‘Compassionate’ Control: Social Work and the Rise of Carceral Feminism in Progressive Era Police Reform

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please see attached review. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment for a full description of our point-by-point response to the reviewer's comments

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an exceptional article that provides a neglected, and much needed, analysis of the historical relationship between social work and policing, particularly from the complex gendered perspective that this article provides.

My primary piece of feedback relates to the organization of the findings: In its current form, there seems to be some blurring between where the literature review ends and the findings begin. The way the numbers of headings are used adds to this confusion. For example, the heading numbered "3.4 Findings" is a sub-heading under the primary "3. Methodology" heading, whereas I think "Findings" should start a new primary heading. Then heading "4. Professionalization of Social Work and Law Enforcement in the Progressive Era" seems to be more of a continuation of the context-setting done earlier in the paper rather than part of your findings. Similarly, heading "5. The Progressive Era..." continues this context setting. In my view, the findings seem to start at line 332. My recommendation would be to begin the findings section with the current text in section 3.4 as an introductory paragraph, and then transition to the content that begins at line 332 (although this is just a suggestion, something else may make more sense to the authors). The other content in sections 4 and 5 are important, but it seems like they should come prior to the "findings" section as part of the context setting for the study. 

I can offer a few other minor points to consider:

1) In the "Theoretical Framework" section, it might be helpful to add a few sentences to explain carceral logics and how they are distinct from but also related to carceral feminism, particularly since the term "carceral logics" is used repeatedly throughout the paper. 

2) Somewhere in this section (perhaps 2.2) it might help to briefly explain how carceral logics are currently used in social work, with the child welfare system being a good example of this, to demonstrate how these logics are deeply embedded into the current profession.

3) The discussion is done very well and provides an excellent summary and analysis of the findings. It might be relevant to talk about how these early carceral logics that emerged from social work and policing eventually morphed into social work's approach to addressing "child maltreatment", which is entirely carceral in nature. 

4) I also think it would be interesting to reflect a bit more on how these early origins led to mainstream social work becoming primarily carceral social work. Related to this, you might consider commenting on how this focus on carcerality in social work potentially harms the profession or conflicts with the profession's purported goals of providing "care." 

Author Response

Please see attachment for a point-by-point response of the reviewer's comments

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf