Youth Voices: Experiences of Adolescents in a Sport-Based Prison Program

Abstract

A substantial amount of the literature has examined the impact of participation in sport-based youth development programming and its global contribution to the lives of young people. In a similar vein, the outcomes of sport-based leadership programs are heavily influenced by the relationships and life skills acquired. One often overlooked demographic in this literature is incarcerated youth, a unique population who’s time spent in juvenile justice is fundamentally designed to prioritize rehabilitation and development. This paper sought to understand youths’ experiences in a sport-based leadership prison program with regards to content, relationship building, and transfer. This study included semi-structured interviews with three, currently incarcerated, adolescent black males, exploring their experiences as participants in their sport leadership program. Results included themes around the program meaning, relationship enhancers, and life skill learnings. Findings explore how sport-based prison programs may consider the importance of physical and psychological safety, relationship building, and life skill teachings as crucial components of a program that remain with participants well into their reintegration within society.

1. Introduction

Sport has been conceptualized as a significant endeavor that provides participants with enhanced cognitive, physical, mental, and emotional skills crucial for holistic development (Holt et al., 2017). Furthermore, the sport setting is widely acknowledged as an environment conducive to imparting valuable life lessons applicable across various contexts, including educational institutions, home life, and community engagement (Gould & Carson, 2008). Consequently, programs delivered through a sport-based youth development (SBYD) lens have increasingly focused on creating curricula that emphasize the holistic development of psychosocial skills, moving beyond mere sport participation and physical skill enhancement (Petitpas et al., 2005). Many SBYD initiatives adopt a strengths-based approach, aiming to support youth—particularly adolescents from marginalized communities—by fostering strengths, positive attitudes, and values essential for their success and well-being, in contrast to remedying deficits or character defects (Catalano et al., 2002). This article aims to examine a unique application of SBYD, a United States, Midwest-based sport youth development program for incarcerated youth, and to describe the impact of formerly incarcerated individuals’ experience in the initiative.

1.1. Sport-Based Youth Development

Participation in SBYD programs offers a diverse array of benefits and opportunities for young individuals to enhance their life education through sport, as well as to develop their social identities, experiences, values, needs, interests, and skillsets (Eccles & Barber, 1999). While many sport programs traditionally emphasize physical skill, this often neglects the opportunity to integrate behavioral and cognitive skills into sport (Jacobs & Wright, 2018). Therefore, programs that subscribe to the holistic development of youth commit to integrating the psychosocial aspects of learning into the sport setting as well, often called life skills. Life skills are defined as intrinsic personal assets that can be fostered or developed through sport and subsequently transferred to non-sport contexts (Danish & Nellen, 2001). Maximizing the authentic experiences that can arise in sport (e.g., wins, losses, persevering through challenges, conflicts), program coaches receive the opportunity to implement life skills through (a) promoting a sense of inclusivity, acceptance, and safe self-expression through rapport building, (b) providing an opportunity for youth to think about the meaning of their program through experiential value, and (c) motivating individuals to apply life skills learned in other domains (Jacobs & Wright, 2018). For example, coaches can implement life skills in programming through beginning with a life skills talk (e.g., a brief discussion on “leadership”), moving into the activity portion where youth can practice the life skill (e.g., a volleyball drill where each team member is tasked with leading a skill progression), followed by a debrief talk as to how they utilized the life skill for the day (e.g., through providing feedback and encouragement or setting their teammates up for success), and concluding with a transfer lesson on how the skill can be applied in non-sport contexts (e.g., leading at school, with siblings, or in an afterschool club).

As mentioned, life skills are an integral part of quality SBYD programs. Interestingly, one often overlooked aspect of life skills relates to their usability in other settings. The phenomenon is referred to as life skills transfer (Jacobs & Wright, 2018; Pierce et al., 2017). Transfer has been conceptualized as the motivation to use a skill (i.e., using the skill in the real world), an evolved mindset or expansion of their perception (i.e., an individual leaving the setting with a takeaway), and experiential value (i.e., gaining new insight on how to think about the skill) (Pugh et al., 2010). According to Camiré and colleagues (Camiré et al., 2020), the transfer of these life skills occurs when youth are encouraged to reflect on their experiences in sports and identify connections to real-life situations, enabling them to generalize skills learned on the field to academic, social, and personal domains. Furthermore, findings from Gould et al. (2013) highlight the role of coaches and mentors in facilitating the transfer process by providing guidance, reinforcement, and opportunities for skill application in diverse contexts. Thus, participation in sports programs not only fosters skill development but also empowers youth to apply these skills in meaningful ways, contributing to their overall personal and academic success.

Transfer may appear easy to assess, however, transfer of life skills is complex, as it unfolds over long periods of time, regardless of demonstrating an understanding of the skill sets that were learned (Pierce et al., 2017). For example, if an athlete thinks about leadership and the ways they can be a leader in their community, that can be considered transfer. Research shows “thinking” about life skills should be considered a valuable step in the learning process and inevitably assists in supporting youth overall development, even in the absence of behavior (Jacobs & Wright, 2018; Pierce et al., 2017). This is particularly relevant for youth who come from marginalized backgrounds or may experience significant barriers for adopting behavior change in their transient, volatile social environments. However, transfer of life skills can be hard to capture in empirical studies when evidence of cognitive changes are not observable (e.g., researchers cannot see inner thoughts) and behavioral changes may not take place until much after the program has concluded (e.g., there are limited academic and social measures that can be captured in the prison setting) (Jacobs & Wright, 2018).

Researchers have also emphasized the pivotal role of relationship building in sport-based youth development initiatives. It has been hypothesized that the shared experience of creating a mentor–mentee relationship (e.g., where individuals are perceived as dissimilar and unconnected to start but later connected and trusting) provides the foundation for positive youth benefits to be actualized (Morgan & Parker, 2024). According to a study by Gootman and Eccles (2002), meaningful relationships with coaches, mentors, and peers within the context of sports programs foster a sense of belonging and support, which are crucial for positive youth development. Furthermore, research by Kendellen and Camiré (2017) highlights the importance of positive coach–athlete relationships in facilitating social and emotional learning, skill acquisition, and personal growth among young athletes. Similarly, findings from Holt and colleagues (2017) suggest that the quality of relationships within sports teams significantly influences athletes’ motivation, commitment, and overall well-being. Morgan and Parker (2024) contribute that the role of meaningful mentors who exhibit caring, listening, and encouragement with criminal justice-impacted youth may impact their attraction to deviant behaviors and instead turn their perceptions to inward capabilities and hopes for their possible futures. These studies underscore the significance of nurturing supportive relationships within the sport environment as a key mechanism for promoting holistic youth development.

