Critical Positive Youth Development in Non-Traditional Sport Spaces

Abstract

Youth sport has been recognized as a unique learning context for positive youth development (PYD); yet, as society’s critical consciousness continues to progress, limitations of PYD have been acknowledged. Thus, youth sport scholars have begun to embrace critical perspectives to interrogate the systems and institutions of sport and society that influence the healthy development of all youth. This has included researchers and practitioners alike, adopting critical PYD (CPYD) as a means to empower young people to question and challenge their histo-contemporary experiences and support collective action towards social change. Our article explores the concept of CPYD and social justice life skills within ‘non-traditional’ sport spaces, including practice examples from the fields of youth disability sport and sport in youth justice. The first practice example provides an in-depth discussion of the theoretical principles of CPYD and their applicability within youth disability sport. The second practice example outlines the practical use of social justice life skills in sport programs within the youth justice system. Together, the practice examples from the field highlight both the theoretical and practical applications of CPYD and social justice life skills within real-world settings, and valuable implications are identified for research and practice moving forward.

1. Introduction

Youth sport has been broadly defined as “all forms of physical activity which, through organized or casual play, aim to express or improve physical fitness and mental well-being” (The Aspen Institute, 2016, p. 1). As such, sport is recognized as a unique learning context that has the potential to support young people’s socio-emotional learning (Wright et al., 2023), psychosocial development (Holt et al., 2017), and the development and transfer of life skills (Pierce et al., 2017). Traditionally, positive youth development (PYD) frameworks (see Camiré et al., 2022) have served as the dominant perspective in which much of this knowledge base has been constructed. At a general level, PYD operates from an ecological systems perspective and is regarded as a strengths-based, asset-focused approach that seeks to support the holistic healthy development of all young people (Lerner et al., 2021).

Yet, as society’s critical consciousness continues to progress, limitations of PYD have begun to be acknowledged—particularly related to youth recognized as being socially vulnerable. Youth experiencing social vulnerabilities (e.g., youth of color, LGBTQ+ youth, youth from socially disadvantaged communities) are confronted with inequitable institutions and unjust systems (e.g., racism, sexism, and ableism) throughout their lived experiences and daily realities (Vettenburg, 1998). Inherent limitations of PYD foremost include the Euro-centric perspective of PYD, which often fails to adequately account for sociopolitical and geopolitical contexts outside of the Global North and Westernized societies (Chowa et al., 2023). Within East Asian contexts, for example, the focus on individuals and person-centric skills may not be compatible with cultures that value collectivism and filial piety (Koh et al., 2024). Even within North American contexts, scholars (e.g., Kochanek & Erickson, 2020) have begun to critique the failure of traditional PYD perspectives to address (or even acknowledge) institutional inequities and systemic injustices, particularly among historically marginalized youth and communities. T. J. Newman et al. (2021) further highlighted misalignments between program objectives and the lived realities of youth participants, highlighting the need to teach knowledge and skills that are reflective of the stressors and challenges that confront youth in their daily lives.

Inequitable privilege–power–oppression dynamics have explicitly shaped the landscape of sport (as a social setting). Indeed, racism, sexism, and ableism—among a spectrum of oppressive systems and institutions—are not only reinforced but rewarded within youth sport. For instance, toxic masculinity and hegemonic norms are not only reinforced but also are actively praised and rewarded in nearly all sport contexts, regardless of athlete sex and gender, such as women’s rugby (Robinson et al., 2023). Further, men have been historically viewed as superior to women and there has long since been a belief that people of color (most commonly Black boys) could not conform to “gentlemanly standards” (Majors, 2017). In turn, from an intersectional lens (Crenshaw, 1991), Black women (and Black trans women) are disproportionately confronted with histo-contemporary societal inequities and injustices.

As a result of inequitable privilege–power–oppression dynamics throughout youth sport, entire populations of young people and youth athletes are often relegated to the sidelines. For instance, Kulick et al. (2019) examined participation in high school athletics and found that LGBTQ students engage in sports at a significantly lower rate compared to straight students, and among those who play sports, LGBTQ athletes felt significantly less safe compared to straight and cisgender teammates. Moreover, Wernick et al. (2023) found that students of color reported hearing a higher frequency of anti-LGBTQ+ language, which has a particularly detrimental effect on self-esteem among boys. Such inequities are further exacerbated via the widening wealth gap, which continues to exacerbate disparities in access to sport and saw a six percent reduction in participation—approximately 1.2 million youth—from 2019 to 2023 (Project Play, 2025).

2. Critical Positive Youth Development

Taking current limitations of traditional notions of PYD into account, youth sport scholars have begun to embrace critical perspectives to interrogate the systems and institutions of sport and society that influence the healthy development of all youth. In the context of high school athletics, Bishop et al. (2023) proposed that examining “how whiteness and white privilege interact with numerous social issues can help uncover ways in which youth sport can be made safer, more equitable, and more accessible” (Bishop et al., 2023, p. 2). Among high school coaches, T. J. Newman et al. (2023) similarly posited that coaches—because of their unique roles and responsibilities within the youth sport system—should be empowered to embrace their positionalities in youth sport, leverage the impact of sport, and seek to address social issues impacting their teams and communities systematically and deliberately. Moreover, researchers (T. J. Newman, 2020; Anderson-Butcher et al., 2025) have also illustrated that for youth recognized as being socially vulnerable, participation in youth sport is associated with the development of transferable life skills both intentionally taught by programs and coaches (e.g., self-control, effort, teamwork), as well as life skills not explicitly taught (e.g., personal responsibility, grit, relationship skills).

