Risk Level and Variation in Social Support Access Among Justice-Involved Youth
| Author | Brae Young,Caitlin M. Brady,Kristin M. Lloyd |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/15412040221127933 |
| Published date | 01 April 2023 |
| Date | 01 April 2023 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Article
Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
2023, Vol. 21(2) 83–105
© The Author(s) 2022
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/15412040221127933
journals.sagepub.com/home/yvj
Risk Level and Variation in
Social Support Access Among
Justice-Involved Youth
Brae Young
1
, Caitlin M. Brady
2
, and Kristin M. Lloyd
2
Abstract
Social support is important for the average incarcerated person, although variation exi sts. The
amount of support received and whether improvements in support are made over confinement
can vary across numerous factors including sentence length and quality of family relationships.
Preliminary evidence suggests that risk level might also be an important factor to consider, though
no study has examined this possibility. Accordingly, the current study examines whether access to
social support (family contact, willingness to support, treatment participation, and non-family
support) differs based on risk level classification (low, moderate, moderate-high, high). Addi-
tionally, we assess how risk level is associated with changes in social support during confinement.
Using a sample of incarcerated youth, results show that access to social support, and to a lesser
extent changes in social support during confinement, differ across risk level. The findings have
important implications for juvenile justice system responses and efforts to promote support.
Keywords
social support, risk, juvenile justice
Introduction
Adolescence is a sensitive developmental period marked by incredible transformation. Not only
are youth experiencing physical changes during this time, but they are also undergoing a great deal
of social and emotional growth (Friedman et al., 2009;Schubert et al., 2016). This includes
forming their own identity and determining how they fit into the larger social world (Crocetti,
2017;Erikson, 1968;Klimstra et al., 2010;Steinberg & Morris, 2001). Adolescents are also
learning to establish greater control over their impulses and to improve their ability to rationalize
(Casey & Caudle, 2013;Hay & Meldrum, 2015). While this is true for all youth, those who are
incarcerated during adolescence are undergoing these developmental processes while they are
1
Texas Christian University, Fort Worth, TX, USA
2
Georgia Southern University, Statesboro, GA, USA
Corresponding Author:
Brae Young, Department of Criminology & Criminal Justice, Texas Christian University. 2855 Main Drive, Fort Worth,
Texas 76109, USA.
Email: brae.young@tcu.edu
navigating the challenges of confinement (Arredondo, 2003;Steinberg, 2009). The concern is that
these dual processes could create strain that ultimately hinders development and affects their long-
term trajectories (Dmitrieva et al., 2012;Erickson & Schaefer, 2020;Monahan et al., 2009;
Schaefer & Erickson, 2019).
Fortunately, there is suggestive evidence that loving, nurturing, and supportive family dy-
namics can help with these dual processes (Baumrind, 1978;Grusec, 2011;Lugo-Gil & Tamis-
LeMonda, 2008;Walberg & Marjoribanks, 1976). With respect to development, youth with more
supportive family dynamics tend to have higher levels of psychosocial maturity and self-control
compared to those without (Hay, 2001;Steinberg, 2000). During confinement, incarcerated
persons who received more emotional support from family had better mental health outcomes
(Biggam & Power, 1997;Spjeldnes et al., 2012;Wallace et al., 2016). Other actionable forms of
support—like visits—are similarly important during confinement. Youth who receive visits have
fewer mental health issues and violate fewer facility rules during confinement, make greater
improvements across dynamic risk factors during their stay, and are less likely to recidivate after
release (Agudelo, 2013;Monahan et al., 2011;Young, 2021;Young & Turanovic, 2021).
Social support is not equally beneficial for all, though. Research on adult populations report s
that certain factors—like pre-confinement relationships and length of sentence—can impact
whether support is helpful (Meyers et al., 2017;Thoits, 2011;Wallace et al., 2020). For juveniles,
there is also some evidence that risk level can affect the efficacy of support. Young and Turanovic
(2021) reported that visits had the greatest recidivism reducing effect for youth who were cat-
egorized as “high-risk”for reoffending. In fact, high risk youth were the only group for which
visits mattered. The authors speculated that perhaps higher risk youth have “fractured family
relationships and a lack of support”and thus stand to gain the most from visits (Young &
Turanovic, 2021, p. 17).
What we do not currently know is whether this is true and higher risk youth indeed have less
access to support than lower risk youth. Yet, this is an important line of inquiry. If social support
can affect youths’outcomes during confinement (i.e., mental health, rule violations; Monahan
et al., 2011;Quinn et al., 2021), understanding which youth have the most (or least) access to it can
be useful to juvenile justice administrators tasked with maintaining safety, security, and reha-
bilitation within these facilities. Furthermore, understanding which youth have access to support,
and which do not, can help administrators target family engagement efforts to youth who need
them most or offer other interventions or services if needed.
Accordingly, the primary goal of this study is to examine whether risk level is associated with
the availability of support during confinement. More specifically, we examine whether high-risk
youth—relative to youth with lower risk levels—have less access to social support during
confinement. There are reasons to think that they might, including the possibility that higher risk
youth have more fractured family dynamics that could make it more difficult to leverage support
during this time (Kopf & Mowen, 2022;Sampson & Laub, 1997;Tapia et al., 2015;Wiley et al.,
2013). In addition, we also examine whether risk level affects changes in support during con-
finement. Consistent with the Risk-Needs-Responsivity (RNR) model, it is possible that the
highest risk youth make the largest gains in support because they have the most room for im-
provement (Andrews et al., 1990;Lipsey, 2009). It is equally likely, however, that high-risk youth
have simply too disrupted of family dynamics to leverage any support at all, let alone make any
meaningful changes in the amount of support they receive. To explore these possibilities, we use a
sample of incarcerated youth from Florida, and measure social support four ways: family contac t,
family’s willingness to support youth, family involvement in treatment, and the number of non-
family prosocial supports available. In carrying out this study, this paper contributes to the small,
but growing body of work focused on understanding the social dynamics of incarcerated youth;
84 Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 21(2)
To continue reading
Request your trial