Positive relationship building in sport-based youth development programs encompasses several key components identified by researchers. Quality relationships involve the athlete and coach utilizing a range of skills and interpersonal abilities such as active listening, empathy, giving and receiving feedback, and building rapport (Gould & Carson, 2008). Gootman and Eccles (2002) emphasize the importance of creating a supportive and inclusive environment where youth feel valued, respected, and connected to their coaches, mentors, and peers. This involves coaches and mentors demonstrating empathy, encouragement, and active listening to understand the individual needs and strengths of each participant (Kendellen & Camiré, 2017). Furthermore, positive relationships are characterized by clear communication, mutual trust, and constructive feedback, enabling athletes to develop confidence, self-awareness, and resilience (Holt et al., 2020). Additionally, researchers such as Fraser-Thomas et al. (2005) highlight the significance of fostering a sense of belonging and teamwork within the sports team, where youth feel ownership and camaraderie, leading to increased motivation and engagement. Overall, positive relationship building in sport-based youth development programs involves creating a supportive and nurturing environment that prioritizes the holistic well-being and growth of each participant.

1.2. Sport for Vulnerable Youth

Notably, many SBYD initiatives concentrate their intervention efforts within underserved communities, aiming to promote youth development while simultaneously addressing environmental barriers and challenges (Forneris et al., 2016). SBYD programs are particularly impactful for youth from these marginalized populations, as they provide opportunities for positive growth and skill building in environments that often lack resources. These programs also create safe spaces where marginalized youth can experience a sense of belonging and empowerment, countering the adverse effects of systemic inequalities (Spaaij & Schulenkorf, 2014). Furthermore, participation in SBYD programs has been linked to improved academic performance and psychosocial outcomes, as they encourage goal setting, perseverance, and mentorship (Holt et al., 2017). By addressing both the social and structural barriers these youth face, SBYD programs contribute to holistic development and increased social mobility, making them a vital tool for fostering equity and inclusion.

Youth identified as socially vulnerable often face a complex mix of risk factors, including poverty, systemic racism, and limited access to quality education, while also lacking supportive social networks (Super et al., 2018). Vulnerable settings are defined as under-resourced communities with high crime rates where the environment is pervasive enough to impede the process of healthy development (Penal Reform International, 2022). For example, individuals who have been historically disenfranchised due to race, class, or ability level may be considered vulnerable, along with individuals from under-resourced or highly violent communities. As such, the sport setting may represent one potential setting to prevent further harm and help foster development (Jacobs et al., 2017).

Implementing well-structured youth programs can help mitigate these risks (M. McDonough et al., 2013). However, many initiatives aimed to support these at-risk groups have employed a deficit model, concentrating on the elimination of negative behaviors (Lerner et al., 2005). Essentially, the primary goal of these programs is to reduce both harmful behaviors and associated risk factors (Larson, 2012). On the other hand, in recent decades, sport programs have been identified as playing a crucial role in supporting youth from marginalized backgrounds by providing them with a platform for enhancing positive factors such as empowerment, inclusion, and social mobility. Research by Coakley (2011) emphasized that sports can serve as a vehicle for promoting social justice and addressing inequalities by offering opportunities for participation regardless of socioeconomic status, race, or gender. Coalter (2015) postulated that sports programs designed for marginalized youth can enhance their sense of belonging, self-esteem, and identity formation, thus mitigating the effects of social exclusion and discrimination. Additionally, research by Spaaij (2015) highlights the role of sports in fostering community cohesion and social capital among marginalized youth, creating networks of support and opportunities for collective action. Moreover, sports programs provide access to resources, mentorship, and positive role models, which can help break the cycle of poverty and inequality by equipping marginalized youth with the skills and confidence to pursue education, employment, and leadership opportunities.

It has been posed that sport may serve as a distraction or escape for highly vulnerable youth (Massey & Whitley, 2018), and that developing strong relationships is primary to establishing a safe space where benefits can be realized (Jacobs & Wright, 2021). Through structured activities and mentorship, sports programs provide a platform for developing essential skills such as teamwork, communication, leadership, and resilience. By engaging in physical activity and competition, all individuals and especially those from vulnerable backgrounds can learn to overcome challenges, set and achieve goals, and manage emotions in a supportive environment (Gould & Carson, 2008). Additionally, sports offer a sense of belonging and community, helping to combat feelings of isolation and marginalization. Overall, sport programs serve as a catalyst for social change and empowerment among youth from marginalized backgrounds, promoting equity, resilience, and upward mobility.

1.3. Sport in Prison

One highly vulnerable youth population that has been studied in the sport context is incarcerated youth. The research exploring the impact of sport programs on this specific population is exceptionally new but with promising findings. Most of this research is limited to exploring rehabilitation through sport-based academies in the United Kingdom (Meek & Lewis, 2014), youth prison populations in a large United States urban center (Jacobs & Wahl-Alexander, 2021), or within Australian penal settings (Gallant et al., 2015). Commonly, upon release, youth in penal settings experience immense challenges related to safety, financial instability, lack of familial support, and many other debilitating environmental factors that can be sustaining, long term, and inevitably lead to re-incarceration (e.g., re-entry into gangs, illegal crimes, etc.) (Meek & Lewis, 2014).

The sport-based youth development (SBYD) literature generally presents an optimistic view of sport as a mechanism for fostering personal and social development (Holt et al., 2017). In contrast, research on sport in carceral settings has taken a more pragmatic approach, viewing sport primarily as a means of engagement within an otherwise disengaging and often adversarial environment (Morgan & Parker, 2022). Rather than emphasizing skill acquisition alone, sport in prison is often framed as a “hook” to encourage participation, as involvement in structured activities represents a meaningful behavioral shift for incarcerated youth (K. McDonough & Knight, 2024). Given these contextual differences, it is essential to examine the long-term impact of SBYD programs for youth in correctional settings, particularly recognizing that structural aspects of the environment may not be easily altered. Within this setting, understanding how youth themselves perceive and internalize the benefits of sport programming is especially critical, as relying solely on external assessments of program impact may overlook the nuanced ways in which these individuals experience personal growth and engagement.