Acknowledging inequitable privilege–power–oppression dynamics, scholars have utilized critical PYD (CPYD) perspective as a means to empower young people to question and challenge their histo-contemporary experiences and support collective action towards social change (Gonzalez et al., 2020). Among them, Camiré et al. (2022) postulated how a critical perspective could be positioned to reimagine life skills to: (1) take on expanded meanings (e.g., the life skill of teamwork may be expanded to include teaming up with individuals from culturally diverse backgrounds to foster greater inclusion); (2) be viewed as sociopolitical (e.g., recognizing that life skills such a ‘resilience’ and ‘grit’ unjustly focus on individuals, often youth from marginalized populations, rather than the systems that make such a life skill necessary); and (3) address youth’s social realities (e.g., being thoughtful of how life skills may, or may not be, culturally relevant for all youth). In turn, T. J. Newman et al. (2022) forwarded the notion of social justice life skills, which refer to “actions and behaviors (e.g., allyship, advocacy, activism, antiracism) that directly promote diversity, equity, and inclusion as youth work toward a socially just society” (p. 236).

Acknowledging the incredibly valuable role of coaches and sport programming to facilitate life skills (T. J. Newman, 2020; Holt et al., 2017)—and bridge connections to social justice life skills—our article will present two examples that highlight this critical praxis within youth sport (Kochanek & Erickson, 2020). In particular, our article utilizes the concept of CPYD and social justice life skills within ‘non-traditional’ sport spaces, which continue to be underexplored in the literature and less accessible in practice—specifically youth disability sport and sport within the youth justice system. Indeed, these two particular youth populations and settings are often ignored, as inequitable privilege–power–oppression dynamics continue to push youth to the margins of both sport and society (Bowers & Wingo, 2014; McDonough & Knight, 2023). Although there are worthy arguments for the exploration of CPYD and social justice life skills in other non-traditional youth spaces (e.g., community and afterschool programming), ableism and access provide novel (and needed) opportunities to reimagine what sport can be. Specifically, the first example provides an in-depth discussion of the theoretical principles of CPYD within youth disability sport, exploring its utility in addressing ableism. The second example outlines the practical use of social justice life skills in sport programming within the youth justice system, whereas the utility for access is further assessed. Together, these examples highlight both the theoretical and practical applications of CPYD and social justice life skills with real-world settings and, in turn, help to raise questions for future research on CPYD within non-traditional sport spaces.

3. Positionality

Positionality statements are commonly used as a strategy for researchers to share information about their background, identity, worldview, or experiences related to the research topic. Amplifying author positionality can enhance scholarship by adding context to the information that is or is not included (Milner, 2025). Therefore, each author of this paper elected to share positionality statements to provide readers insight into our professional and cultural backgrounds.

Author 1 identifies as a White, straight, cisgendered, female and non-disabled. Her professional training in social work and public policy, and current role as an Assistant Professor in sport leadership at an American university, influence her perspectives in work largely focused on sport in youth justice. Particularly as a White, cisgendered and non-disabled person, operating in a system that privileges these identities, there is an understanding of the critical role of continuous learning, collaboration with those marginalized by the justice system, and an intentional focus on allyship. With a coaching background and ongoing engagement in applied programming, these experiences have influenced her perspectives and reveal the essential nature of centering young people’s lived experiences in practice, research and policy. These experiences will be discussed in the youth justice case example.

Author 2 identifies as White, straight, female, cisgendered and non-disabled. Her perspectives are shaped by her professional focus on exercise physiology, health, participation and quality of life, while living and working in Queensland Australia. Her identity as a non-disabled person impacts her understanding of the diverse experiences of people with a disability, prompting her to actively seek lived experience perspectives through inclusive research methods. The socio-cultural context of Australia as a Global North country with a large and embedded youth sports culture influences her approach and perspectives on youth development. Her background in promoting community-based participation for individuals with disabilities allows her to contribute to this work from the context of the systematic exclusion of individuals with lived experience of disability. However, acknowledging these influences, she commits to continuous reflexivity to address her potential biases and limitations in understanding. Author 2 did not have a role in any of the programs or initiatives discussed in this article.

Author 3 identifies as a person of color, foreign-born adoptee, and millennial—who has gleaned much of their lived experiences throughout the corn fields of the Midwestern region of the United States. As a transdisciplinary scholar, they earned graduate degrees in social work and kinesiology at predominately White institutions yet had the privileged opportunity of engaging in meaningful mentorship with scholars from around the world. Their current socio-political positioning as a professor of social work at a large, research-intensive university affords them many social privileges and the capacity to disrupt inequitable systems of privilege–power–oppression. Ultimately, through their youth sport scholarship and 15 years of coaching experiences, they seek to amplify the voices of all youth, particularly youth who are minoritized and marginalized throughout society.

Author 4 identifies as Black, straight, male, cisgendered, and non-disabled. His positionality is shaped by his experience growing up in a biracial family in the rural American South that is, in part, defined by its history of race and racism. Due to this upbringing, he has experienced discrimination while also developing communication skills that cross cultural boundaries. As a first-generation college student, he is also sensitive to issues of diversity, equity, and inclusion in higher education in a field where the faculty of color remain underrepresented. He brings these experiences and perspectives to his work in positive youth development and, in particular, to research on restorative justice in youth sports contexts.

4. Case Examples

4.1. CPYD and Ableism

4.1.1. Background: Youth with Disabilities

Organized sports participation is widely believed to promote positive personal, social, and physical outcomes for youth with disabilities, outcomes that can be transferred to various contexts (Holt et al., 2017; McKinnon et al., 2022). Sports participation is a recognized vehicle for the development of social identity, providing meaning and positively contributing to social integration/inclusion (Kamberidou et al., 2019). However, the realization of these outcomes is often inequitable and dependent on specific conditions. Youth with disabilities face numerous barriers that can limit their participation in sports, the quality of their experiences, and the likelihood of achieving positive outcomes. These barriers include social isolation, bullying, negative societal attitudes toward disability, stigma, judgment, fear of liability by program leaders, lack of knowledge and training to adequately address the needs of youth with disabilities, unwillingness to be inclusive, a lack of appropriate programs and accessible spaces, and insufficient sports aids and adaptive activities (McKinnon et al., 2022; Moran & Block, 2010; Shields & Synnot, 2016).

