Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T01:53:41.128Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Political Development of Schools as Cause and Solution to Delinquency

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 April 2022

DANIEL S. MOAK  and
SARAH D. CATE
DANIEL S. MOAK
Affiliation:
Connecticut College
SARAH D. CATE
Affiliation:
Seattle University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article offers a comprehensive history of the development of the federal role in education and juvenile justice policy from the 1950s to the 1970s. We argue that the issues of juvenile delinquency and education became linked during this period and policies that were enacted reflected the belief that education was a solution to delinquency. In the mid-twentieth century, a broader variety of approaches to antidelinquency, such as public job creation for youth, began to fall out of favor and education became elevated as the primary policy area for addressing delinquency outside the criminal justice system. Policy makers frequently justified federal involvement in education by arguing that schools were central to antidelinquency efforts. Drawing educational institutions into the fight against delinquency made schools susceptible to the punitive turn in crime policy. Ultimately, these developments have introduced punitive policies into schools and pushed antidelinquency efforts away from broader structural reforms.

Keywords

juvenile justice policydelinquencyeducation policyOffice of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP)Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965
Type
Article
Information
Journal of Policy History , Volume 34 , Issue 2 , April 2022 , pp. 180 - 212
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2022

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

We would like to thank Marie Gottschalk, Rogers Smith, Anthony Grasso, Joanna Wuest, Carly Regina, Kirstine Taylor, Nicole Kaufman, Timothy Cate, and the anonymous reviewers for the Journal of Policy History for their invaluable feedback.

References

NOTES

1. Barack Obama, Remarks in Manning, “A Challenge for Our Times,” November 2, 2007, in The American Presidency Project, eds. Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley (online: University of California Santa Barbara), https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/node/277478.

2. Mallett, Christopher A., “The School-to-Prison Pipeline: A Critical Review of the Punitive Paradigm Shift,” Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal 33, no. 1 (2016): 15–24 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3. Orren, Karen and Skowronek, Stephen, The Search for American Political Development (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Pierson, Paul and Skocpol, Theda, “Historical Institutionalism in Contemporary Political Science,” Political Science: The State of the Discipline 3, no. 1 (2002): 1–32 Google Scholar; Pierson, Paul, “Not Just What, but When: Timing and Sequence in Political Processes,” Studies in American Political Development 14, no. 1 (2000): 72–92 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Thelen, Kathleen, “Timing and Temporality in the Analysis of Institutional Evolution and Change,” Studies in American Political Development 14, no. 1 (2000): 101–08CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4. Pierson, “Not Just What, but When”; Pierson and Skocpol, “Historical Institutionalism.”

5. Gottschalk, Marie, The Shadow Welfare State: Labor, Business, and the Politics of Health Care in the United States (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Katznelson, Ira, “Was the Great Society a Lost Opportunity?” in The Rise and Fall of the New Deal Order, 1930-1980, eds. Fraser, Steve and Gerstle, Gary (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1989)Google Scholar; Chen, Anthony S., The Fifth Freedom: Jobs, Politics, and Civil Rights in the United States, 1941-1972 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2009)Google Scholar; Morgan, Kimberly J. and Campbell, Andrea Louise, The Delegated Welfare State: Medicare, Markets, and the Governance of Social Policy (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bertram, Eva, The Workfare State: Public Assistance Politics from the New Deal to the New Democrats (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Flamm, Michael, The Crisis of Liberalism: Street Crime, Civil Unrest and the Crisis of Liberalism in the 1960s (New York: Columbia University Press, 2005)Google Scholar.

6. Hinton, Elizabeth, From the War on Poverty to the War on Crime: The Making of Mass Incarceration in America (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Murakawa, Naomi, The First Civil Right: How Liberals Built Prison America (New York: Oxford University Press, 2014)Google Scholar; Weaver, Vesla M., “Frontlash: Race and the Development of Punitive Crime Policy,” Studies in American Political Development 21, no. 2 (2007): 230–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Daniel S. Moak, “Supply-Side Education: Race, Inequality, and the Rise of the Punitive Education State” (Ph.D. diss., University of Pennsylvania, 2016); Johnson, Travis M., “A Crowded Agenda: Labor Reform and Coalition Politics during the Great Society,” Studies in American Political Development 29, no. 1 (2015): 89–105 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Soss, Joe, Fording, Richard C., and Schram, Sanford F., Disciplining the Poor: Neoliberal Paternalism and the Persistent Power of Race (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lafer, Gordon, The Job Training Charade (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2002)Google Scholar; Larner, Wendy, “Neo-Liberalism Policy, Ideology, Governmentality,” Studies in Political Economy 63, no. 1 (2000): 5–25 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Brown, Wendy, “Neo-Liberalism and the End of Liberal Democracy,” Theory & Event 7, no. 1 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7. Hinton, From the War on Poverty.