This study is novel in its approach to interviewing formerly incarcerated youth about their experiences in a sport leadership program while they were incarcerated, addressing a critical gap in the literature. This gap is likely due to the inherent access restrictions surrounding juveniles and incarcerated populations in research, based on a complex web of historical and structural barriers in prison institutions. A key factor is the longstanding record of unethical and exploitative research involving individuals under custody, compounded by broader histories of colonization, systemic racism, and traumas (Norman, 2018). These historical and contemporary injustices necessitate a critical and proactive approach to ensure that research in carceral settings does not perpetuate harm. While scholars have begun addressing these ethical concerns and offering guidance (Flory & Jacobs, 2023), the current study seeks to conduct meaningful research with this highly vulnerable population in a way that is ethical and impactful. To date, there have only been 23 studies focusing on youth sporting experiences while they are incarcerated, with fewer than half of these studies including youth voices represented in the data (Norman et al., 2024). Unlike most studies that rely on secondary data sources or quantitative sources such as survey, document analysis, or policy analysis (Norman, 2018), this action-based research integrates firsthand knowledge of the program’s delivery and youth engagement while they were still incarcerated, coupled with a sustained researcher–participant relationship during their immediate re-entry period. This longitudinal connection allows for a deeper, more nuanced understanding of how the program influenced their leadership development, personal growth, and reintegration experiences, offering rare insight into the continuity of impact beyond incarceration.

Presumably, one of the strongest ways to understand the efficacy and impact of the program is to ask those most impacted. Therefore, this paper seeks to understand youths’ perceptions of an SBYD program in a prison setting with regards to (a) relationship building (i.e., peer to peer, adult to youth), (b) program content (i.e., attitudes towards life skills, sports, and their desire to be active), and (c) transfer of learning (i.e., what is taught in the program to apply to life outside the program). Additionally, it was an overarching aim of the study to empower youth voices through using a person-centered data collection approach.

2. Method

2.1. Setting and Participants

2.1.1. Facility Context

Youth in the greater prison facility represented a variety of backgrounds, but generally, they had all been convicted of crimes ranging from parole violation to murder, with sentences ranging from two weeks (e.g., for parole violation) to several years (e.g., for gun-related crimes). Around 85% of the youth at the facility were youth of color (e.g., Black, Hispanic, Multiethnic) and their ages ranged from 13 to 20 years old, with an average age of 17, and an average sentence of 8 months (John Howard Association, 2023). Youth were housed in cottages with single room occupancies, grouped into one shared unit with showers, chairs, tables, phones, one security staff room, and a television. The entire prison complex had multiple buildings devoted to medical services, administrative offices, multi-purpose areas, a visitors center, library, school, fitness area, and gymnasium. Youth were permitted to leave their rooms for home visits, educational classes if they had not completed their high school diploma, and for religious services, art, music, or mentorship programming. Their daily activities included attending onsite schooling, if they had not yet received their high school diploma, participating in extracurricular programming, speaking to loved ones on the phone, watching television, or working in positions onsite in food services or janitorial services.

2.1.2. The SBYD Program

The SBYD program represented a university–juvenile justice partnership that had been running for 6 years at the time of the study. The program was situated in three Midwest-based juvenile justice facilities with the goal to empower young individuals through athletic engagement and life skills training, with specific aims to foster teamwork, leadership, and resilience while promoting physical fitness and mental well-being. Structured as a series of biweekly hour-long sessions, the program combined sports and competitive games with mentorship opportunities with university graduate student instructors to create a holistic learning environment. Each session was led by a duo of trained graduate student coaches who guided participants on the life skill focus for the day, teambuilding activities designed to foster relationship building, the sport activity (e.g., pickleball, basketball, fitness, team sports, etc.), and a concluding talk on how to transfer the life skill into everyday life. All youth in the facility were eligible to participate in the SBYD program as long as they had not engaged in negative behavior (e.g., fighting, stealing, violence) within the prior week.

2.1.3. Participants

Researchers utilized purposeful sampling (Patton, 2002) to recruit three youth who had long-term experience in an SBYD program while they were incarcerated. This small sample size should be acknowledged but was deemed justifiable due to the depth of data collected through multiple interviews, allowing for rich, longitudinal insights into their experiences. Additionally, given the ethical and access constraints of researching this population, each participant’s perspective is both rare and valuable, contributing to a largely absent body of literature. Finally, the study’s action-based approach and sustained researcher–participant relationships enhanced trust and provide nuanced reflections, making even a small number of detailed narratives highly meaningful.

Youth were recruited based on the following qualities: (a) consistent engagement in programming for at least 2 years while incarcerated, and (b) being released from the prison setting within one year of when the study data were conducted, in order to have substantial time present in society but with recent recall to their carceral experiences. Researchers devised an initial list of six eligible youth based on these criteria, but two declined and one returned to the prison setting, rendering them ineligible to participate. All three remaining individuals consented to participate in the full study, in line with approved IRB procedures.

All participants identified as African American males, with an average age of 21, who were incarcerated for a period of four to five years prior. To provide additional context, participants were raised in urban environments where gang activity was prevalent, and subsequently had served time in a high-security youth facility for committing Title X level crimes, (i.e., related to gun violence). Additionally, the participants had engaged in additional, highly immersive aspects of the SBYD programming, which included being selected for the opportunity to attend an offsite leadership retreat at the partnering university and other on-campus programs that were available to youth based on consistent program attendance within the facility.

Within the larger scope of the prison programming, attendance varied between three and twelve youth, influenced by factors such as eligibility to participate (e.g., no physical altercations in the past 24 h), willingness to leave their cottages, and scheduling conflicts related to medical, educational, or legal obligations. On average, youth engaged in the program for approximately six months, aligning with the duration of their sentences. However, several individuals, including the participants in the current study, spent between two and five years incarcerated in the youth system and regularly attended the SBYD programming. The participants in this study represent a subset of youth with significant sentencing, primarily for gun-related offenses, which account for approximately 50% of the incarcerated youth population. It should be noted that all three participants maintained contact with the SBYD program staff after their release.