Traditional sport programs for youth with disabilities often operate on a deficit model, focusing on individual limitations and attempting to “normalize” participation in able-bodied settings. CPYD challenges this model by encouraging the interrogation of power dynamics, structural inequalities, and societal norms that negatively affect the participation of youth with disabilities (Bowers & Wingo, 2014), recognizing that disability is not an inherent trait of an individual but rather the result of societal barriers and attitudes (Barnes, 2019; Oliver, 1996). CPYD is inherently intersectional, acknowledging that youth experience multiple, overlapping identities that shape their experiences. For instance, Black youth with disabilities face distinct barriers to sport participation compared to their White peers, including but not limited to: racial discrimination, systemic factors (i.e., language and communication, stigma), cultural preferences, availability of financial resources, perceptions of disability (i.e., cultural adjustment and tensions between cultures; differing priorities for independence), and a lack of intersectional understanding (i.e., disability, race and ethnicity, gender, and socio-economic status) (Abdeahad & Lindsay, 2024; Lindsay et al., 2023). By adopting an intersectional approach, CPYD offers a more nuanced understanding of the ways social inequalities intersect and how these can be addressed in youth disability sport programs. When applied to youth disability sport, CPYD offers a more inclusive, empowering, and transformative approach—one that goes beyond traditional notions of “normalization” or “integration” to harness, celebrate, and develop the unique strengths and abilities of youth with disabilities (McKinnon et al., 2022).

4.1.2. Fostering Leadership, Life Skills, and Inclusive Environments

The application of CPYD principles to disability sport emphasizes the importance of empowering youth with lived experiences of disability in shaping their sports environments (Stodden et al., 2008). CPYD promotes the active involvement, leadership, and agency of youth with disabilities, ensuring that they are not just participants but co-designers of inclusive sports programs that reflect their unique needs, preferences, and goals. In a study by Jesus et al. (2024), adolescent girls with cerebral palsy (GMFCS IV and V) were asked to self-select their preferred role (decision-maker or partner) for the development of an intervention program to increase leisure participation, which resulted in improved agency and optimized participation for all parties in the co-design process.

Providing adequate support to encourage engagement, building rapport within the group prior to co-creation activities, ensuring co-decision making power, being responsive to the impact of different group dynamics, and adequate training for facilitators are identified as essential for creating authentic experiences where lived experience of youth with disabilities can be explored and celebrated (Maenhout et al., 2023). Therefore, by promoting a focus on shared goals and interests within the group, assigning equal and shared roles in decision making, suppressing the perceived expertise of practitioners, reducing the emphasis on competition to foster task-oriented climates, promoting peer engagement through group-based programming, and incorporating cooperative activities, CPYD-based environments enable youth to develop important interpersonal skills while working together toward mutual success (Allan et al., 2020; Devine & O’Brien, 2007; Devine & Parr, 2008; McKinnon et al., 2022; Shirazipour et al., 2020; Valentini & Rudisill, 2004; Zitomer & Reid, 2011). Beyond the benefits of improved agency for youth with lived experience of disabilities, co-designed programs are proposed to ensure efficient allocation of resources, enhanced support and opportunities for athletes and increased effectiveness (Green et al., 2024).

CPYD advocates for a holistic approach that nurtures youth across multiple domains of life (Bowers & Wingo, 2014). Youth sport programs are associated with the development of essential life skills across multiple domains including physical (e.g., skills for healthy active living), personal (e.g., positive self-perceptions, goal setting), and social (e.g., civic engagement) (Camiré, 2014; Camiré et al., 2022; Lerner et al., 2005; Pierce et al., 2017). Studies evaluating the influence of sport-based interventions on positive youth development have demonstrated consistent positive influence on participant competence, confidence and life skill outcomes. However, these effects are moderated by program design and length and sport type (Bruner et al., 2023). Consequently, Petitpas et al. (2005) identified four principles to guide the planning of youth sport programs that foster life skills: context (e.g., promoting positive environments), external assets (e.g., fostering meaningful relationships with youth participants and parents), internal assets (e.g., discussion and evaluation of life skills throughout the practices contained within the program), and evaluation (e.g., attempted observation of the life skill transfer (Palheta et al., 2022; Petitpas et al., 2005). Transfer activities, like discussions about how skills learned in sports can be applied in other contexts, further enhance the relevance and impact of these experiences (Holt et al., 2017).

For youth with disabilities, this approach is particularly significant, as it advocates for sport opportunities that not only teach physical skills but also promote mental health, self-esteem, teamwork, problem-solving, and leadership (Weiss & Wiese-Bjornstal, 2009). Research evaluating sport as a vehicle for promoting positive development among youth with a disability identified positive life skills acquisitions including: physical outcomes (e.g., learning and improving sport-specific skills and increasing physical fitness), social outcomes (e.g., developing teamwork and leadership skills, social connection and belonging), and personal outcomes (e.g., independence, positive self-perceptions, and awareness of how skills learned through sport could contribute to success in contexts outside of sports) (McKinnon et al., 2022). Central to the acquisition of these skills was the provision of support and encouragement, facilitation of athletic development and promoting a sense of community and connectedness. Therefore, priorities for intervention development include stimulating self-efficacy and autonomy, focusing on possibilities and the individual needs of the child, collaborating with stakeholders, connecting with a child’s environment, and meaningful goal setting (Arbour-Nicitopoulos et al., 2018). Of note is the lack of emphasis on the development of physical capabilities and an increased emphasis on skills that are transferable and allow children with physical disabilities to advocate for their rights to select and engage in meaningful activities (Bolster et al., 2021).

