Advancing Social Change on Their Own Terms: A Constructivist Grounded Theory Study of Youth Voice in the Juvenile Legal System

Background and Purpose:

The purpose of this study is to develop a theory explaining how youth in the juvenile legal system (JLS) speak out on issues affecting their lives and communities. Advocates increasingly call for youth perspectives on legal reform initiatives. However, it remains unclear what youth voice actually means to youth themselves, and how experiences in the JLS, such as incarceration, shape the ways that youth understand their voices.

This study asks: what does youth voice mean to system-impacted youth working to change the JLS? Three aims are pursued: 1) Develop descriptive accounts of youth voice for youth in the JLS; 2) Explore youth beliefs about what makes their voices meaningful; and 3) Identify structural conditions shaping ways that youth in the JLS use their voices.

Method:

Participants are n=8 formerly incarcerated youth ages 18-25, recruited through snowball sampling at a local re-entry organization. All participants identified as male, and as Black or Latino. Data were collected via unstructured one-on-one interviews in person and over Zoom. Interviews were 25-60 minutes.

This study used constructivist grounded theory methodology, wherein data are collected and analyzed simultaneously. Initial data collection and analysis involved line by line coding to identify action, emotions, and values in the data after each interview. In the second phase, more conceptual focused codes were developed by comparing salient and frequent codes across cases. An abductive process of constant comparison between data and evolving analysis was conducted to develop abstract categories from focused codes, and examine relationships between categories. Reflexive memos were written throughout the process to document methodological decisions, consider effects of researcher biases, and advance analysis.

Results:

The central category of “being the right person in that moment” characterized participants’ decisions to use their voices. Youth spoke out—whether to help others navigate re-entry, expose an injustice, or advocate for themselves— when they determined that they were the right person at the moment to do so. For youth in the study, being the right person in that moment meant possessing relevant capacities (e.g., understanding the risks of speaking out, having earned others’ respect), seeing themselves as ready, and weighing the consequences of the situation (e.g., potential retaliation by facility staff). When youth felt like the right person in that moment, they deployed particular strategies to speak out in ways that they perceived as safe and effective, including navigating hierarchies in facilities, identifying adults most likely to be receptive, or using research evidence to legitimate their concerns.

Conclusions and Implications:

Results advance research, policy, and practice to support youth involved in the JLS with using their voices in ways they find meaningful. Findings emphasize key capacities and self-perceptions about voice that matter to young people in the JLS, and clarify how JLS conditions become conducive or prohibitive to speaking out. Results inform directions for programming and mentoring to help youth build the skills and readiness that they perceive as important for youth voice, and for creating more receptive environments so those ready to speak out feel safer doing so.