2.2. Data Collection

This study used a phenomenological approach, analyzing the lived experiences of the youth in the SBYD program (Hossain et al., 2024). Given the participants’ history within the legal system, and their immersion in a carceral setting following intense, life-altering events, several research procedures were implemented to best protect participant well-being (Sheldon-Sherman, 2010). First, all participants engaged in a series of three individual interviews, led by the first author, who had prior experience serving as their former mentor in the SBYD program. Selecting an interviewer who was known to the participants was intentional, as she represented a trusted individual who could minimize the potential for feeling like they were being interrogated, a commonly held traumatic experience for youth from this background (MacDonald, 2012). The researcher created a warm, comfortable, and conversational environment based on the nature of previous rapport building to reduce potential power imbalances during youth responses. The researcher also aimed to empower the voices of youth during the interview to ensure participants fet heard and comfortable. To achieve this, in the onboarding process, she explained the purpose of the study was to understand their lived experiences and therefore encouraged them to speak in a dialect that was comfortable and natural to them (e.g., casual, using slang, trendy/words and phrases). The interview guide was constructed with open-ended questions around topics the interviewer planned to explore, while the questioning technique remained flexible and open to spontaneous topics that arose (Patton, 2002). Finally, it should be noted that the researcher was close in age and identified as the same race as the participants, which gave her a level of relatedness aimed at increasing feelings of safety for the participants.

2.2.1. Interviews

The first of three interviews served as a rapport builder and focused on participants’ general experiences in the SBYD program. Preliminarily, youth were asked demographics and questions surrounding their current living situation, before discussing their experiences in the SBYD program. At the conclusion of the first interview, youth were prompted with homework to elicit a deeper response regarding their time within the program. The decision to include homework was based on prior research that concluded that youth often experience challenges reflecting on highly cognitive content such as life skills and transfer, based on their intellectual development (Jacobs & Wright, 2021). Therefore, the current study employed the creative modality of homework assignments, inviting participants to draw, rap, or write a poem about their time in the program, sharing memories or moments that stuck out to them. This method allowed for additional processing time of the experiences within the program and aligned with the phenomenological approach of best capturing youth voices and lived experiences (Schulz, 2006).

The second interview used the creative products the participants created as a launching pad to discuss in depth their experiences in the program to help capture the program’s overall meaning. First, participants read or performed the artistic piece to the researcher, and allowed the researcher to read it a second time. The researcher then asked probing questions about how the participants came up with content for the artistic piece and how they generated word choice, imagery, and selected specific memories. Next, the researcher asked probing questions around the content memories shared (i.e., “why did this stay with you?” “when do you think about this in your current life?” “how do you think this memory impacts you?”). At the conclusion of Interview 2, participants were prompted with a final homework assignment, which included writing a letter to someone in the SBYD program sharing what that relationship meant to them.

The third and final interview followed a similar procedure to Interview 2, allowing the participant the opportunity to read their letter and then respond to follow-up questions about one specific relationship they cultivated during the program (MacDonald, 2012). The researcher focused on empowering and elevating the voices of youth while asking an open-ended question about the impact of the relationship, and how that reflected the program at large. For example, the researcher asked, “what is meaningful talk that you and this person had?”, “why do you think you connected with this person?”, and “what influence did this person have on you while you were incarcerated and in present day?” Data richness and saturation across the 3 interviews were determined by the breadth, depth, and repetitiveness of participant responses across the 3 interview sessions.

All three participants were interviewed in person, with each interview lasting approximately 50–90 min. Participants were audio recorded, and copies of their homework assignments were retained by the researcher as a data source. Youth selected pseudonyms of their choice, and when they referenced the program name, it was anonymized in the transcripts. Audio files were transcribed verbatim, and data were extracted for the manuscript to best retain their voices, which included swear words, slang, colloquial dialect, etc.

2.2.2. Data Analysis and Trustworthiness

Initially, the researchers immersed themselves in the data by thoroughly reading and re-reading the transcripts, along with examining the reflective journal. The coding process began with a descriptive focus and gradually progressed towards a more selective and synthesized approach. Specifically, a collaborative qualitative approach was used to ensure data accuracy and trustworthiness of the interview transcripts and homework assignments (Richards & Hemphill, 2018). The two lead researchers completed an initial round of open coding of the transcripts, where emergent categories were identified. Next, the researchers generated initial codes inductively, capturing both the explicit (semantic) and underlying (latent) meanings present in the data. Thereafter, a codebook was created to collapse the categories into emergent themes, followed by the creation of operational definitions for each theme. In the interim, researchers met weekly to compare notes. Additionally, a third author was presented with the codes and operational definitions to ensure accuracy and request clarifications. Finally, one large codebook was created and reviewed by all researchers for full accuracy.

Three strategies were implemented to establish trustworthiness in the study including intentionally structuring relationships with participants across multiple interviews (Kendellen & Camiré, 2020). The interviewer spent at minimum two years building relationships with youth to ensure a sense of trust in the study, as this population suffers from traumatic backgrounds (e.g., poverty, crime, prison) that make trusting individuals a challenge. The aim was to cultivate a comfortable environment during the study where participants could be open to sharing their thoughts, feelings, and perspectives. Additionally, the researcher aligned the interview guides with the phenomenological framework to best capture youth voices as well as revisited the researcher journal to account for any biases that impacted the research process (Watt, 2007). Finally, member checking of the data and resulting manuscript was conducted with program participants to assure their voices and lived experiences were being captured with integrity and accuracy (McKim, 2023).

3. Results

The results are organized around three themes. First, the program meaning theme captured participants’ insight on how they conceptualized the impact of the program on their lives, specifically through physical and psychological program safety, relief from the highly stressful prison environment, and the routines and culture of the program. Participants also conceptualized how relationships were built in the program and spoke about relatedness, consistency, and sport’s role in facilitating connections. Finally, participants spoke about the life skills learnings gleaned from the program, mainly around individual and professional-based skills.

3.1. Program Meaning

The results of the current study were captured through participants’ portrayals of the program’s meaning to them. They expressed concepts of physical and psychological safety, stress relief, and the routines and culture of the program as being their main takeaways.