However, while CPYD frameworks and sport-based programs have demonstrated promise in building competence, confidence, and life skills, implementation challenges persist. These include the lack of operational clarity, the absence of structured methodologies for life skills instruction, and difficulties ensuring meaningful life skill transfer (Palheta et al., 2022). For youth with disabilities, these challenges are compounded by the need for inclusive, adaptive programming that recognizes the intersectionality of disability with other marginalized identities (Kuhlmann et al., 2024).

Consistent with the frameworks established by Petitpas et al. (2005), successful models emphasize the importance of context, external supports (e.g., relationships with caring adults), internal assets (e.g., opportunities for skill development), and rigorous evaluation. When implemented successfully, sport has the potential to foster environments where youth with disabilities are respected as leaders, capable of meaningful contributions, and equipped with the tools necessary for their continued growth and success (Weiss & Wiese-Bjornstal, 2009).

4.1.3. Creating Inclusive and Empowering Sport Environments for Youth with Disabilities

CPYD emphasizes the importance of creating supportive, inclusive environments that empower youth with disabilities. The United Nations’ Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities (CRPWD), recognizes that individuals with a disability have a right to access services including recreational, leisure, and sporting opportunities (United Nations, 2006). Practically, inclusion can be facilitated across a spectrum, ranging from separate activities for persons with disabilities to modified activities designed for all (Kiuppis, 2018; Misener & Darcy, 2014). However, for youth with lived experience of disability, inclusion is defined as gaining entry to play, feeling like a legitimate participant and being able to develop social relationships (Spencer-Cavaliere & Watkinson, 2010). A central theme related to inclusion for youth with a disability is the impact of the actions of others on the extent to which children felt included (Spencer-Cavaliere & Watkinson, 2010). Sport-based programs are most effective when delivered by trained, caring mentors who intentionally embed life skills curricula (Kochanek & Erickson, 2020). However, inequities within youth sport often remain unrecognized or unacknowledged by those in privileged positions (Spaaij et al., 2020). Work by T. J. Newman et al. (2017) and Beacon and Golder (2015) support the use of critical pedagogy and experiential learning theory, suggesting that placement learning and lived experience is essential to promote critical reflection (Beacon & Golder, 2015; T. J. Newman et al., 2017).

In CPYD-aligned sport environments, strategies that encourage group cohesion and shared goals are central to fostering positive experiences for youth with disabilities. These approaches allow youth with and without disabilities to interact in ways that enhance mutual understanding, reduce stereotypes, and build inclusive communities within sport settings (Devine & O’Brien, 2007). Therefore, policy changes are required to make sport more inclusive, including but not limited to, promoting accessible sports facilities and ensuring that coaches are trained to work with athletes of diverse abilities. The development of these policies needs to prioritize the voices of youth with lived experience of disability, in addition to others who are actively involved in the inclusion process (Wilhelmsen & Sørensen, 2017).

A critical application of CPYD in youth disability sport is its focus on challenging the societal and structural barriers that hinder the participation of youth with disabilities in sports. Through a critical lens, CPYD encourages both youth and adults to question and deconstruct ableist assumptions that permeate sport systems, such as accessibility issues in facilities and attitudes toward what is considered “real” or “competitive” sport. Applying a human rights perspective, this changes the focus from providing a right to participate which prioritizes the inclusion of physical accessibility features (e.g., ramps, elevators and transferable equipment) to addressing the invisible barriers to sport that negatively influence the experience of the youth (Pearce & Sanderson, 2024). To be effective, a comprehensive policy response needs to be enacted that is responsive to the multidimensional nature of the issues faced (Smith, 2008). Evaluation of the application of inclusive policy in practice has identified ambivalence, with policy being ignored or undervalued, determined to be “too difficult” or “not core business” or adjusted and re-worked to fit within the contextual and cultural considerations of their organizations (Hammond, 2022; Jeanes et al., 2022; Shields & Synnot, 2014). Parents of youth with lived experience of disability identify a systemic rejection of efforts to seek inclusive involvement for their children by staff and other participants underpinned by a lack of quality contact between people with or without disability and a lack of understanding of disability (Wilhelmsen & Sørensen, 2017). Consequently, youth with lived experience of disability are empowered to challenge stereotypes about their capabilities, recognizing themselves not only as participants but also as leaders and change-makers within the sport community (Shields & Synnot, 2016). Support mechanisms such as financial or social support, flexible funding for sports organizations, and partnerships between the sport, disability sectors, local governments, and schools are also crucial in facilitating inclusive sport opportunities for all (Sherrill, 2004).

Inclusive sport settings serve as a powerful counter-narrative to the exclusionary practices often found in traditional sports. Reverse integration in disability sport, which involves including typically developing athletes in programs designed for individuals with disabilities, fosters inclusivity by offering non-disabled athletes the opportunity to engage in adaptive sports alongside athletes with disabilities, promoting mutual understanding, empathy, and respect (Sherrill, 2004). Reverse integration challenges preconceived stereotypes about disability and ability, creates a more cooperative and supportive sport environment, and allows both disabled and non-disabled athletes to develop social and leadership skills (Rimmer et al., 2014). Programs that bring together both disabled and non-disabled youth, focusing on cooperation, empathy, and mutual respect, can be transformative for all involved (Obrusnikova et al., 2003; Seymour et al., 2009). Such interactions challenge stereotypes, promote mutual understanding, and help build inclusive communities both within and outside of sport environments (Booth, 2011; Larson, 2000). A controlled trial conducted by Papaioannou and Evaggelinou (2014), where children were divided into two groups, based on the inclusion or absence of a disability camp program, demonstrated that children exposed to a disability camp program reported positive general and sports-specific attitudes towards the inclusion of a peer with physical disability in a summer sport and leisure activity camp (Misener & Darcy, 2014). Camp activities aimed to (1) increase awareness of the personal uniqueness of individuals with a disability; (2) become familiar with disability sports through discussion of the Paralympic Games (i.e., rules, adaptations and regulations of the events, famous athletes, equipment and actual participation); and (3) discuss information relating to human rights (Misener & Darcy, 2014).