8. Simon, Jonathan, Governing through Crime: How the War on Crime Transformed American Democracy and Created a Culture of Fear (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007)Google Scholar.

9. The term “educationalization” comes from Labaree, David F., “The Winning Ways of a Losing Strategy: Educationalizing Social Problems in the United States,” Educational Theory 58, no. 4 (2008): 447–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Several other scholars also write about this dynamic including Grubb, W. Norton and Lazerson, Marvin, The Education Gospel (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2009)Google Scholar; Kantor, Harvey and Lowe, Robert, “The Price of Human Capital: Educational Reform and the Illusion of Equal Opportunity,” Dissent 58, no. 3 (2011): 15–20 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Kantor, Harvey and Lowe, Robert, “Educationalizing the Welfare State and Privatizing Education,” in Learning from the Federal Market? Based Reforms: Lessons for ESSA, eds. Mathis, William J. and Trujillo, Tina M. (Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, 2016): 37–60 Google Scholar.

10. Cohen, Miriam, “Reconsidering Schools and the American Welfare State,” History of Education Quarterly 45, no. 4 (Winter 2005): 511–37Google Scholar; Grubb, W. Norton and Lazerson, Marvin, The Education Gospel (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2009)Google Scholar; Katznelson, Ira and Weir, Margaret, Schooling for All: Class, Race, and the Decline of the Democratic Ideal (New York: Basic Books, 1988)Google Scholar; Marsh, John, Class Dismissed: Why We Cannot Teach or Learn Our Way out of Inequality (New York: NYU Press, 2011)Google Scholar; Steffes, Tracy L., School, , Society, and State: A New Education to Govern Modern America, 1890-1940 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

11. Steffes, Schools, Society, and State, 8–12.

12. For scholarship focusing on egalitarian aspects of the ESEA, see Cohen, David K. and Moffitt, Susan L., The Ordeal of Equality: Did Federal Regulation Fix the Schools? (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Davies, Gareth, See Government Grow: Education Politics from Johnson to Reagan (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2007)Google Scholar; Graham, Hugh Davis, The Uncertain Triumph: Federal Education Policy in the Kennedy and Johnson Years (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1984)Google Scholar; Manna, Paul, School’s In: Federalism and the National Education Agenda (Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 2006)Google Scholar; McAndrews, Lawrence, The Era of Education: The Presidents and the Schools, 1965-2001 (Champaign: University of Illinois Press, 2006)Google Scholar; McGuinn, Patrick J., No Child Left Behind and the Transformation of Federal Education Policy, 1964-2005 (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2006)Google Scholar; McGuinn, Patrick J., “Education Policy from the Great Society to 1980: The Expansion and Institutionalization of the Federal Role in Schools,” in Conservatism and American Political Development, eds. Glenn, Brian J. and Teles, Steven Michael (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009), 188–219 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ravitch, Diane, The Death and Life of the Great American School System: How Testing and Choice are Undermining Education (New York: Basic Books, 2010)Google Scholar; and Rhodes, Jesse H., An Education in Politics: The Origins and Evolution of No Child Left Behind (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

13. Gilbert, James, A Cycle of Outrage: America’s Reaction to the Juvenile Delinquent in the 1950s (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988)Google Scholar.

14. Gilbert, A Cycle of Outrage.

15. Lassiter, Matthew D., “Pushers, Victims, and the Lost Innocence of White Suburbia: California’s War on Narcotics during the 1950s,” Journal of Urban History 41, no. 5 (2015): 787–807 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Suddler, Carl, Presumed Criminal: Black Youth and the Justice System in Postwar New York (New York: NYU Press, 2020)Google Scholar.

16. Lassiter, “Pushers, Victims and the Lost Innocence”; Suddler, Presumed Criminal; Muhammad, Khalil Gibran,  The Condemnation of Blackness: Race, Crime, and the Making of Modern Urban America, with a New Preface (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

17. Andrew J. Diamond, Mean Streets: Chicago Youths and the Everyday Struggle for Empowerment in the Multiracial City, 1908-1969, Vol. 27, American Crossroads (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2009). As part of the larger effort advancing civil rights, greater policy attention was being placed on issues involving youth. De Schweinitz, Rebecca, If We Could Change the World: Young People and America’s Long Struggle for Racial Equality (Chapel Hill: UNC Press, 2011)Google Scholar.

18. Cohen, Ronald D., “The Delinquents: Censorship and Youth Culture in Recent U.S. History,” History of Education Quarterly 37, no. 3 (Autumn 1997): 262 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Blackboard Jungle was hardly the only example of popular culture reflecting the concern about delinquency. Historian Ronald D. Cohen notes that in addition to Blackboard Jungle, a plethora of mid-1950s films centered on the delinquency scare, including The Wild One, Teenage Crime Wave, Rebel without a Cause, The Night Holds Terror, The Young Stranger, Reform School Girl, Dragstrip Riot, Teenage Thunder, Hot Rod Rumble, The Delinquents, and several more. See also, Andrew Diamond, Mean Streets.

