: Race and Class Inequality Police and Neighborhood Safety: Broken Windows.” in U.S. Incarceration.” American Sociological Review The Atlantic Monthly, March, pp. 29–38. 69(2):151–69. Kirk, David S., and Sara Wakefield. 2018. “Collateral Randles, Jennifer M. 2013. “‘Repackaging the ‘Package Consequences of Punishment: A Critical Review Deal’: Promoting Marriage for Low-Income Families and Path Forward.” Annual Review of Criminology by Targeting Paternal Identity and Reframing Marital 1:171–94. Masculinity.” Gender & Society 27(6):864–88. Elliott and Reid 219

Reich, Jennifer A. 2005. Fixing Families: Parents, Power, Actions in 1980 and 2000: The Disproportionate and the Child Welfare System. New York: Routledge. Impact of ‘Getting Tough’ on Crime.” Youth Violence Reich, Jennifer A. 2014. “Neoliberal Mothering and Vac- and Juvenile Justice 13(1):77–95. cine Refusal: Imagined Gated Communities and the Strauss, Anslem L., and Juliet M. Corbin. 1990. Basics of Privilege of Choice.” Gender & Society 28(5):679– Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures 704. and Techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Rendón, Maria G. 2014. “‘Caught Up’: How Urban Vio- Stuart, Forrest, and Ava Benezra. 2018. “Criminalized lence and Peer Ties Contribute to High School Non- Masculinities: How Policing Shapes the Construction completion.” Social Problems 61(1):61–82. of Gender and Sexuality in Poor Black Communi- Richardson, Joseph B., Waldo E. Johnson, and Christo- ties.” Social Problems 65(2):174–90. pher St. Vil. 2014. “‘I Want Him Locked Up’: Social Turney, Kristin, and Christopher Wildeman. 2013. “Rede- Capital, African American Parenting Strategies, and fining Relationships: Explaining the Countervailing the Juvenile Court.” Journal of Contemporary Eth- Consequences of Paternal Incarceration for Parent- nography 43(4):488–522. ing.” American Sociological Review 78(6):949–79. Rios, Victor M. 2011. Punished: Policing the Lives of U.S. Department of Education Office of Civil Rights. Black and Latino Boys. New York: NYU Press. 2014. “Civil Rights Data Collection: Data Snapshot Roberts, Dorothy. 2002. Shattered Bonds: The Color of (School Discipline).” Washington, DC: U.S. Depart- Child Welfare. New York: Civitas Books. ment of Education. Rosenblatt, Peter, and Stefanie DeLuca. 2012. “‘We Wacquant, Loïc. 2000. “The New ‘Peculiar Institution’: Don’t Live Outside, We Live in Here’: Neighborhood On the Prison as Surrogate Ghetto.” Theoretical and Residential Mobility Decisions among Low- Criminology 4(3):377–89. Income Families.” City & Community 11(3):254–84. Wacquant, Loïc. 2009. Punishing the Poor: The Neolib- Rovner, Joshua. 2016. Policy Brief: Racial Disparities eral Government of Social Insecurity. Durham, NC: in Youth Commitments and Arrests. Washington, DC: Duke University Press. The Sentencing Project. Wildeman, Christopher, and Bruce Western. 2010. Sarkisian, Natalia, and Naomi Gerstel. 2004. “Kin “Incarceration in Fragile Families.” Future of Chil- Support among Blacks and Whites: Race and Fam- dren 20(2):157–77. ily Organization.” American Sociological Review Windsor, Liliane Cambraia, Eloise Dunlap, and Andrew 69(6):812–37. Golub. 2011. “Challenging Controlling Images, Schram, Sanford F., Joe Soss, Richard C. Fording, and Linda Oppression, Poverty, and Other Structural Con- Houser. 2009. “Deciding to Discipline: Race, Choice, straints: Survival Strategies among African-American and Punishment at the Frontlines of Welfare Reform.” Women in Distressed Households.” Journal of Afri- American Sociological Review 74(3):398–422. can American Studies 15(3):290–306. Shedd, Carla. 2015. Unequal City: Race, Schools, and Yi, Youngmin, and Christopher Wildeman. 2018. “Can Perceptions of Injustice. New York: Russell Sage Foster Care Interventions Diminish Justice System Foundation. Inequality?” Future of Children 28(1):37–58. Skiba, Russell J., Robert H. Horner, Choong-Geun Chung, M. Karega Rausch, Seth L. May, and Tary Sinikka Elliott is an Assistant Professor of Sociology at Tobin. 2011. “Race Is Not Neutral: A National Inves- The University of British Columbia. Her research broadly tigation of African American and Latino Dispropor- focuses on family dynamics, intersecting inequalities, tionality in School Discipline.” School Psychology and social policy. Review 40(1):85–107. Smith, Dorothy E. 2005. Institutional Ethnography: A Sociology for People. Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press. Megan Reid has a PhD in sociology from the University Soss, Joe, Richard C. Fording, and Sanford F. Schram. of Texas at Austin and has served as a National Poverty 2011. Disciplining the Poor: Neoliberal Paternalism Fellow at the University of Wisconsin’s Institute for and the Persistent Power of Race. Chicago: Univer- Research on Poverty and a Project Director at the sity of Chicago Press. National Development and Research Institutes in New Stevens, Tia, and Merry Morash. 2015. “Racial/Ethnic York City. Her scholarship primarily examines families, Disparities in Boys’ Probability of Arrest and Court social inequality, and social policy.