A Systematic Literature Review of Student Voice Educational Research in Juvenile Correctional Facilities

Abstract

Little is known about the effective use of evidence-based academic interventions in juvenile correctional facilities (JCF; Public Law 115-385). One consideration in identifying evidence-based practices is taking students' perspectives into account. This literature review analyzed peer-reviewed studies published in English between January 1975 and 2024 that focus on the academic experiences of students incarcerated in long-term JCF within the United States. Included studies focused on academics (e.g., literacy, writing, mathematics, history, or science), and incorporated student voice through direct data collection methods (e.g., interviews, surveys, focus groups) or involved students in the research process (e.g., planning, data collection, analysis, or writing). The review integrates findings that foreground the views and participation of incarcerated students in academic research, highlighting gaps and directing future inquiry into student-centered academic methods in juvenile justice settings. The characteristics of the studies and how researchers assessed and utilized the student voice data are discussed. 

Keywords

Systematic Literature Review; Student Voice; Intervention, Juvenile Justice

INTRODUCTION

Annually, around 220,000 youth are incarcerated in long-term juvenile correctional facilities (JCF) in the United States (Sickmund et al., 2021). Long-term JCFs are residential treatment facilities for adjudicated youth who are incarcerated for a minimum of two months, with an average of five to six months (U.S. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention & U.S. Department of Education, 2004). According to the United Nations (2021), these youth are marginalized given their minority status, disability classifications, mental health conditions, socioeconomic status, and sex.

For example, while 15% of the school-aged population is Black, about 42% of youth in JCF are Black (Puzzanchera et al., 2023). Similarly, Native American tribal youth are 3.7 times more likely to be incarcerated than their White peers. Additionally, a disproportionate number of youth in JCF have experienced poverty (Hawkins et al., 2019; Pyle et al., 2016) as compared to their non-incarcerated peers. The poverty rate of non-incarcerated youth was 16% compared to 57% for those in JCF (Hockenberry & Puzzanchera, 2023).

Another important consideration is that 30% - 60% of youth in JCF have been diagnosed with a disability as compared to around 15% of youth in traditional schools (U.S. Department of Education, 2021). The primary disabilities included Emotional Disturbances (ED; 48%) and Specific Learning Disabilities (SLD; 39%) (Quinn et al., 2005; Yan & Wilkerson, 2017). The prevalence rate of youth in JCF with SLD is like that in traditional schools, whereas the prevalence rate for those with ED is approximately six times higher in JCF than in traditional schools (U.S. Department of Education, 2021). Youth in JCF also have significantly lower language skills compared to their non-offending peers (Chow et al., 2022). Around 60% of youth in JCF have a language disorder compared to 7% - 12% of youth in traditional schools.

Furthermore, there is an overrepresentation of youth in JCF with mental health diagnoses (Beaudry et al., 2021). Estimates have suggested that 60% - 75% of youth in JCF meet the criteria for having at least one psychiatric disorder (Beaudry et al., 2021; Fazel et al., 2008), with over 50% having a conduct disorder, a substance use disorder, and co-occurring psychiatric disorders (Abram et al., 2003). There is also an overrepresentation of males in JCF. Around 86% of youth in JCF are male compared to about 50% of their nonoffending peers (Sickmund et al., 2021). Finally, about half of the youth in JCF perform one or more grade levels below their non-adjudicated peers in literacy, with around 10% being either illiterate or minimally literate (Houchins et al., 2024; Steele et al., 2016; Yan & Wilkerson, 2017).

Given the multitude of marginalizations that youth in JCF have encountered, providing them with a quality education is essential to their JCF school and post-incarceration achievement. Increased educational achievement while incarcerated is associated with improved post-incarcerated outcomes such as better employment outcomes and reduced recidivism rates (Davis et al., 2014; Steele et al., 2016; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2020). While in JCF, students are to be provided with the same education as their non-adjudicated peers (Every Student Succeeds Act [ESSA], 2015; U.S. Departments of Education and Justice, 2014). Similarly, students in JCF with disabilities are to be provided with a Free Appropriate Public Education in the least restrictive environment (Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act [IDEA], 2004; Sickmund et al., 2021). Unfortunately, there is a lack of evidence-based academic research in JCF (Gagnon et al., 2022). This is specifically evident for literacy instruction research (Houchins et al., 2010; Houchins et al., 2018; Wexler et al., 2014). Moreover, JCF research conducted should be socially valid, given the unique JCF context (Houchins et al., 2024; McCray et al., 2018).

Social Validity and Student Voice  

Considering the social validity of an academic intervention as part of the research process can improve its meaningfulness, relevance, practicality, and acceptability (Common & Lane, 2017; Snodgrass et al., 2018; Strain et al., 2012; Wolf, 1978). Student voice data may inform researchers about the social validity of an intervention. Student voice considers the perspectives, opinions, priorities, insights, and lived experiences of students as the primary consumers of interventions (Gillett-Swan & Baroustis, 2023). Interviews, focus groups, surveys, and questionnaires are often used to collect student voice data (Common & Lane, 2017; Snodgrass et al., 2018; Strain et al., 2012). Including student voice data in research before, during, and/or after a study is conducted has the potential to better understand intervention feasibility and usability (Gonzalez et al., 2017; Kirshener & Pozzoboni, 2011), refine the goals, procedures, and outcomes of a study (Rowe et al., 2025), address the research-to-practice gap, identify actions needed to overcome educational barriers, and inform educational policies and practices (Schaefer et al., 2024; Snodgrass, 2018).