19. U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on the Judiciary, Juvenile Delinquency: Interim Report of the Committee on the Judiciary United States Senate, Eighty-third Congress, Second Session Pursuant to S. Res. 89 (83d Cong, 1st sess.) A Resolution to Investigate Juvenile Delinquency in the United States, S.Rep. 1064, 83rd Cong., 2d sess. 7 (1954).

20. U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee, Investigation of Juvenile Delinquency (1954), at 13. A report from the following year expressed a similar sentiment, noting that “The problem is national in scope, and it has its roots in every city, village, and hamlet in our land.” U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on the Judiciary, Interim Report of the Committee on the Judiciary United States Senate Eighty-third Congress second session pursuant to S. Res. 89 and S. Res. 190 (83d Congress, 1st and 2d sessions) to study Juvenile Delinquency in the United States, S. Rep. 61, 84th Cong., 1st sess. 60 (1955).

21. U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee, Investigation of Juvenile Delinquency (1954), at 14.

22. U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee, Investigation of Juvenile Delinquency (1954), at 12.

23. U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee, Investigation of Juvenile Delinquency (1954, at 35.

24. U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee, Juvenile Delinquency Investigation (1955), at 58.

25. U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on the Judiciary, Juvenile Delinquency Report of Committee on Judiciary, 85th Cong., 1st sess. 16 (March 4, 1957) .

26. For example, Dr. Lawrence G. Derthick, superintendent of schools at Chattanooga and then U.S. Commissioner of Education, testified, “The school must be concerned with channeling a child’s behavior in constructive ways so that he becomes a valuable, contributing member of society. But until the school has sufficient and properly trained personnel to help identify these causes in individual cases and to deal with them, we are severely handicapped” (U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee, Juvenile Delinquency Investigation [1957], at 23).

27. As quoted in Anders Walker, “Blackboard Jungle: Delinquency, Desegregation, and the Cultural Political of ‘Brown,” Columbia Law Review 110, no. 7 (November 2010): 1912.

28. Walker, “Blackboard Jungle,” 1943. See also Taylor, Kirstine, “Sunbelt Capitalism, Civil Rights, and the Development of Carceral Policy in North Carolina, 1954–1970,” Studies in American Political Development 32, no. 2 (2018): 292–322 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hinton, From the War on Poverty; Murakawa, The First Civil Right; Weaver, “Frontlash.”

29. Edelman, Peter, “American Government and the Politics of Youth,” in A Century of Juvenile Justice, eds. Rosenheim, Margaret K., Zimring, Franklin E., Taenehaus, David S., and Dohrn, Bernardine (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 2002), 315–16Google Scholar.

30. Mucciaroni, Gary, The Political Failure of Employment Policy, 1945-1982 (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1991)Google Scholar; Weir, Margaret, Politics and Jobs: The Boundaries of Employment Policy in the United States (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1992)Google Scholar; Collins, Robert M., The Business Response to Keynes, 1929-1964 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1982)Google Scholar; Jennifer Stepp Breen, “Capitalizing Labor: What Work Is Worth and Why: From the New Deal to the New Economy” (Ph.D. diss., University of Pennsylvania, 2011), http://search.proquest.com/docview/888151857/abstract/E3F9793C82654833PQ/1; Alice O’Connor, Poverty Knowledge: Social Science, Social Policy, and the Poor in Twentieth-Century U.S. History (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2002), 128; Binder, Arnold and Polan, Susan L., “The Kennedy-Johnson Years, Social Theory, and Federal Policy in the Control of Juvenile Delinquency,” Crime & Delinquency 37, no. 2 (1991), 241–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Katz, Michael B., The Undeserving Poor: America’s Enduring Confrontation with Poverty (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), 121 Google Scholar; Adolph Reed Jr., “The ‘Color Line’ Then and Now: The Souls of Black Folk and the Changing Context of Black American Politics,” in Renewing Black Intellectual History: The Ideological and Material Foundations of African American Thought, eds. Adolph Reed Jr. and Kenneth W. Warren (Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishing, 2010), 272; Moak, “Supply-Side Education.”

31. Cloward and Ohlin argued that delinquency was the result of deviant subculture among lower-class youth, and they suggested that improving educational opportunities of these groups could attack the problem at its source. Richard A. Cloward and Lloyd E. Ohlin, Delinquency and Opportunity: A Theory of Delinquent Gangs (Glencoe, IL: Free Press, 1960). See also, Katz, The Undeserving Poor, 121.