CPYD theory offers a powerful framework for rethinking how youth disability sport is approached. However, positive youth development has been subject to critique regarding its limited applicability and inclusivity in addressing the developmental needs of youth with disabilities (Kuhlmann et al., 2024). Although positive youth development frameworks emphasize strengths-based approaches, scholars have highlighted a lack of operational clarity and failure to account for the systemic barriers, social inequities and marginalization (Gonzalez et al., 2020) routinely encountered by youth with disabilities, while navigating ableism, limited access, and medicalized views of disability (Kuhlmann et al., 2024). This is further compounded by the entrenched discursive practice within youth sport that restrict or delay social change (Camiré et al., 2022; Spaaij et al., 2020). Without a critical, inclusive, and contextually responsive approach, CPYD risks reinforcing oppressive systems by failing to recognize and respond to the complex lived experiences and diverse and intersectional identities of youth with disabilities (Kuhlmann et al., 2024). Therefore, CPYD must prioritize disability identity, cultivate critical consciousness, and actively include the voices of youth with disabilities in design (Kuhlmann et al., 2024). When implemented intentionality and equity-oriented praxis, CPYD can transform sport into a tool for empowerment, advocacy, and social change, ultimately contributing to a more inclusive and just society.

4.2. CPYD and Access

4.2.1. Background: Youth Justice

Youth justice systems, similar to their adult counterparts, have long been a contested space for social justice efforts, with the recognition of the intersectional implications of social inequality, oppression, and injustice. Globally, it is estimated that roughly 1.4 million children are deprived of their liberty each year in various states of confinement (Nowak, 2019). Whether in police custody, pre-trial detention or incarceration, justice systems disproportionately impact youth from structurally marginalized communities, or communities made marginalized as a result of discriminatory structures, institutions, and practices which place an unjust burden on certain groups (Powell, 2013). Within communities, structural marginalization contributes to diminished access to quality education as well as economic and health equity (Baah et al., 2019), factors which have been associated with justice-involvement among young people (Baglivio et al., 2014; Barnert et al., 2016; Shader, 2015).

More specifically, the impact of structural racism and colonization can be witnessed in the persistent racial disparities among incarcerated populations around the world (Penal Reform International, 2023). In all countries where the data is available, racial and ethnic minoritized populations are incarcerated at a higher rate (Penal Reform International, 2023). For instance, in Australia where Indigenous youth are twenty-six times more likely to be incarcerated than White youth (Penal Reform International, 2023), and in the United States (U.S.) where Black youth are five times more likely and Native American youth are three times more likely to be incarcerated than White youth (Rovner, 2021). Devastatingly, but unsurprisingly, the negative effects of incarceration on young people are well-documented and expansive, including elevated rates of reoffending, reduced educational attainment and employment as well as poorer long-term health (The Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2011; Barnert et al., 2017). Considering the inequities that perpetuate justice involvement, and are exacerbated by it, there is a continuing need to adopt social justice perspectives within youth justice research, policy, and practice. An area of growing work, with particular implications for supporting social justice, is sport and physical activity with youth involved in justice systems.

4.2.2. Sport for Social Justice in Justice Systems

Within public discourse, sport has long been held up as the ‘great equalizer’, a space where participants’ backgrounds, identities, and social positions hold no significance. Yet, for those working in youth sport as practitioners and researchers, the ‘great sporting myth’ has been dispelled (Coakley, 2015), replaced by a more nuanced, complicated and accurate reality; a reality that is quite evident when exploring sport within youth justice systems. Not only are participants within facilities more likely to experience social inequity prior to incarceration, but justice systems often compound these forces and are marginalized spaces themselves. With inadequate resources and punitive ideologies, they can bar genuine support and healing for young people and be re-traumatizing (The Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2011; Abrams et al., 2005). These forces have contributed to a complex role of sport in youth justice systems, one where sport is viewed as a privilege that must be earned and is often the first program cut when resources are tight (McDonough & Knight, 2024; McDonough, 2021). In a national survey of juvenile correctional facilities in the U.S., just over half reported operating sport programming within their facility (McDonough & Knight, 2023). Overall, the findings help to construct a picture of inequitable access to sport among youth who are incarcerated, with some young people having access to programming depending on their committed facility while others do not. These findings are not only an issue of perpetuating inequity; they have implications relating to prior work on the benefits of youth sport participation broadly, as well as the explicit benefits for justice-involved youth (McDonough & Knight, 2024).

With youth in justice systems specifically, sport has been found to have physical and psychosocial benefits (Brusseau et al., 2019; Meek & Lewis, 2014), opportunities for healthy development, connection-building with families and communities (McDonough & Knight, 2024), as well as implications for successful reintegration back into communities (Meek & Lewis, 2014). Thus, there continues to be a recognition of not only the opportunity that sport holds in supporting youth in justice systems, but also their right to sport and the implications for social justice through sport. It is this recognition that has driven work to expand sport programming opportunities across youth justice and underscores the need to assess the role of CPYD in sport access.