The utilization of student voice in research ranges from no student participation to full student participation (Lansdown, 2018). There are three student voice categories or modes where student participation is included: consultative, collaborative, and youth-led (Bourke & Loveridge, 2018; Cook-Sather, 2002, 2006). A “consultative” mode involves collecting student voice data through adult-initiated, adult-led, and adult-managed research methods (Lansdown, 2018). A consultative mode allows for limited student control but requires researchers to explicitly design a study that adds value from students’ perspectives, knowledge, and experiences. A “collaborative” mode necessitates student voice data to be collected through adult-initiated research methods in partnership with the student (Lansdown, 2018). This mode allows for increasing levels of self-directed action by youth over a period where participation in research involves the student and the researcher having a shared voice. A collaborative mode may enable students to advocate for certain educational rights, hold those in authority accountable, and strengthen their sense of efficacy, capacity, and self-confidence. A mode of “youth-led” entails having students identify the research topic (Lansdown, 2018). In a youth-led mode, adults serve as facilitators, with students leading the research process. Youth can identify the learning activity they believe is important or the research area they believe is needed. Since adults serve as facilitators rather than leaders, the youth control the process of learning activities, interventions, and the overall research project.

Previous Literature Reviews on Student Voice Participation in Educational Research  

Three K–12 student voice systematic reviews have been conducted (Gonzalez et al., 2017; Mager & Nowak, 2012; Schaefer et al., 2024) that provide the field with student voice definitions and describe student voice in practice. These reviews show that research on student voice covers a wide range of ages and environments and mainly uses qualitative or mixed-methods approaches. Early syntheses reported that student participation in school decision-making is linked to positive social, civic, and relational outcomes (i.e., enhanced life skills, improved self-esteem, greater democratic engagement, and better student–adult relationships; Mager & Nowak, 2012). In contrast, these same studies reported weak and inconclusive findings on whether student voice affected academic achievement or the organizational aspects of schools, indicating a gap in the research.

Subsequent reviews shifted attention toward marginalized student populations in U.S. public schools, positioning student voice as a critical mechanism for empowerment, school improvement, and instructional change (Gonzalez et al., 2017; Schaefer et al., 2024). Gonzalez et al. (2017) suggested that student voice research at the elementary school level can create opportunities for racially and ethnically marginalized youth to influence educational practices and participate meaningfully in reform efforts, particularly through qualitative documentation of students’ perspectives. Schaefer et al. (2024) further refined the field by attending to developmental considerations in the middle grades and examining how student voice and agency are enacted within classrooms, schoolwide initiatives, and action-based projects.

Across both studies (Gonzalez et al., 2017; Schaefer et al., 2024), student voice most often functioned in consultative or transformative capacities rather than symbolic participation, corresponding to students’ developmental stages with autonomy, identity exploration, and intellectual development. Collectively, these reviews suggest that while student voice research regularly demonstrates benefits related to engagement, agency, and school climate, there remains a need for more rigorous empirical evidence linking student voice to academic outcomes and sustained institutional change, particularly with underrepresented in nontraditional schools.

Rationale for Literature Review  

This is the first known systematic literature review to focus on student voice research in JCF. As such, this systematic literature review makes a meaningful contribution to the field of student voice research (Kearley et al., 2021) for marginalized students in JCF (Sickmund et al., 2021), as incorporating student voices has the potential to enhance the research’s meaningfulness, relevance, practicality, and acceptability (Common & Lane, 2017; Snodgrass et al., 2018; Strain et al., 2012; Wolf, 1978). Voices of students in JCF, as a marginalized population (United Nations, 2021), are needed in research to enhance the social validity of JCF research. Student voice research in JCF may shed light on the challenges and experiences of these students and enable more feasible, usable interventions (Gonzalez et al., 2017; Kirshener & Pozzoboni, 2011). Furthermore, researchers may use student voice to refine study goals and procedures (Rowe et al., 2025), address the research-to-practice gap, and inform educational policies and practices (Schaefer et al., 2024).

Including student voice as a part of the educational research process has shown to improve student engagement, increase student confidence in the subject being studied, and provide valuable information, such as barriers and supports to the intervention (Gonzalez et al., 2017; Kirshner & Pozzoboni, 2011; Mager & Nowak, 2012; Mitra & Gross, 2009). This is particularly important for students in JCF as academic gains while incarcerated are associated with enhanced employment and lower rates of recidivism post-incarceration (Davis et al., 2014; Steele et al., 2016; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2020). Despite the importance of student voice research (Kearley et al., 2021), the overrepresentation of marginalized youth within JCF (Sickmund et al., 2021), and the increased number of studies including student voices in educational research (Gonzalez et al., 2017; Mager & Nowak, 2012; Mitra & Gross, 2009), no known systematic literature review focused on student voice research in JCF has been published. Thus, a literature review on student voice research in JCF is warranted. Three research questions were asked.  

Research Questions  

1. To what extent was student voice data included in peer-reviewed long-term JCF academic research?

2. How was student voice data collected in peer-reviewed studies of long-term JCF looking at academic intervention research?

3. What modes of student participation were used in studies that collected student voice data in peer-reviewed long-term JCF academic research?

METHOD

To continue reading, download the full open access article.