32. Goluboff, Risa L., The Lost Promise of Civil Rights (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2007)Google Scholar;  Goluboff, Risa Lauren, “‘Let Economic Equality Take Care of Itself’: The NAACP, Labor Litigation, and the Making of Civil Rights in the 1940s,” UCLA Law Review 52 (2005)Google Scholar: 1393; Karl E. Klare, “Judicial Deradicalization of the Wagner Act and the Origins of Modern Legal Consciousness, 1937-1941,” Minnesota Law Review 65, (1977–1978): 265; James Gray Pope, “Labor and the Constitution: From Abolition to Deindustrialization,” Texas Law Review 65, no. 6 (May 1987): 1090; Daniel S. Moak, “Thurgood Marshall: The Legacy and Limits of Equality under the Law,” in African American Political Thought: A Collected History, eds. Melvin Rogers and Jack Turner (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 2020), 386.

33. Democratic Party Platforms: “1960 Democratic Party Platform,” July 11, 1960, in The American Presidency Project, eds. Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley (online: University of California Santa Barbara), https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/1960-democratic-party-platform; and Republican Party Platforms: “Republican Party Platform of 1960,” July 25, 1960, in The American Presidency Project, eds. Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley (online: University of California Santa Barbara), https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/republican-party-platform-1960.

34. See CQ Almanac, “Juvenile Delinquency Act.”

35. John F. Kennedy: “Executive Order 10940—Establishing the President’s Committee on Juvenile Delinquency and Youth Crime,” May 11, 1961, in The American Presidency Project, eds. Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley (online: University of California Santa Barbara), https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/executive-order-10940-establishing-the-presidents-committee-juvenile-delinquency-and-youth.

36. Ohlin had a significant influence on the PCJDYC’s interpretation of juvenile delinquency—and Ohlin also served as a personal advisor to Attorney General Robert Kennedy, who chaired the committee. See Schmitt, Edward R., President of the other America: Robert Kennedy and the Politics of Poverty (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 2010): 69–72 Google Scholar; O’Connor, Alice, Poverty Knowledge: Social Science, Social Policy, and the Poor in Twentieth-Century U.S. History, (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2002)Google Scholar: 128. This same strain of social science research also influenced federal policy makers outside of the specific arena of delinquency. One of the most notable instances was in Daniel Patrick Moynihan infamous report, The Negro Family: The Case for National Action, which relied heavily on cultural understandings of poverty and deviancy. Daniel P. Moynihan, The Negro Family: The Case for National Action (Washington, DC: Office of Policy Planning and Research, United States Department of Labor, 1965).

37. John F. Kennedy: “Letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives Concerning Measures to Combat Juvenile Delinquency,” May 11, 1961, in The American Presidency Project, eds. Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley (online: University of California Santa Barbara), https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/letter-the-speaker-the-house-representatives-concerning-measures-combat-juvenile.

38. U.S. Congress, House of Representatives, Committee on Education and Labor, H.R. 7178 and Various Bills for Prevention and Control of Juvenile Delinquency and Youth Offenses: Hearings Before the Special Subcommittee on Education, 87th Cong., 1st sess. 9 (1961).

39. Juvenile Delinquency Control Act, 87th Cong., 1st sess. 105 (1961).

40. Hearings on H.R. 7178, at 113.

41. Hearings on H.R. 7178, at 7.

42. Hearings on H.R., at 106.

43. Prior to the 1961 Act, two limited federal acts dealing specifically with juvenile delinquents that had committed federal crimes had been passed: the Federal Juvenile Delinquency Act of 1938 (kept juveniles apart from adult criminals and provided some procedural rights for delinquents) and the Federal Youth Corrections Act of 1950 (focused on providing sentencing alternatives to delinquents). The 1961 Act focused attention beyond federal crimes, an important fact because the vast majority of delinquents were not federal offenders. See Doyle, Charles, “Juvenile Delinquency and Federal Criminal Law: The Federal Juvenile Delinquency Act and Related Matters,” in Juvenile Crime: Current Issues and Background, ed. Moore, Lawrence V. (Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers, 2003), 3Google Scholar.

44. Juvenile Delinquency and Youth Offenses Control Act of 1961, Pub. L. No. 87-274, 75 Stat. 572 (1961).

45. Juvenile Delinquency and Youth Offenses Control Act of 1961, Pub. L. No. 87-274, 75 Stat. 572, 574 (1961).

46. John F. Kennedy: “Remarks upon Signing the Juvenile Delinquency and Youth Offenses Control Act,” September 22, 1961, in The American Presidency Project, eds. Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley (online: University of California Santa Barbara), https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/remarks-upon-signing-the-juvenile-delinquency-and-youth-offenses-control-act.

47. Extension and Amendment of the Juvenile Delinquency and Youth Offences Control Act of 1961: Report [to accompany H. R. 9876], from the Cmte. on Education and Labor, House, 88th Cong., 2d sess. (1964).

48. Extension and Amendment of the Juvenile Delinquency and Youth Offenses Control Act of 1961.

49. John F. Kennedy, “Special Message to the Congress on Education,” February 6, 1962, in The American Presidency Project, eds. Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley (online: University of California Santa Barbara), https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/special-message-the-congress-education-0.