4.2.3. Practice Examples

The following section will outline two sport and physical activity-based programs within two different juvenile correctional facilities in the U.S. Utilizing the CPYD framework and prior conceptualizations of social justice life skills (Camiré et al., 2022), the section will look across the two programs and provide tangible examples of these theoretical concepts in practice. It is intended that these practical illustrations of prior theoretical work will help to build continued clarity on ways in which social justice perspectives can be integrated in sport programming within non-traditional sport spaces and identify areas of incongruence between practice realities and theoretical concepts requiring further attention.

The first facility is a long-term, secure juvenile correctional facility located in the northeast region of the U.S. This all-male facility houses approximately forty young people of the ages thirteen to eighteen who are committed from across the state for a variety of offenses. The average commitment time is six months to one year, and this facility is the highest level security facility in the state. While at the facility, young men are enrolled in the state accredited education program, attend therapeutic treatment and clinical programming, and have an opportunity to participate in sports. Prior to 2016, youth were able to compete in football in the fall and basketball in the winter, but there had previously not been a spring sport. In that year, a team of juvenile justice administrators and community volunteers partnered to create a lacrosse program for spring competitions.

The lacrosse team was established to function similar to a mainstream high school program and competed in the state-sanctioned athletic league. Considering the majority of youth had not previously played lacrosse, pre-season clinics were held to introduce the sport and its basic skills. During the season, the team was led by a coaching staff of facility and volunteer coaches, had daily practices and film sessions, held competitions against other public and private schools, and welcomed family engagement as fans on game day. Although the sport program functioned as a competitive high school team, the coaching staff and administration intended that the program emphasized youth development and life skills as part of positive youth programming.

The second facility is also a long-term, secure juvenile correctional facility located in the southern Atlantic region of the U.S. This facility has both young men and women from across the state and houses up to two hundred and seventy youth ages eleven to twenty. The commitment lengths of this facility are considerably longer, with an average of two to five years. While at the facility, young men and women are also enrolled in academic or career readiness training, receive mental health and rehabilitative counseling services as well as treatment programming. The facility previously had competitive sports programs, but now solely operates recreation programming.

In collaboration with the facility’s recreation team and administrative staff, a university-community partnership was established to operate a sport-based life skills program with youth at the facility. Graduate students and a faculty advisor (author 1) in a sport leadership program from a nearby university implemented an integrated curriculum of sport, physical activity, and life skills twice a week for two hours across the span of the semester. The program and related curriculum have been collaboratively designed with the insights and expertise of youth at the facility and the recreation staff, as well as informed by the existing research in sport-based youth development, trauma-informed sport, and sport and corrections. Graduate students undergo an orientation prior to running programming and receive bi-weekly supervision from the faculty advisor. The program utilizes a variety of sport and physical activity sessions including pickleball, basketball, volleyball, soccer, dodgeball, fitness training, and made-up games and activities. Each session begins with a discussion of the identified life skill, and the meaning and/or value it may hold for participants and session leaders. Throughout the session, program leaders work to highlight the use of the skill during play. At the end of play, students reflect on how the life skill was used in the session, and its utility outside of sport.

Utilizing Camiré et al. (2022)’s three areas of evolution for social justice life skills, the following are practical examples of how these theoretical concepts can be applied in practice.

• Ensuring life skills take on expanded meanings:

Within the youth justice context, it becomes readily apparent of the need and opportunity to expand traditional sport life skills, such as teamwork, in order to draw connections with socially just actions and implications. Camiré et al. (2022) suggests how the concept of teamwork can be repositioned to involve the skill of engaging with individuals and groups from different cultures or those that have different belief systems (p. 1065). Within both programs, there has been an emphasis on this version of teamwork considering that a number of youth participants are involved in rival gangs in the community or have trouble getting along with their peers. Considering this context, building a space for young people to work together can, at times, be quite challenging. We would like to acknowledge that there can be deep pain and division based on prior incidents in the community, and respecting young people’s choices of who they interact with is important. Yet, the reality of the situation is that these young people will see one another every day in the facility and often return to the same communities. Thus, we work in the programs to support young people in taking small steps to work with one another, in highlighting the strengths of each other, and beginning to identify their shared humanity. For instance, we start off sessions with a fun question of the day (i.e., What is your favorite song? What is your favorite food? What place do you want to travel to?). This simple and informal question is a way to encourage young people to talk and can serve as a tool to help to identify similarities with one another. In warm-ups we have young people pair up with someone they have not spoken to that day or someone who does not live in their housing unit, initiating very small steps for engagement. While they are having a pass or working together in some way, we may ask them to help their teammate out by letting them know what they are doing well and what they can improve. This can provide a little structure to work together, and a template for constructive feedback, and support to guard against blow-ups. Finally, we finish each session with ‘shout-outs’ in which we ask young people to call out something that another young person did well. In a space that often emphasizes the negative qualities of individuals, the pride is evident in young people’s faces when their peers acknowledge their positive qualities. We believe this process can help to establish early connections among teammates. Within youth justice, teamwork is not just about working together for wins on the field, but it is working to change and expand who we consider to be on ‘our’ team and building those relationships for success off-the-field.

2.

