Written by: Dan Sheridan, PhD, BCBA-D, LBA [email protected] and Ashley Anderson, PhD, BCBA-D, LBA [email protected]
At the start of this year, my colleagues and I recognized a critical need: to document and share how we meaningfully include the voices of justice-involved youth in our work. We spend a significant amount of time building rapport, having conversations, and listening closely to what matters most to them, especially regarding the voluntary educational programs offered by our Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) team. Despite this being central to our clinical model, we noticed a lack of literature offering practical guidance on systematically including youth voices in programming. Our manuscript “Justice-Involved Youth Perspectives on Educational Interventions to Enhance Future Prospects” emerged from that gap and was published in Behavior and Social Issues this year. We wanted to share an approach that has worked for us and show how this leads to more engaging, effective, and socially valid programming.
Too often, decisions that could be made with justice-involved youth are instead made about or for them. As behavior analysts, we are trained to ask questions about environments, behaviors, and most importantly, about individuals. For any intervention to be truly meaningful, it must also be socially valid. That means involving the person(s) receiving the service in identifying what is important to them.
Our team created an open-ended survey and conducted follow-up focus groups with over 100 residents. The goal was simple: to develop voluntary educational classes based on the interests of the youth themselves.
So…what did they tell us?
Their responses were clear, grounded, and practical: they wanted financial literacy, trade skills, mental health education, cooking, and anger management. Far from being disengaged, these youth were thinking ahead. They wanted tools to build a better future post-release.
In behavior analysis, we rely on data to drive our decisions, and in this case, the most valuable data came directly from the youth. One resident shared that learning to manage emotions could “help me make better decisions.” Another said that financial education would help him “stay out” and “make smart choices.”
In a focus group on anger management, youth expressed how emotional regulation might improve their relationships, self-control, and safety. They also shared preferences for how classes should be taught, favoring discussion, real-life application, and interaction. This approach isn’t just respectful, it’s strategic.
Research tells us that educational programming in juvenile settings can reduce recidivism by up to 20% (Dempsey et al., 2021; Wilson & Lipsey, 2000). When that programming reflects youth interests, participation and impact increase. When youth feel like collaborators in their own development, they are more likely to commit to the process.
Our team used their input to design courses that were practical, evidence-based, and aligned with ABA principles. These voluntary classes are now an integral part of our model for rehabilitation and success.
The takeaway? Youth are eager to learn, whether it is obvious or not. We just have to ask and listen.
Youth voices should be included as often as possible. In our case, it helped shape programs that were relevant, empowering, and effective. For other systems across the country, the message is simple: before designing interventions, ask the youth directly: What do you need?
References:
Dempsey, M. P., Davis, W. M., Forbes, P., Penkoff, C. B., Gonsoulin, S., & Harris, P. W. (2021). Juvenile justice administrator perspectives: Reframing reentry around positive youth outcomes. Behavioral Disorders, 46(3), 187–196. https://doi.org/10.1177/0198742920965134
Sheridan, D.J., Anderson, A.N. & Rapp, J.T. Justice-Involved Youth Perspectives on Educational Interventions to Enhance Future Prospects (2025). Behavior and Social Issues 34, 39–46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42822-025-00197-6
Wilson, S. J., & Lipsey, M. W. (2000). Wilderness challenge programs for delinquent youth: A meta-analysis of outcome evaluations. Evaluation & Program Planning, 23(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0149-7189(99)00040-3