50. The responsibility of schools for social problems was not limited to delinquency, Kennedy also pointed to “unemployment, chronic dependence, a waste of human resources, a loss of productive power and purchasing power and an increase in tax-supported benefits.” John F. Kennedy: “Special Message to the Congress on Education,” January 29, 1963, in The American Presidency Project, eds. Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley (online: University of California Santa Barbara), https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/special-message-the-congress-education.

51. In 1964, Johnson made this connection clear, noting, “The cycle of poverty: inadequate schools, drop-outs, poor health, unemployment-creating delinquency, slums, crime, disease, and broken families—thereby breeding more poverty.” Lyndon B. Johnson, “Annual Message to the Congress: The Economic Report of the President,” January 20, 1964, in The American Presidency Project, eds. Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley (online: University of California Santa Barbara), https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/annual-message-the-congress-the-economic-report-the-president-13.

52. Lyndon B. Johnson, “Remarks on the City Hall Steps, Dayton, Ohio,” October 16, 1964, in The American Presidency Project, eds. Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley (online: University of California Santa Barbara), https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/remarks-the-city-hall-steps-dayton-ohio.

53. Lyndon B. Johnson, “The President’s News Conference,” April 1, 1965, in The American Presidency Project, eds. Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley (online: University of California Santa Barbara), https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-1029.

54. U.S. Congress, House of Representatives, Committee on Education and Labor, Aid to Elementary and Secondary Education, Part 1, 89th Cong., 1st sess. 64 (1965).

55. Aid to Elementary and Secondary Education, Part 1, at 64.

56. U.S. Congress, Senate, Subcommittee on Education of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, A Bill to Strengthen and Improve Educational Quality and Educational Opportunities in the Nation’s Elementary and Secondary Schools, 89th Cong., 1st sess. 2729–30 (1965).

57. Moak, “Supply-Side Education,” 282–344.

58. Elementary and Secondary Education Amendments of 1966, Pub. L. 89-750, 80 Stat. 1195 (1966).

59. U.S. Congress, House of Representatives, Committee on Education and Labor, Elementary and Secondary Education Amendments of 1967, Part 1, 90th Cong., 1st sess. 49 (1967).

60. Elementary and Secondary Education Amendments of 1967, Part 1, 90th Cong., 1st sess. 282 (1967).

61. Lyndon B. Johnson, “Special Message to the Congress Recommending a 12-Point Program for America’s Children and Youth,” February 8, 1967, in The American Presidency Project, eds. Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley (online: University of California Santa Barbara), https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/special-message-the-congress-recommending-12-point-program-for-americas-children-and-youth.

62. Lyndon B. Johnson, “Special Message to the Congress Recommending a 12-Point Program.”

63. Lyndon B. Johnson, “Remarks to Members of the National Council on Crime and Delinquency,” June 21, 1967, in The American Presidency Project, eds. Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley (online: University of California Santa Barbara), https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/remarks-members-the-national-council-crime-and-delinquency.

64. Lyndon B. Johnson, “Remarks to Members of the National Council on Crime and Delinquency.”

65. U.S. Congress, House of Representatives, General Subcommittee on Education, Juvenile Delinquency Prevention Act of 1967, 90th Cong., 1st sess. 15 (1967).

66. Juvenile Delinquency Prevention and Control Act of 1968, Pub. L. No. 90-445, 82 Stat. 462 (1968).

67. Juvenile Delinquency Prevention and Control Act of 1968, at 466.

68. Juvenile Delinquency Prevention and Control Act of 1968, at 465.

69. U.S. Congress, Senate, Subcommittee on Employment, Manpower, and Poverty, Juvenile Delinquency Prevention and Control Act, 90th Cong., 1st sess. 101 (September 26, 1967).

70. Juvenile Delinquency Prevention and Control Act of 1968, at 465.

71. Lyndon B. Johnson, “Remarks upon Signing the Juvenile Delinquency Prevention and Control Act of 1968,” July 31, 1968, in The American Presidency Project, eds. Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley (online: University of California Santa Barbara), https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/remarks-upon-signing-the-juvenile-delinquency-prevention-and-control-act-1968.

72. See Stein, Judith, Pivotal Decade: How the United States Traded Factories for Finance in the Seventies, (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2010)Google Scholar; Russell, Judith, Economics, Bureaucracy, and Race: How Keynesians Misguided the War on Poverty (New York: Columbia University Press, 2004)Google Scholar; Keyserling, Leon, “Economic Progress and the Great Society,” in The Great Society Reader: The Failure of American Liberalism, eds. Gettleman, Marvin E. and Mermelstein, David (New York: Random House, 1967), 85–96 Google Scholar; Rustin, Bayard, “From Protest to Politics,” in The Great Society Reader: The Failure of American Liberalism, eds. Gettleman, Marvin E. and Mermelstein, David (New York: Random House, 1967), 261–77Google Scholar.

