Change in the Context of Relationships: The Effect of Visitation on Dynamic Risk Change Among Incarcerated Youth

• Author: Brae Young
• Published date: 01 July 2021
• Date: 01 July 2021
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/1541204020976769
• Subject Matter: Articles

Article

Change in the Context

of Relationships: The Effect

of Visitation on Dynamic Risk

Change Among Incarcerated

Youth

Brae Young

1

Abstract

The consequences of incarceration for juveniles are vast and well-documented. There is some

evidence, though, that youth can experience positive transformations, including improvements in

dynamic risk during confinement. What we do not yet know is who is the most likely to make such

transformations. Using a sample of 7,269 youth housed in residential placement facilities in Florida,

this paper examines whether visitation is associated with improvements in dynamic risk during

confinement. The results indicate that youth who receive visits and receive them more consistently

make greater improvements across nearly all measures of dynamic risk compared to those who do

not. Further, there is some evidence that change in dynamic risk mediates the relationship between

visitation and recidivism for this group. These findings underscore the importance of continued

availability of visitation programs within residential facilities.

Keywords

visitation, juvenile justice, family support, risk assessment

We generally think of mass incarceration and its consequences in the context of the adult criminal

justice system. However, the increasing use of incarceration did not spared the juvenile justice

system. Between 1985 and 1995, the number of juveniles sentenced to an out of home placement

increased by 50%(Sickmund et al., 2011). By 1997, a staggering 104,000 youth were in residential

placement facilities in the United States (Sickmund et al., 2017). Although in recent decades, the

reliance on incarceration for juveniles has been curbed, nearly 40,000 youth are still confined in the

United States on a given day (Sickmund et al., 2017). This figure is troubling considering the array

of harms youth face while incarcerated, including separation from loved ones, disruptions in

1

Texas Christian University, Fort Worth, TX, USA

Corresponding Author:

Brae Young, Department of Criminal Justice, Texas Christian University, 4200 Scharbauer Hall, 2855 Main Drive, Fort

Worth, Texas 76109, USA.

Email: brae.young@tcu.edu

Youth Violence and JuvenileJustice

2021, Vol. 19(3) 308-329

ªThe Author(s) 2020

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/1541204020976769

journals.sagepub.com/home/yvj

education, worsened mental health, and exposu re to violence (Cauffman et al., 2007; Potter &

Jensen, 2003; Sickmund & Puzzanchera, 2014).

Despite these challenges, research finds that many youth still experience positive transformations

during confinement (Baglivio et al., 2017; Hay et al., 2018). Baglivio and colleagues (2017), for

instance, found that many youth housed in facilities in Florida experienced improvements in aggres-

sive behavior and impulse control, as well as reductions in substance abuse and family-related issues

over the course of confinement. There is, however, a great deal of variability in the amount of change

youth experience during confinement, with some making much greater improvements than others

(Hay et al., 2018). Indeed, Baglivio and colleagues (2017) found that improvements in dynamic risk

varied greatly with some youth experiencing only “minimal gains” in overall risk compared to the

“sizable gains” made by others. Importantly, research in this area finds that those youth who

experience the greatest improvements during confinement are the least likely to recidivate (Baglivio

& Jackowski, 2013; Baglivio et al., 2017; Raynor, 2007; Wooditch et al., 2014). What we do not yet

know, however, is who these youth are (Baglivio et al., 2018).

There are some reasons to think that the youth who are the most likely to make improvements, or

experience dynamic risk reductions, during confinement are those who have the greatest access to

social ties. Social ties during confinement typically come in the form of visits, which can offer

several benefits that might promote dynamic risk reduction. For one, visits provide an opportunity

for youth to connect with loved ones, who can offer the encouragement, love, and support necessary

for positive, prosocial change (Giordano et al., 2002; Maruna, 2001; Sampson & Laub, 1993). In

addition, from a strain perspective, visits and the support they offer could help youth cope with the

stress and depression that result from the lonely, harsh conditions of confinement (Monahan et al.,

2011). This may, in turn, allow youth to be more receptive to programming options that more

directly reduce dynamic risk. It is important to note, though, that visits do not always go well, and

for some, they represent a unique source of strain (Arditti, 2003; Arditti & Few, 2008; Siennick

et al., 2013; Tasca et al., 2016; Turanovic & Tasca, 2019). Because of this, visits may exacerbate the

stressors inherent in the confinement experience, creating more issues than they solve. Nevertheless,

because visitation programs are available in all residential facilities, and over half of all juveniles

receive visits (Agudelo, 2013; Monahan et al., 2011; Young et al., 2019), it is important to determine

whether visits could reduce dynamic risk and improve the lives of incarcerated youth.

Against this backdrop, the purpose of this study is to understand whether visitation is associated

with dynamic risk reduction over the course of confinement. More specifically, this study uses

ordinary least squares regression to determine whe ther visitation and visitation consistency are

associated with reduction in dynamic risk across 17 domains, as well as change in overall dynamic

risk level. Because improvement in dynamic risk, or risk reduction, is associated with recidivism,

this paper also considers whether visitation is associated with recidivism and if change in overall

dynamic risk mediates that relationship. These analyses are conducted using a coh ort of youth

released from placement facilities in Florida between 2010 and 2015 (N ¼7,296). In conducting

these analyses, this study responds to calls from scholars to understand why some youth make more

significant progress on dynamic risk factors than others (Baglivio et al., 2017) and to better under-

stand the processes that can ultimate ly reduce crime and promote long-term d esistance among

juveniles.

Dynamic Risk Change During Confinement

Around the same time that the adult correctional population increased 400%, the juvenile correc-

tional population increased 50%(Sickmund et al., 2011). The growing reliance on incarceration

began in the 1990s out of concern over the rising juvenile crime rates and an impending wave of

juvenile “superpredators” (DiIulio, 1995; Larson & Carvente, 2017; Zimring, 2013). By the 2000s,

Young 309