Physical and psychological program safety was identified as a common sentiment when describing program meaning. Lil Trey shared, “You don’t got to come here to be nobody that you ain’t. If you not feeling your best, you don’t have to participate, but the coaches will still check to see ‘do you feel better?’ ‘do you want to participate?’” He later went on to describe how this manifested as a shared safe space, despite the rivalries and longstanding feuds that existed outside the program setting: “Even though we [rival youth] don’t communicate outside, we come in [the program] and it’s like is like working as a team to get to whatever goal we done set for the day”. Ayy acknowledged the deviation from the cautious social norms of life in prison as well:

Anytime we see each other outside of the program we might not even speak and walk right past each other. But when we in this group right here, it’s like ‘aw, you was cool all along? I’ve been walking past you this long time, and now you my workout partner.’ [The program] opened up new relationships to speak to people you normally wouldn’t outside your day to day.

Mister echoed this idea of finding belongingness and safety with others he would normally not feel comfortable interacting with. He shared that the program, “basically opened up new doors and now I feel like I’m familiar with my crowd and new people I can learn from. I’m with this crowd”. Ayy’s take was similar in identifying the novelty of feeling like he belonged in the program, despite that concept being countercultural to a prison setting: “It just taught me something different. It’s somewhere I’ll always be able go to”.

Relief from the highly stressful environment of the prison facilities was also a common meaning gleaned from the participant interviews. The program being a distinct deviation from facility norms of violence, restriction, and isolation was shared by Ayy: “[the program] keeps us alive… it’s an escape from all that’s in [prison]”, and later in his second interview he shared, “there’s no need to escape being incarcerated knowing I’m here in [the program]”. Mister honed in on the escape metaphor as well, describing that “[the program] had me think out in the world versus being trapped in here”. Ayy highlighted a contrast of the program as being insulated from the facility in a spatial way, “we had our own community inside of the gym. There’s like, different vibes in those walls”. Lil Trey shared that the program “always helped me like if I have a bad mood, I can go into a better mood”. Ayy also commented on a shifting mindset in sharing that the program “mentally helped me with stress, get a good workout in, and do the work on myself. The [coaches] talk to you when you’re not really feeling it. They try to make sure you’re in the right state of mind”. In a more serious tone, Mister spoke candidly about his “depression issues” that developed shortly after becoming incarcerated, before the program existed at his facility. His take was that “if I had a few hours to go to [the program], my depression would be a little different then... [The program] helped me get extra energy out”. He pointed to certain experiences in the program as being buffers to his depression, including, “communicating with people, meeting new people, and then you know, just learning things and at the end of the day, just that positive energy”.

Lil Trey shared an instance where he was going to refuse to attend the program one day, as it is their choice to attend extracurricular events or instead spend time watching television in their common housing area. He started, “one of my friends said, ‘No, we’re going [to the program], we’re going to go workout.’ He was mad… So I went”. Then, he went on to share how that time away from his normal stressors shifted his mindset that day. He continued, “before [the program], I had really planned to do dumb stuff, like run around, lose my grade for no reason just because I was mad. But by the time [the program] ended, I forgot why I was mad. We didn’t even do anything crazy, we literally ran off our energy and then I was clear”. It appeared that the change in environment and chance to be physically active helped support a more positive mindset, and inevitably helped him avoid antisocial behavior.

When capturing the meaning of the program, participants were specific in speaking about the routines and culture of the program that they drew value from. Lil Trey shared the daily mental check in and life skill talk as features of the program routine that were meaningful enough to him that he took it upon himself to speak up and lead once when a program coach deviated from the lesson format:

I think we skipped life skills the one time and I had to go back and make that happen. We got to do our check in, everybody getting in the circle and then you gotta say if you’re a 1 to 10, what’s something that y’all done did this week that you can bring to the circle. Then we focus on the word of the week, then doing our workout, and we’ll come back in the circle… [say] how did we feel today.

Mister shared a similar experience, “I think it was like a week or two when the program got cancelled, we would be on the unit working out together. We started doing our own word of the day too, like in a huddle”. Ayy talked about the positivity around the program routine giving him a feeling of purpose: “When you walk in, it’s all friendly faces, [the coaches say], ‘We will be tackling this life skill today’”. He went on to share, “It ain’t like we just freestyle, no, there’s an objective with something to focus on. It’s not like were not sitting on cottage all day doing nothing, we actually have direction”. Lil Trey was definitive in sharing that he keeps a pillar of the program as a part of his present day, post-incarcerated life. “I feel like how they do the check ins in the circle, [and coaches say] ‘this is our word of the week’ I still use that now. I say to myself, ‘I this is my main focus right now.’” He went on to talk about navigating logistical tasks post-release, like setting up social security, his driver’s license, and other legal rights of passage and shared, “I tackled one thing at a time. I’m like, ‘Okay, this is gonna be my main focus this week,’ like my word of the week. And hopefully by the end of this week this will be done”.

3.2. Relationship Influencers

Participants were descriptive about how relationships were formed in the program, given that was a key aim in the program mission. They spoke about relationships through relatedness, consistency, and sport happenings.

The sample found commonality in how connectedness was fostered in the program through experiencing a sense of relatedness/similarity with the program coaches. Ayy described about one coach: “He’s cool, like, he’s kind of like me. If it’s something we want, we [both] gonna go get it. Both have that go get it attitude”. Lil Trey described his coach as “real competitive” and as someone who “gets in there, like me”. Some connections were met with surprise, like Mister’s when he described, “She was very cool, like nothing like I thought it was going to be like. I thought I was gonna know how she talked and all that but instead she was just a cool lil’ lady”. Besides gender, age was introduced as a separating quality that also did not interfere with relationships. Lil Trey shared, “I feel like the differences in age, you would think that might restrict us… but he was acting just like one of us. Ayy spoke about trust and shared, “I feel like [my coach] is just like me. I don’t trust a lot of people, but I feel like it just came to me naturally, we just connected”.

Exemplifying a consistent presence was also seen by the participants as a main factor in fostering relationships with the coaches. They spoke about coaches having a physical presence and continually showing up, accompanied by verbal encouragement that validated their humanness and capabilities. Mister explained his longtime goal to have a career in public speaking and shared that his coach “let me know that that was definitely a possibility. She always tells me, ‘you can always use us as a reference.’ Even though there’s doors that don’t open for me because of my situation, but she always tells me ‘why not?’” Lil Trey shared how this process worked with coaches consistently instilling life skill lessons in every part of the session. “They didn’t blurt out stuff… they broke [life skills] down”. He continued to explain how during life skills talks the coaches gave space to “ask questions and even after we broke off into our own little groups they would walk around asking, ‘how are y’all doing… how can I assist y’all.’ If we was uncomfortable saying we didn’t understand, they came back around”. Mister shared about feeling seen by coaches, even when he isolated himself: “it’s something you can’t explain. They can see you having a bad day, no lie!” He explained, “You’ll sit on side and go about your bad day. Someone will come over and say ‘I hope I’m not overstepping boundaries…I’m not coming to intrude, but I see you down. I just wanted to check on you.’”