73. As quoted in Wachtel, Howard M., Labor and the Economy (Orlando, FL: Academic Press, 1984), 510 Google Scholar. The NYC was intended to reduce school dropouts and increase the income of young people, both of which were seen as contributing to delinquency. Gerald G. Somers and Ernst W. Stromsdorfer, “A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of In-School and Summer NYC: A Nationwide Evaluation” Journal of Human Resources 7, No. 4 (Autumn 1972): 446–59; Eisenthal, Sherman and Sherman, Louis J., “Psychological Characteristics of Neighborhood Youth Corps Enrollees,” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 33, no. 4 (1969): 420–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Howard, Jack, “Neighborhood Youth Corps: An Alternative to Delinquency,” Juvenile Court Judges Journal 18, no. 3 (Fall 1967): 87–91 Google Scholar; Weisman, Murray, “The Neighborhood Youth Corps,” Juvenile Court Judges Journal 19, no. 4 (Winter 1969): 134–38Google Scholar; Samuel P. Goddard Papers, “12th Governor of Arizona: Neighborhood Youth Corps,” https://www.asu.edu/lib/archives/goddard/governor8.htm; U.S. General Accounting Office, “Difficulties of the Neighborhood Youth Corps In-School Program and Its Management Problems,” Feb. 20, 1973, http://archive.gao.gov/f0202/094138.pdf.

74. Richard Praeger, “Youth Employment: A Summary History of Major Federal Programs, 1933-1976,” Congressional Research Service, March 30, 1977.

75. Peter L. Benson and Karen Johnson Pittman, eds. Trends in Youth Development: Visions, Realities and Challenges, Vol. 6, Outreach Scholarship (Springer Science & Business Media, 2012), 311.

76. U.S. Congress, House of Representatives, Committee on Education and Labor, Manpower Report, Message from the President, April 24, 1975; U.S. Department of Labor, Manpower Report of the President, 1975, 94th Cong., 1st sess., H. Doc. No. 94-111, serial 13125, at 41 (1975). Gillette, Michael L., Launching the War on Poverty: An Oral History (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010), 105 Google Scholar.

77. Edelman, 321.

78. U.S. Department of Labor, “Neighborhood Youth Corps: From Welfare to Wages,” 1967, https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED027349.

79. Judith Stein, Pivotal Decade; Moak, “Supply-Side Education,” 282–344.

80. Akard, Patrick J., “Corporate Mobilization and Political Power: The Transformation of U.S. Economic Policy in the 1970s,” American Sociological Review 57, no. 5 (1992): 597–615 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Stein, Pivotal Decade.

81. Davies, Gareth, “Towards Big-Government Conservatism: Conservatives and Federal Aid to Education in the 1970s,” Journal of Contemporary History 43, no. 4 (2008): 621–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Stein, Pivotal Decade.

82. Akard, “Corporate Mobilization.” The 1976 Humphrey-Hawkins bill mandating full employment was an important political project for Democrats and was worked into the party platform, despite President Jimmy Carter’s lack of enthusiasm for the proposal. Stein, Pivotal Decade, 149.

83. Jacob, Hacker, “Privatizing Risk without Privatizing the Welfare State: The Hidden Politics of Social Policy Retrenchment in the United States,” The American Political Science Review 98, no. 2 (2004): 243–60Google Scholar; Hacker, Jacob S., The Divided Welfare State: The Battle over Public and Private Social Benefits in the United States (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Pierson, Paul and Skocpol, Theda, The Transformation of American Politics: Activist Government and the Rise of Conservatism (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Pierson, Paul, Dismantling the Welfare State? Reagan, Thatcher and the Politics of Retrenchment (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

84. Garland, David, The Culture of Control (Chicago: University of Chicago: 2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. From the mid-1960s to mid-1970s the federal government reinstated the death penalty, curtailed parole, imposed mandatory minimum sentences, and began permitting youth to be held in adult prisons. Between 1973 and 2000 the number of people in prison in the US increased sixfold. Weaver, Vesla, “Frontlash: Race and the Development of Punitive Crime Policy,” Studies in American Political Development 21, no. 2 (2007): 230–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Black civil rights actors advocated for an “all the above” strategy to address crime by coupling “law and order” policies with proposals like John Conyers Marshall Plan for inner cities but ultimately only got the punitive crime measures. Forman, James Jr. Locking up Our Own: Crime and Punishment in Black America (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux: 2017)Google Scholar.

85. The vote total was 242-132 for the Amendment. Northern Democrats voted against the Amendment by a 16-118 margin, whereas Southern Democrats voted in favor by a 66-12 margin and Republicans voted in favor by a 160-2 margin. “House Rewrites and Passes Juvenile Delinquency Bill,” in CQ Almanac 1967, 23rd ed., 08-855-08-858 (Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly, 1968).