Seeing life skills as sociopolitical:

As coaches who grew up playing sports, it is easy to reiterate the ‘traditional’ lessons and life skills that were taught to us without considering how they vary for different groups of young people. For instance, the idea that if one works hard and perseveres, they will ultimately obtain success. Unfortunately, that is not the reality for everyone when steeped in an inequitable society. Thus, it is important when discussing life skills such as hard work, perseverance, grit, teamwork, and others, that we, as coaches, create opportunities to have difficult and nuanced conversations about these skills and their different realities for young people. Realities that are often well known to the youth we coach. Thus, it becomes about opening up dialog and listening to young people’s perspectives on how these skills may look different for different communities and individuals, and making connections with the social forces that cause these differences, such as racism, discrimination, poverty, violence, as well as the justice system. These conversations occur during our sessions when we talk about life skills, but they also occur frequently in one- on-one interactions with young people. In our program, we strongly emphasize informal time with the youth to get to know them as individuals and build strong working relationships. Informal time may be chatting before practice, attending a non-sport activity at the facility, rebounding for a kid during recreation time, or eating meals with the young people after practice. It is during this time that many of our most impactful conversations occur and as coaches we try to spot these as opportunities for critical conversations.

Of course, we do not always feel equipped to have these conversations, and so it is important we continue to educate ourselves in order to be better prepared to have productive and meaningful dialogs, while also acknowledging to our players that we are not the experts on these topics and, rather, those that live these experiences everyday are the experts. This is a sentiment that we hope reveals to them their own expertise and important insight they have into these issues. It is also essential that when we—as coaches—feel we have made a mistake during these conversations, which when we inevitably do, that we are intentional about apologizing for this mistake. Coming to these conversations with humility and curiosity is essential both in our own learning and development as coaches, but also in building trusting relationships with our players so that we can have authentic dialogs.

A reality that our program faces—and will continue to face—is that it lives in the justice system, a challenged and volatile environment which often does not provide a foundation of safety for young people to express such vulnerable and personal reflections, as it relates to sociopolitical life skills, particularly if there is not sufficient time to establish a strong, trusting relationship with graduate students and the faculty team. Barriers can include the logistical challenges of semester schedules, staffing shortages leading to sessions being canceled, transition of youth in and out of the program, as well as the deeper challenges of establishing youth–adults and youth–youth trust, based on varying racial and ethnic identities, socioeconomic statuses, and other social identities. It is to say that in order to come to a place in the program to be able to discuss such life skills, there needs to be strong, trusting relationships within the team and this can be difficult to establish within a correctional setting.

3.

Teaching life skills that address youth’s social realities

While we work to understand how ‘traditional’ life skills play varying roles in young people’s lives, it is also important to explore other life skills that may hold greater value in their lives. In our programs, that has meant talking to young people about the skills they find most helpful in their own lives and then building our lesson and practice plans around those skills. Through informal conversations and formal surveys, we have asked youth what their unique strengths are that have helped them to be successful or to navigate challenges, and what life skills they would like to focus on in our program. There are times that youth will identify life skills which have very strong meanings and implications within their lives. For instance, ‘respect’ and ‘loyalty’ are often highlighted as core values and skills to be upheld and can also be cited as the reason for necessary violence or retaliation. The conversation around these skills then becomes much more loaded and challenging. Yet, we believe if we want to have honest conversations that can facilitate critical thinking on these topics, among all of us, we need to create space to understand and respect young people’s authentic experiences. During these conversations there may be opportunities to discuss both the positive and negative aspects of life skills.

As we continue to learn more about how to utilize CPYD and social justice life skills within sport, and as we reflect on our program’s experience with these skills, it becomes apparent of the ongoing need for both practitioners and scholars to listen to young people and learn about their realities and experiences with injustice. Listening to youth and centering their voices within programs provides the opportunity for authentic engagement and steps towards the realization of social justice through sport.

5. Implications for Practice and Research

In this paper, we discuss the application of CPYD in non-traditional sport spaces, building on the scholarship of Camiré et al. (2022) and T. J. Newman et al. (2022). Ultimately, to meet the complex needs of youth, particularly youth confronted with social vulnerability(s), inequitable privilege–power–oppression dynamics must be acknowledged and addressed. This emerging area of critical scholarship and practice is promising and provides novel implications of interdisciplinary engagement, redefining life skills, and restorative approaches to youth development.

5.1. Interdisciplinary Engagement

A recent text described nine social justice issues in youth sports including healthism and fatism, ableism and access, elitism, genderism and sexism, heterosexism, racism, classism, linguicism, religionism, and colonialism (Lynch et al., 2022). These are all complex issues that are experienced by youth in society and the issues grow in complexity as they intersect. To advance CPYD, scholars and practitioners must recognize that youth experience these “isms” and that sports can be a mechanism to help youth cope with and combat systemic oppression. As Kalyn notes in her description of working in youth incarceration settings, PYD professionals are not always prepared to have meaningful dialog that meets the needs of youth. It seems clear that engaging across disciplines may help advance CPYD. As one example, the authors of this article have expertise in several disciplines such as sport pedagogy, social work, sport psychology, and exercise physiology. Reciprocal engagement with colleagues who are knowledgeable about social justice will enrich research and practice.

Writing about the field of Sport for Development, Whitley et al. (2022) explained the need to move toward transdisciplinary research to advance knowledge and practice. They describe research trends in the fields of anthropology, sport management, sport sociology, public health, leisure studies, sport pedagogy, and sport psychology. The authors point to important findings within each discipline, examples of cross-disciplinary collaboration, and offer suggestions for moving toward transdisciplinary research. We contend that these suggestions can be extended to address CPYD. Sport pedagogy scholars, for example, are positioned to help think about adapted pedagogical approaches and assessment tools to address systemic issues in youth programs (Fitzpatrick, 2019). Scholars from other disciplines, such as sport sociology, may be better positioned to address power dynamics and hierarchical structures that impact youth programs (Hartmann & Kwauk, 2011).