Frequently, the relentlessness of coaches to support and offer guidance was cited by participants. Ayy spoke about the persistent verbal encouragement from his coach to make more healthy choices, and how the pattern of this helped contribute to a changed mindset. He shared, “He was caring… but he kept bugging me… encouraging me, like ‘nah that ain’t working, try it differently.’ Once a person in your ear enough, you’ll be like f*** it, I’m in”. He described how the coaches “just kept talking to you about life skills”, “putting it in my head”, but in a way that was “not forcing you, but letting you know”. Notably, this persistence of coaches was observed in conjunction with a sensitivity and not being forced to comply, as Ayy shared. Mister agreed when he spoke about his coach: “she’ll say, ‘I can give you my best advice, never forcing you, but just sharing with you.’” He continued, “She was consistently offering me opportunities, like college, putting herself out there to talk to admissions people for me. Ain’t nobody do nothing like that”. Mister continued to talk about this in the context of being released and his coach keeping in touch years after he belonged to the program: “I didn’t see us [me and my coach] being here but we got here. She said she don’t want to see us back incarcerated. A lot of people tell you that, but they don’t check on you”. He continued, “She tells me, ‘I’m here for you and have an opportunity for you when you’re ready but I don’t want to force you to be ready.’” Similar to the others, Lil Trey spoke about the relentlessness and persistency of program coaches, even when he would “go into the program irritated”. He shared this about his coach’s response to his negative attitude:

He’d be so goofy. I’d be like, ‘bro leave me alone!’ Again, he keep on pushing, he’ll say like, ‘There’s no way you’re not gonna be able to laugh. You can try to keep as much straight face as long as you want … but you gonna have to break your shell’ and then I’d laugh and the day would change for me.

Interestingly, two participants reflected upon how the coach consistency in the current program contrasted with other extracurricular programs available to them in the prison facilities. Mister contributed that he had “been in so many programs. A lot of programs, basically, they tried to buy us things … they was trying to bribe us into doing things. With [the sport program] we were just like, this is something we want to do but don’t have to”. Lil Trey shared that other programs would come in and “play these games but they might not even come back”. He shared that seeing the coaches consistently show up even when “they have their own life tribulations and they still came back. They choose to be here and help us figure out ways so that we don’t have to go back into the community the same or in a worse predicament”. Mister was also reflective on how there are significant barriers to running programs in the prison setting and reflected on “a lot of programs that came didn’t make it, they quit—no disrespect, they had to go through a lot of stuff”. He continued on to identify the life skill of persistency modelled by the program coaches and how that motivated him: “But the [programs] that make it, we aren’t going to give up when they keep coming, cuz of their persistence. It shows a lot about their character”.

In line with best practices in sport-based youth development, the participants spoke about the role of sport and the sport spaces as serving as a relationship facilitator. Ayy shared that, “even when I’m not feeling [the sport], the coaches still come talk to you on the sidelines” and that he would come to the program excited to see a specific coach because “that was my boy… me and him bonded. We always move together, hoop together, we’d have a whole conversation while playing a basketball game”. Lil Trey picked up on the life skill integration and shared that, “even with all the games we used to play, they all had a meaning, like ‘what did you learn that you have to do with this certain game,’ ‘how to work with each other to win or to complete that objective?’” Mister echoed that idea of sport and life skills integrating. He shared, “I really believe that it go hand in hand. To be honest, life is like a big game itself. Everything in sport is hinting for life… Sometimes you need to know rules, you need to know how to play”. He shared these specific instances connecting sport: “you gotta communicate certain things you want to reach, you can’t do anything alone. You need other people to have teamwork. Sometimes you’d be down. But you don’t know that you have a quick comeback in you”. Ayy concluded about how specific sports mattered in the program in expanding perceptions and activities they were already normally accustomed to. He shared that the coaches ask: “‘What’ do y’all like?’ and then they come in here playing badminton, pickleball, soccer, new things that we’ve never played, a frisbee. Even though everyone figures we just want to play basketball, that’s a stereotype”.

3.3. Life Skill Learnings

Participants were extensive in sharing about the specific life skills they learned in the sport program and how they made use of these life skills through transferring them to other aspects of their lives. Generally, participants talked about learning a host of individual or intrapersonal skills (i.e., focus, self-awareness, self-control, perspective taking, perseverance), as well as interpersonal skills (i.e., communication, teamwork, accountability), particularly as they related to their future professional endeavors. Lil Trey spoke about the applicability of the program as a whole, “I feel like in the program you can apply what you learn to everything. We were like trying to huddle and take what we did in [the program] into the unit”.

Participants identified many individual-based life skills that could be applied to their lives while incarcerated, as well as post-release. Related to self-control and fighting, Ayy shared a scenario where he was confronted with participating in a physical altercation but recalled what one of his program coaches said to him earlier that day. “He pulled me to the side and basically said ‘it’s not worth it.’ I listened. Then later I’m thinking about my time with [the program], like, yeah, if I [fight], I won’t be able to go anymore”. Mister expressed a similar mindfulness in sharing, “when I’m arguing with someone now, I see the bigger picture, I know how to move around that… I get that out of [the program]”. As well as “helping you not lash out” (Ayy), participants in the program also identified accountability as another lesson learned. Lil Trey shared that, “my friend wanted to do this workout from [the program] and I wanted to act bad, but knew if that happened, he would be mad that I lost [the program] for everyone… so I’m like, imma’ chill for him”. Mister shared about a changed mindset over time, despite when he knows he’s “being tried or being hurt”, and resisting the urge to “take action into my own hands”. Then he spoke about the inner voice he would communicate to himself, “you can’t be doing that, you know you’re gonna have to miss weeks [of the program]. Eventually it became like I wanted to go, I wanted to participant more than fight”. It appears that for participants, they gained a sense of mindfulness over time that shifted their mindset from reactionary and prepared to fight to developing more accountability and perspective.