86. Hinton, Elizabeth, “Creating Crime: The Rise and Impact of National Juvenile Delinquency Programs in Black Urban Neighborhoods,” Journal of Urban History 41, no. 5 (2015): 808–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

87. Elementary and Secondary Education Amendments of 1969, Pub. L. No. 91-230, 84 Stat. 154 (1970).

88. Elementary and Secondary Education Amendments of 1969.

89. U.S. Congress, Senate, Subcommittee on Departments of Labor and HEW and Related Agencies Appropriations, Office of Education, Special Institutions, and Related Agencies Appropriations, Fiscal Year 1972, Part 2, 92nd Cong., 1st sess. 898–99 (1971).

90. In 1971, the federal government spent eight times as much on federal aid to states for criminal justice as it did for crime prevention through health and human services. Schoenfeld, Heather, Building the Prison State: Race & The Politics of Mass Incarceration (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2017).Google Scholar

91. U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Judiciary, Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974, S. Rep. No. 93-1011, 2d Sess. 31 (1974). Importantly, a substantial portion of this money was being spent on prevention and diversion efforts within schools. S. Rep. No. 93-1011, at 88–89 (1974).

92. See “The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974,” Chronology, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. The text of the 1973 Amendment reads, “No State plan shall be approved as comprehensive, unless it includes a comprehensive program, whether or not funded under this title, for the improvement of juvenile justice.” An Act to Amend Title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Street Act of 1968 to Improve Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice, and for Other Purposes, Pub. L. No. 93-83, 87 Stat. 201 (1973).

93. The shift in responsibility from HEW to the DOJ was introduced as an amendment to the original bill in the Senate Committee process and was passed by a coalition of Republicans and Southern Democrats.

94. The administrator of the OJJDP was to be appointed by the President and subject to Senate Confirmation.

95. An Act to Provide a Comprehensive, Coordinated Approach to the problems of Juvenile Delinquency, and for other Purposes, Pub. L. No. 93-415, 88 Stat. 1129 (1974).

96. The House of Representatives voted 329-20 to pass the bill, and the Senate voted 88-1 in favor. “Juvenile Delinquency,” in CQ Almanac 1974, 30th ed. (Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly, 1975): 278–82.

97. Hinton, “Creating Crime.”

98. U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee, Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974, at 20.

99. U.S. Congress, Senate, Subcommittee Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act, S. 3148 and S. 821, 92nd Cong., 2nd sess. 297 (1972).

100. U.S. Congress, House of Representatives, Select Committee, Street Crime in America, at 774.

101. Street Crime in America, at 794.

102. An Act to Provide a Comprehensive, Coordinated Approach to the Problems of Juvenile Delinquency, and for other Purposes, at 1110. Despite the greater association with law enforcement, the 1974 JJDPA still clearly advocated against harsh punitive measures within schools—such as suspension and expulsion (still in the pre-get-tough era).

103. An Act to Provide a Comprehensive, Coordinated Approach to the Problems of Juvenile Delinquency, and for Other Purposes, at 1127.

104. U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee, Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974, at 23.

105. Hinton, “Creating Crime.”

106. Hinton, From the War on Poverty.

107. Aviram, Hadar, Cheap on Crime: Recession-Era Politics and the Transformation of American Punishment (Oakland: University of California Press, 2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gottschalk, Marie The Prisons and the Gallows: The Politics of Mass Incarceration in America (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006)Google Scholar; Martinson, Robert, “What Works? Questions and Answers about Prison Reform,” The Public Interest 35, (1974): 22 Google Scholar.

108. Aviram, Cheap on Crime. Pfaff, John, Locked In: The True Causes of Mass Incarceration and How to Achieve Real Reform (New York: Basic Books, 2017)Google Scholar. Heather Schoenfeld, Building the Prison State; Miller, Lisa L., The Perils of Federalism: Race, Poverty, and the Politics of Crime Control (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Forman, James Jr., Locking Up Our Own; Marie Gottschalk, Caught: The Prison State and the Lockdown of American Politics (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2016)Google Scholar; Tonry, Michael, Thinking about Crime: Sense and Sensibility in American Penal Culture (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004)Google Scholar.

109. Hinton, From the War on Poverty.

110. U.S. Congress, Senate, Subcommittee Safe Schools Act, 93rd Cong., 1st sess. (1973), at 5.

111. Shanker advocated increasing security personnel, funding alternative educational programs, and expanding narcotics education. Safe Schools Act, 41–50.

112. The 1975 hearing included teachers and administrators from around the country who spoke of the concerns about violence in schools. U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on the Judiciary, School Violence and Vandalism S. Res. 72 and S. 12, 94th Cong., 1st sess. (1975).

113. School Violence and Vandalism, at 295.

114. National Institute of Education, Violent Schools–Safe Schools: The Safe School Study Report to the Congress, Vol. 1 (U.S. Department of Justice, 1978), 145.

