Shaking Abolitionist Foundations: Building a Study in Prisons Against Prisons

• In Event: Abolitionist Experiments in Research: Enacting an Abolitionist Praxis in a National Study in Youth Prisons

Abstract

Objectives: We began by questioning whether to enter prisons, where we negotiate with carceral entities that cage children. Rodriguez (2006) noted that interaction with the prison can extend the “reach of the prison regime” (p. 96). Concurrently, DuBois (1935) believed the only way to understand the prison and envision abolition was to focus on those impacted. Thus, we sought to avoid sustaining carcerality by designing the project to embody abolitionist praxis, centering the voices of incarcerated youth.
Theoretical framework: We blended abolition and DisCrit to: recognize the interdependence of racism and ableism that situate disabled Youth of Color outside of whiteness and ability, and therefore abnormal (Erevelles, 2014); explore the material realities of being labeled as “undesirable” (Mingus, 2018) and banished into prisons; value multidimensional identities (Waitoller, 2020) by focusing on disability and sexuality among Youth of Color, especially because the state does not collect these data; and privilege the voices of incarcerated (Davis, 2011) youth.
Methods & Data Sources: Our goal was to create a study that captured the trajectories of incarcerated youth. Simultaneously, we needed to resist redemption stories, where young people are coerced to say, “I was a bad person before and now I’ll make better choices and stay out of trouble”. Redemption arcs are favored by adults in youth prisons (Winn, 2011). Consequently, we designed our study as a space for youth counter-narratives.
Results: We attempted to weave in abolitionist commitments into each project component. For example: Project personnel: We began by ensuring that the research team was committed to abolition; our research assistant was formerly incarcerated as a youth. Survey design: using extant literature, the survey was designed by a survey expert and two formerly incarcerated, paid youth consultants. Survey refinement: We conducted five paid focus groups with 55 formerly incarcerated youth to provide feedback on our survey. Recruiting: We recruited from all five regions of the country to ensure a varied data set. Data collection: For each data collection trip, we took purposeful steps (e.g., preparing information for each state and facility before interviewing, debriefing themes and outliers after interviewing session) for researchers to make sense of the experiences of incarcerated youth.
Significance: Like Ida B. Wells’ (1893) commitment to revealing the horrors of Lynch Laws, we believe we must consistently open the doors of youth prisons to shed light on the horrors (Davis, 2011), of what goes on behind the barbed wire fences of youth prisons, both the overt violence and the more common slow violence of rehabilitation and routinization. As an abolitionist experiment, we are still reflecting on what we did well, what we needed to improve, and what should not have been done at all. Ultimately, the project’s grounding sought an abolitionist framing rooted in historical conceptions of abolition to understand present day experiences of incarcerated youth in order to build more just futures.

Authors

• Subini Ancy Annamma, Stanford University

• Greg Prieto, University of San Diego