One of the defining characteristics of this Special Issue is that most of the authors are recognized in their field as scholars and also have experience working with youth programs. Community-engaged scholarship provides a pathway for including stakeholders from outside of academics on CPYD research projects. Including non-academics on research teams reflects a move toward transdisciplinary research that is more likely to produce change (Whitley et al., 2022). Several approaches to this work are possible, including community-based participatory research. A recent chapter on community-engaged scholarship suggests that scholars can consider two benchmarks for engagement with non-academic researchers. First, the research process should reflect reciprocity, where all parties are valued as co-creators of knowledge. The second consideration is that the collaboration is mutually beneficial to all collaborators (Hemphill & Janke, 2024). We find that collaborative teams empower scholars to think outside of disciplinary boundaries and help address the critical issues that youth are experiencing in their lives.

5.2. Redefining Life Skills

Life skills are at the foundation of PYD, which proposes that you can develop individual life skills, alongside physical competencies, that help them have positive experiences and overcome obstacles (Holt et al., 2017). The life skill focus of PYD is often generalized in a manner that assumes all life skills equally be learned and exercised by all youth. We remain convinced that teaching life skills to youth has value and may help youth navigate a variety of situations, including those like incarceration or disability. We contend, however, that individual life skills must be considered in a broader context that considers the roles of institutions and systemic barriers. Drawing on the scholarship of Davis (2019), we define institutions as organizational structures that can be identified and challenged. Examples of institutions include public settings such as schools or churches or private settings such as homes or social groups. Systemic barriers include complex and longstanding injustices that are difficult to overcome and there may not be a person or institution to hold accountable for addressing the concern. Examples of systemic barriers include all of the social justice issues described earlier.

Referring back to the cases of youth experiencing disabilities or incarceration, we can consider redefining life skills by drawing on those experiences. Youth with disabilities face systemic barriers in sports settings due to a long history of valuing able-bodied sports performance. They encounter various institutions such as sport clubs or schools that do not accommodate their needs despite policies that might require them to do so. In this context, individual life skills must be designed to help able-bodied and disabled youth recognize that long-standing systemic barriers exist and those will not be overcome in the short- or medium-term. However, a variety of institutions carry out policies and practices that impact opportunities for disabled youth and these institutions can be confronted. CPYD will work with youth to understand how their individual life skills can be enacted collectively to combat institutional discrimination and systemic injustices.

Similarly, the youth facing incarceration are experiencing injustices. Sport offers important developmental opportunities for incarcerated youth, particularly to build on their strengths in a manner that allows them to rejoin society and, to the extent possible, heal from any harm they may have experienced or caused. These youth may need to understand individual life skills and how they interact with different institutions. For example, life skills, such as respect and resilience for others, may be essential for incarcerated youth to engage with public institutions as they try to re-engage with education or employment opportunities. Those same life skills may need to be understood and used in different ways as they engage with informal institutions such as their peer networks. This requires a type of “code switching,” where youth may develop an understanding of how to adapt life skills to navigate their personal circumstances.

5.3. Restorative Approaches

Restorative justice practices offer tools for scholars and practitioners to advance CPYD. In general, restorative justice aims to promote understanding and healing within a community through a variety of relational practices (Hemphill, 2025). A key element to CPYD is to acknowledge that youth experience different harm and injustice and that sport provides a context for them to develop skills that move them toward restoration. This was evident in the CPYD work at the youth incarceration center, where the adult leaders found multiple ways to address the needs of youth including through group conversation, one-on-one discussion, and being intentional about relationship building during informal time. It was also evident in the adaptive sports work, where they intentionally integrate able-bodied youth into adapted sports. This allowed youth of all abilities to understand the barriers encountered by their peers and perhaps begin to move toward a more socially just model of adapted youth sports.

Restorative dialog can advance CPYD by building upon those strong foundations. Three key questions are often posed to frame restorative dialog including: (1) What happened?; (2) What harm has been caused?; and (3) What needs to happen to make things right? These three questions can be used to allow youth to reflect on their individual life skills and how they interact with institutions and systems. Like PYD, restorative questions are often used to address individual actions. They are also intended, however, to address systemic harm. The clear examples of harm raised in our case studies relate to the incarceration of youth and ableism in youth sports. To move toward inclusion of youth—whether it be reintegration or adapted sports—youth can be asked to consider how they practice or experience inclusion or exclusion in relation to individual life skills. This can lead to more discussion on how institutional practices and systemic issues contribute to injustice. As the conversation ends, youth may be asked to consider how their life skills can help address the injustice and solving the problem requires more than individual action.

Restorative justice approaches have been used in schools and youth justice settings as an alternative to traditional or punitive approaches to rule breaking. In an alternative physical education program, high school students used restorative circles to build relationships with peers and discuss pathways from healing from community-based harms (Hemphill et al., 2022). Dillard et al. (2019) illustrate the connection between PYD and restorative justice. PYD promotes caring and having empathy for others, which relates to the restorative approach where it acknowledges harm in relation to victims, families, and the community. We emphasize that using restorative approaches, however, are not necessarily a move toward critical PYD. Many restorative “practice” initiatives aim to address individual outcomes and intentionally overlook systemic issues. Whereas restorative “justice” is often more concerned with systemic harm (Winn, 2018). CPYD requires a justice-orientation that can help individual youth overcome systemic challenges.

6. Conclusions

This paper explores CPYD in non-traditional sport spaces by highlighting life skills to address social justice issues in youth disability sport and youth justice. This paper contributes to the growing body of literature that aims to move youth development toward social justice. Theoretically, this work advances CPYD by situating life skills within the lived experience of youth in the two practice examples. The paper also has practical implications including the promotion of programming that is co-created with youth, embedding social justice ideas within sport programs, and fostering inclusive youth sport environments. As the field continues to evolve, future research should continue to explore CPYD in various underrepresented sport spaces to understand youth experience, how to overcome social injustice, and how youth sport teams and systems work to address these issues.