115. Hinton, “Creating Crime,” 808.

116. Violent Schools, 145.

117. Violent Schools, 145.

118. Giroux, Henry A., “Chapter Four: Punishment Creep and the Crisis of Youth in the Age of Disposability,” Counterpoints 453, (2014): 69–68Google Scholar; Cusac, Anne-Marie, Cruel and Unusual: The Culture of Punishment in America (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2009)Google Scholar.

119. Mallett, “The School-To-Prison Pipeline;” Nancy Heitzeg, “Education or Incarceration: Zero Tolerance Policies and the School to Prison Pipeline,” Forum on Public Policy Online 2009, no. 2; Kathy Koch, “Zero Tolerance for School Violence,” CQ Researcher 10, (March 10, 2000); James Bennet, “Clinton Urges Stricter Rules in Schools,” The New York Times, July 21, 1998; Deborah Fowler, “School Discipline Feeds the ‘Pipeline to Prison,’” The Phi Delta Kappan 93, no. 2 (October 2011): 14‑19. Oxford Round Table, Urbana, IL; Christina Pigott, Ami E. Stearns, and David N. Khey, “School Resource Officers and the School to Prison Pipeline: Discovering Trends of Expulsions in Public Schools,” American Journal of Criminal Justice 43, no. 1 (2018): 120–38.

120. One example was Reagan’s Secretary of Education, William Bennett. During his tenure, Bennett supported the expansion of school vouchers and was an outspoken supporter of the War on Drugs. In 1986 Bennett urged Congress to withhold federal funds from schools that did not adopt zero-tolerance policies for students using or selling drugs at school. Kathy Koch, “Zero Tolerance for School Violence.” For an extended discussion on Bennett’s role in leading the Republican embrace of federal education policy for their own purposes, see Debray, Elizabeth H., Politics, Ideology, and Education (New York: Teachers College Press, 2006)Google Scholar.

121. The new law required school districts to develop gun-free laws (specifically a mandatory one-year expulsion for students who bring a weapon to school) to receive federal funds for their schools. The act also provided money for metal detectors and school security personnel training. Hirschfield, P. J., “Preparing for Prison? The Criminalization of School Discipline in the USA,” Theoretical Criminology 12, no. 1 (2008): 79–101 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Heitzeg, N. A., “Education or Incarceration: Zero Tolerance Policies and the School to Prison Pipeline,” in Forum on Public Policy Online 2009, no. 2 (2009)Google Scholar; Skiba, R. J. and Knesting, K., “Zero Tolerance, Zero Evidence: An Analysis of School Disciplinary Practice,” New Directions for Student Leadership 2001, no. 92 (2001): 17–43 Google ScholarPubMed; Marsh, S., School Pathways to Juvenile Justice System Project (Reno, NV: National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, 2014)Google Scholar; Mallett, C. A., “The School-to-Prison Pipeline: A Critical Review of the Punitive Paradigm Shift,” Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal 33, no. 1 (2016): 15–24 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

122. The Republican Party framed school choice in their 2000 platform as a policy to “help states ensure school safety by letting children in dangerous schools transfer to schools that are safe for learning.” (“2000 Republican Party Platform,” July 31, 2000, in The American Presidency Project, https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/2000-republican-party-platform). In the same year the Democratic Party stated in their platform: “We need revolutionary improvements in our public schools. This requires … a genuine expansion of public school choice; and a renewed focus on discipline, character, and safety in our schools.” (“2000 Democratic Party Platform,” August 14, 2000, in The American Presidency Project, https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/2000-democratic-party-platform.

123. Steffes, Schools, Society, and State, 8.

124. Steinberg, Matthew P., Allensworth, E., and Johnson, D. W., Student and Teacher Safety in Chicago Public Schools: The Roles of Community Context and School Social Organization (Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research, 2011)Google Scholar; Steinberg, Matthew P. and Lacoe, Johanna, “What Do We Know about School Discipline Reform? Assessing the Alternatives to Suspension and Expulsions,” Education Next 17, no. 1 (2017): 44–52 Google Scholar; Peguero, Anthony A. and Bracy, Nicole L., “School Order, Justice, and Education: Climate, Discipline Practices, and Dropping out,” Journal of Research on Adolescence 25, no. 3 (2015): 412–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Raffaele-Mendez, Linda M., “Predictors of Suspension and Negative Outcomes: A Longitudinal Investigation,” New Directions for Youth Development 99, (2003): 17–33 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Steinberg, and Lacoe, , “What Do We Know”; Rebecca Hinze-Pifer and Lauren Sartain, “Rethinking Universal Suspension for Severe Student Behavior,” Peabody Journal of Education 93, no. 2 (2018): 228–43Google Scholar.

125. Some of the most popular policies are, Positive Behavioral Interventions Support (PBIS), Aggression Replacement Therapy (ART), Forward Thinking, Check in/Check out, reflective journaling, resilience education, and the “whole-child approach.” Notably, these programs are primarily designed and implemented by private nonprofit or for-profit organizations.