This article explores the perceptions of family policing (child welfare) and juvenile legal (juvenile justice) systems professionals on Black crossover youth in out-of-home placements and explores how interventions in these systems intersect and align with carceral practices. Through the lens of anti-carceral theory, the article pulls together the interplay of anti-Black racism, carceral logic, and carceral expansion in how professionals view system realities of Black crossover youth forcibly separated from their families. Interviews with twelve child welfare, juvenile legal, and court professionals were conducted to understand their perceptions of factors leading to the crossover trajectory, out-of-home placement and other service interventions for crossover youth, and racial disproportionality of Black adolescents. The study describes how professionals acknowledge, justify, or ignore the presence of surveillance, policing, and punishment, embedded in practices intended to service traumatized youth that instead perpetuate systemic racism. Findings uncovered that while professionals acknowledge the overrepresentation of crossover youth across all decision points in family separation and juvenile legal systems, views of individual, and family pathology were noted as causes which underpin carceral thought and social control. Perceptions were akin to a need for continued policing structures that target Black youth. Recommendations for dismantling practices reflecting anti-Black racism and carcerality are offered.
AbramsL. S.MizelM. L.BarnertE. S. (2021). The criminalization of young children and overrepresentation of Black youth in the juvenile justice system. Race and Social Problems, 13, 73–84. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12552-021-09314-7
ArrigoB. A.SellersB. G. (2022). Psychological jurisprudence and the role of police psychology in community psychology. In Police psychology: New trends in forensic psychological science. (pp. 131–148). Elsevier Academic Press.
BergenH.AbjiS. (2020). Facilitating the carceral pipeline: Social work’s role in funneling newcomer children from the child protection system to jail and deportation. Affilia, 35(1), 34–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886109919866165
6.
ChowW.-Y.MettrickJ. E.StephanS. H.von WaldnerA. C. (2014). Youth in group home care: Youth characteristics and predictors of later functioning. The Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research, 41(4), 503–519. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11414-012-9282-2
7.
CreswellJ. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). Sage.
8.
CurtisC. M.DenbyR. W. (2011). African American children in the child welfare system: Requiem or reform. Journal of Public Child Welfare, 5(1), 111–137.
9.
DelmasP. M.GilesR. L. (2023). Qualitative research approaches and their application in education. International Encyclopedia of Education (Fourth Edition), 24–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-818630-5.11003-6
10.
DettlaffA. J.AbramsL. S.TeasleyM. L. (2023). Interrogating the carceral state: Re-envisioning social work’s role in systems serving children and youth. Children and Youth Services Review, 148, 106920. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2023.106920
11.
DettlaffA. J.BoydR. (2020). Racial disproportionality and disparities in the child welfare system: Why do they exist, and what can be done to address them. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 692(1), 253–274.
12.
DettlaffA. J.WeberK.PendletonM.BoydR.BettencourtB.BurtonL. (2020). It is not a broken system, it is a system that needs to be broken: The upEND movement to abolish the child welfare system. Journal of Public Child Welfare, 14, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/15548732.2020.1814542
13.
EspositoJ.Evans-WintersV. (2021). Introduction to intersectional qualitative research. Sage Publications, Incorporated.
14.
FloresJ.HawesJ.WestbrooksA.HendersonC. (2018). Crossover youth and gender: What are the challenges of girls involved in both the foster care and juvenile justice systems?Children and Youth Services Review, 91, 149–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2018.05.031
15.
GilgunJ. F. (2019). Deductive qualitative analysis and grounded theory: Sensitizing concepts and hypothesis-testing. In The SAGE handbook of current developments in grounded theory (pp. 107–122).
HalembaG. J.SiegelG. C. (2011). Doorways to delinquency: Multi-system involvement of delinquent youth in King County (Seattle, WA). National Center for Juvenile Justice.
HerzD. C. (2016). A summary of findings for the Los Angeles County 241.1 multidisciplinary team.
20.
HerzD. C.DierkhisingC. B.RaithelJ.SchretzmanM.GuiltinanS.GoergeR. M.ChoY.CoultonC.AbbottS. (2019). Dual system youth and their pathways: A comparison of incidence, characteristics and system experiences using linked administrative data. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 48, 2432–2450. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-019-01090-3
21.
HerzD. C.RyanJ. P.BilchikS. (2010). Challenges facing crossover youth: An examination of juvenile-justice decision making and recidivism. Family Court Review, 48(2), 305–321. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-1617.2010.01312.x
HuangH.RyanJ. P.SappletonA.ChiuY. L. (2015). Crossover youth post arrest: Placement status and recidivism. Children and Youth Services Review, 57, 193–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2015.08.015
KimH.DrakeB. (2023). Has the relationship between community poverty and child maltreatment report rates become stronger or weaker over time?Child Abuse and Neglect, 143, 106333, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2023.106333
26.
KolivoskiK. M. (2017). Detention. In The encyclopedia of juvenile delinquency and justice (pp. 1–6).
27.
LeeS. Y.VillagranaM. (2015). Differences in risk and protective factors between crossover and non-crossover youth in juvenile justice. Children and Youth Services Review, 58, 18–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2015.09.00
28.
LopezC. E. (2022). Abolish carceral logic. Stanford Journal of Civil Rights & Civil Liberties, 17, 379–419.
29.
MarshallJ. M.HaightW. L. (2014). Understanding racial disproportionality affecting African American youth who cross over from the child welfare to the juvenile justice system: Communication, power, race, and social class. Children and Youth Services Review, 42, 82–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2014.03.017
30.
McCoyH.PearsonE. (2019). Racial disparities in the juvenile justice system. Encyclopedia of Social Work.
MorganL. A. (2022). Dual jurisdiction? It doesn’t work like that: Practitioner decision-making at the juvenile justice and child welfare nexus. Children and Youth Services Review, 143, 106702. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2022.106702
33.
PalmerL.AhnE.TraubeD.PrindleJ.Putnam-HornsteinE. (2020). Correlates of entry into congregate care among a cohort of California foster youth. Children and Youth Services Review, 110, 104772. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.104772
34.
PlattA. M. (1969). The child savers: The invention of delinquency. The University of Chicago Press.
RobertsD. (2022). Torn apart: How the child welfare system destroys black families--and how abolition can build a safer world. Basic Books.
37.
RyanJ. P.HerzD.HernandezP. M.MarshallJ. M. (2007). Maltreatment and delinquency: Investigating child welfare bias in juvenile justice processing. Children and Youth Services Review, 29, 1035–1050. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2007.04.002
38.
SaldañaJ. (2021). The coding manual for qualitative researchers.
39.
Simmons-HortonS. Y. (2020). A bad combination”: Lived experiences of youth involved in the foster care and juvenile justice systems. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 38, 583–597. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10560-020-00693-1
40.
Simmons-HortonS. Y.KolivoskiK.GarzaD. (2023). Black girl magic: Empowerment stories of black dual status girls. Children and Youth Services Review, 152, 107047. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2023.107047
41.
StahlN. A.KingJ. R. (2020). Expanding approaches for research: Understanding and using trustworthiness in qualitative research. Journal of Developmental Education, 44(1), 26–28. https://www.jstor.org/stable/45381095
42.
UlmerJ. T. (2015). Review: The Black child-savers, criminal justice discretion, and the ghost of George Stinney, Jr. Contemporary Sociology, 44(3), 322–325. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43996328