In the same gradual way, participants talked about developing a sense of perseverance and maturity over time. Ayy shared that the transition out of prison life was trying, “I’m going through so many obstacles, for like a month of work, dealing with everyone crashing out”. He then explained how the program fostered a shifted mindset and more global perspective: “before [the program] I used to just say, ‘f*** this,’ but as I started to mature, I’m like, ‘okay, everybody thought the same thing starting out of prison.’ It’s not going to help if I’m going to beat myself down”. Lil Trey shared about how the program instilled in him a sense of “endurance” just like the fitness activities that were taught inside the program. He explained,

When we did the pacer test, you don’t gotta go how everybody else is. Create your own pace before your tire yourself out. Just like your first day out [of prison], you don’t have to reach the end right away, you can work your way up.

Following a similar thought process, Mister cited the pacer test as a metaphor to mental endurance in sharing that, “sometimes we don’t know what our limit is until we get there. Sometimes we’ll limit ourselves and not know we can carry a bigger burden than what we’re used to… you gotta keep pushing, like my pacer test”.

Finally, there was a consensus around the idea that the program fostered professional skills like communication and job readiness. Mister described how a coach at the program “got my communication where it needs to be” noting that before the program, “my choice of words was very different: bad language, I cussed a lot but eventually noticed, like, okay I don’t hear a lot of cussing [with the coaches] so let me not do what they aren’t used to”. He went on to observe how “just having one on one conversation with [the coaches] I just picked up words off them, like I piggyback off what they say, I substitute this word for that word”. He spoke about being motivated to communicate with them so they could understand him and noticed, “My vocabulary expanded by talking to them and it taught me to ask more questions. Sometimes people miss opportunities or misunderstand things, but [the coaches] taught me the reason I want to ask questions is because I want to understand”. Lil Trey talked about the program pushing him out of his normal environment “so now, like, I try to put myself in a lot of uncomfortable positions. I’m not comfortable with my communication, so I better myself by having conversations with the coaches, otherwise I might never be able to expand my vocabulary”. Mister added on an element of teamwork in sharing that the program:

…definitely taught us that like sometimes you can’t do everything on your own, sometimes you need help. It’s not a sign of weakness, it’s a sign of growing, saying, ‘don’t bear the burden alone.’ People want to help… sometimes people don’t even know you need help.

4. Discussion

This study aimed to capture participants’ lived experiences of a sport-based mentorship program they belonged to while incarcerated, through an empowering research approach that prioritized safety and self-expression. From an SBYD perspective, the literature has encouraged the integration of life skills, cognitive skills, and transfer opportunities to aid in psychosocial progression (Jacobs & Wright, 2018). There are several relevant findings in the present study. First, participants elaborated on the SBYD program’s meaning, specifically in the areas of physical and psychological safety, stress relief, and positive routines and culture, concepts that remain scarce in many juvenile justice settings. Second, youth spoke about the relationships they cultivated and the feelings of relatedness, consistent support, and the collaborative sport environment. Finally, respondents shared extensively about intrapersonal life skills (e.g., communication) they learned in the sport program that transferred outside of the penal environment (e.g., job readiness skills).

Related to program meaning, it is notable that physical and psychological safety was identified as essential in developing connections with program coaches and peers. Viewed as one of the most foundational aspects of an SBYD program (Holt et al., 2017), relationship building in the current study was coupled with the idea that safety must be established as a precursor for connection. This is likely due to the volatile and harsh conditions of a prison context (Baffour et al., 2024) but has generalizable relevancy to programs housed in similar harsh environments (e.g., violence-ridden communities, programs with a growing population of trauma-impacted youth, pre-adjudicated youth). The growing field of “social justice” sport-based youth development (Camiré et al., 2022) identifies a plethora of environmental and identity factors that may impact individuals’ abilities to successfully gain positive benefits through sport participation. These results are consistent with claims of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs; specifically, the claim that safety and security, including the desire to avoid pain and danger, are prerequisites to self-actualization and finding meaning in one’s life (Simons et al., 1987). It may be that SBYD programs should consider Maslow’s hierarchy of needs as a framework to inform program goals, with program structures in place that assure participants’ psychological and physical safety throughout the duration of the program (e.g., instructors conducting safety assessments, minimizing threats, collaborating with security staff, etc.). From a research lens, it may be useful for scholars to consider how to create SBYD trauma-informed structures that situate youth in an environment where they feel valued and safe, in spite of harsh surrounding conditions.

Given the unique carceral backgrounds of participants, the SBYD literature may draw a greater understanding of how to best understand program impact on youth from highly marginalized backgrounds. Rightfully so, the emphasis on diversity, equity, and inclusion issues within our population continues to grow and the current study’s pool represents a highly unique picture of participants experiencing environmental inequities. That said, some SBYD best practices may fall short given the lack of research conducted with carceral populations. Namely, there are contradictory dynamics that result when running an SBYD program within a prison, as SBYD mainly uses restorative practices to address behavioral issues, yet, the punitive nature of correctional facilities may conflict with these approaches, focusing instead on rigid disciplinary systems that can hinder personal growth (Baffour et al., 2024). Consequently, the growing body of SBYD literature may risk endorsing methodologies that are tailored to homogenous populations, not the unique needs of incarcerated or formerly incarcerated people. Newman and colleagues (Newman et al., 2022) studied SBYD programming in marginalized populations and offered novel ideas such as exploring how youth can learn lessons and values through negative experiences (e.g., their mistakes, consequences in their environments). This may be a valuable venture to explore in juvenile justice research, as negative experiences and resiliency are inherent to the prison setting.

The idea that relationships appeared to be a key component in the SBYD program success is not novel. However, it is worth discussing that despite the stark differences in life experiences between the participants (i.e., incarcerated youth) and their program mentors (i.e., university students pursuing advanced degrees), meaningful relationships were still able to emerge. One explanation may be that the universality of sport serves as a powerful vehicle for connection, allowing individuals from vastly different backgrounds to engage in a common pursuit that fosters mutual respect, teamwork, and trust (Anderson-Butcher et al., 2013). While incarcerated youth may have collectively faced systemic barriers, trauma, and instability related to their upbringing and backgrounds, the mentors in the current study typically come from more diverse and varied backgrounds (i.e., age, race, gender, class). However, in the current study, these differences do not appear to prevent relatedness; rather, participants described how their program leaders were “kind of like me”, and they were able to develop trust despite differences in age and gender. Research suggests that bridging social gaps through structured mentorship fosters interpersonal development and enhances social–emotional learning for both mentors and mentees (Holt et al., 2017). Furthermore, shared experiences in sport provide a low-risk environment to practice trust building, communication, and resilience, which are critical for personal and social development (Coalter, 2013). Ultimately, this dynamic highlights how even in a prison context, differences can serve as a foundation for connection rather than division, emphasizing the transformative role of sport in fostering relationships across social divides.

Most of the SBYD literature focuses on the positive life skills that participants acquire through structured programs and how these skills can be transferred to other domains of life, often distinguishing between near transfer (i.e., skills applied in similar contexts) and far transfer (i.e., skills generalized to different life situations) (Gould & Carson, 2008; Kendellen & Camiré, 2019). However, in the current study with the specific population of incarcerated youth, a distinct pattern emerged: rather than focusing on the immediate application of life and sport skills, these participants framed their experiences in terms of long-term personal growth, particularly in the areas of resilience, perseverance, and maturity. This aligns with research suggesting that for youth from marginalized backgrounds, certain life skills—especially those related to overcoming adversity—may be more salient and meaningful than others (Turnnidge et al., 2014). Given the structural challenges faced by incarcerated youth, their perspectives on life skill development differ from traditional SBYD participants, emphasizing the necessity of examining how specific populations conceptualize skill transfer. The current study contributes to this discussion by shedding light on how incarcerated youth may prioritize far transfer skills related to personal transformation, an area that has been underexplored in the existing literature.

From a social justice lens, researchers should also consider the specific methodologies that are implemented in the prison context to best garner new understanding in ways that are ethical and empowering to this highly marginalized population. Focusing on what Wilmsen (2008) calls “empowering research”, as opposed to “extractive research”, is essential in generating new knowledge about a population that has an urgent need for justice, instead of solely adding to the knowledge base of academia. Future researchers could adopt methods that help empower voices and preserve their knowledge (e.g., interviews, focus groups, artistic methodologies) and that seek to make power relationships between researchers and subjects more balanced. This is especially crucial given the racial composition of incarcerated populations, (i.e., housing individuals of color at five times the rate of their white peers). Critical race theory would postulate that it is essential to support people of color in the prison setting to reclaim their voices for self-representation (Lee et al., 2020). Finally, researchers in the SBYD realm might consider how research can help foster relationship building and life skills in the actual research process, through modeling open communication, mutual respect, and a trusting relationship between researchers and participants (Wilmsen, 2008).

Limitations and Future Research

A first concern that merits comment is that while this study focused on three youth in the very hard to access post-prison population, most qualitative studies look to generate patterns across a larger sample size. If conditions were more accessible within prison-based populations, richer results would be possible; however, it should be noted that in the 6 years the prison program was in existence, the desired sample included all youth that the research group had access to with a little less than 50% consenting to participate in the study. Researchers should look to establish systems for ethically tracking individuals post-release to support more robust studies.

Another limitation of the study concerns the fact that researchers had dual roles, previously working as instructors in the program and serving as the interviewer or data analyzers. It is possible that the researchers’ dual roles may have introduced implicit bias, as their investment in the program’s success can shape data collection, interpretation, and reporting (Langfeldt & Kyvik, 2011). Their deep involvement can also make it difficult to separate personal experiences from findings, leading to confirmation bias without careful reflexivity. That said, it is important to note the data may not have been as rich if the nature of the relationships were not strong with participants (MacDonald, 2012), given that incarcerated youth experience distrust with authority (Lane et al., 2019). Incarcerated youth are a highly marginalized and difficult-to-access population, often hesitant to engage with outsiders due to systemic mistrust and the constraints of their environment. By embedding research within an established, trust-based program, this study ensured that youth felt safe sharing their lived experiences, offering insights that would likely remain inaccessible through traditional research methods. Moreover, the depth of engagement enabled by an action-based approach provides a more nuanced understanding of program impact, capturing real-time adaptations and responses that external researchers might overlook. Ultimately, gaining access to such understudied and marginalized voices in society in a way that was ethical and empowering to their experiences was deemed a success from a research standpoint.

Future research can build upon this work by exploring ways to further balance researcher involvement with methodological rigor, ensuring that ethical, participatory approaches continue to elevate the voices of marginalized youth. Future work also remains to be performed before a full understanding of the perspectives of participants involved in sport-based prison programs in juvenile justice facilities is established. It is a limitation to assume that it was only the SBYD program environment that helped facilitate positive growth changes in the participants, or what Camiré and Santos (2019) describe as, blindly assuming the virtues of SBYD programming. Instead, future studies could explore holistically how prison-based entities work together to help facilitate growth and development for life after prison. Another focus for future research is to adopt a longitudinal design and follow participants in a structured way, well into their reintegration into society. Unfortunately, some research cites complex recidivism factors for youth which provide an urgent need for pre-release programming that supports reintegration into society (Near, 2014). For example, researchers could examine participants’ acquisition and immersion within their jobs, exploring how the program helps address gaps in their job readiness, as job attainment has been marked as a buffer to returning to prison (Siennick & Widdowson, 2017).

5. Conclusions

The present study sought to enhance understanding of the perspectives of youth participating in a sport-based prison program and the impact it cultivated on their relationships, life skill development, and overall program meaning. The findings contribute to a growing body of literature exploring psychosocial development of youth participating in sport-based youth development interventions with a highly unique and understudied population (Camiré et al., 2022). Generally, the present research contributes to a growing body of evidence that supports fruitful partnerships between juvenile justice facilities and sport-based youth development programs, with a focus on fostering relationships and building skills that transfer into post-carceral settings (Morgan & Parker, 2024). From a broader perspective, this research underscores the importance of relationship-driven methodologies in studying vulnerable populations. The findings offer generalizable insights for both scholars and practitioners seeking to implement and evaluate sport-based youth development programs in similar high-risk settings. Although challenging to conduct research in juvenile justice settings, the present study has demonstrated insight on how programs capture their meaning in the lives of youth even after departing from the program.