Introduction
As documented by Greene County in Ohio, the first juvenile court was established in 1899 in response to rising crime rates, which led states to adopt more stringent policies. This focus on retribution contributed to mass incarceration, which Tobin-Tyler and Brockmann (2017) identified in a literature review on incarceration as being associated with poor health, stigma, and severe recidivism. The United States has one of the highest recidivism rates, with Robertson (2020) reporting in a multi-site longitudinal study that around 60% of individuals reoffend within 3 years of release (p. 3). Despite the availability of post-release intervention services, the Office of Youth and Community Restoration observes that recidivism persists due to broader environmental factors, particularly social stigma. Martinez-Jothar et al. (2025) define social stigma in a scoping review of systems-involved youth as an attribute that reduces a whole person to a tainted, partial person, resulting in social judgment, exclusion, and rejection. Williams and Smalls (2015) found in a correlational study on parental supervision that this rejection pushes youth away from the community-at-large and into deviant subcultures. Due to a lack of separation between recidivists and non-recidivists, Debalkie and Abadi (2025) found in a study on youth recidivism in Ethiopia that peer pressure turns these subcultures into hotspots for recidivism. However, uncertainty exists in this field. Moore et al. (2016a) found in a longitudinal study on criminal offenders that social stigma is positively correlated with recidivism, whereas Casimir’s (2023) interviews with formerly incarcerated youth demonstrated that being perceived as morally deficient may motivate behavioral change. Researchers have rarely examined the psychological responses to stigma and their impact on post-release behavior (Moore et al., 2016).
Additionally, adultcentrism, the prioritization of adult perspectives in academia, has limited the amount of independent findings on youth (Martínez-Jothar et al., 2025). Specifically, Chiricos et al. (2007) explained in a study on reconviction data that youth are less saturated in crime and therefore less studied, but this scarcity also intensifies rejection in their communities (Tobin-Tyler & Brockmann, 2017). Moore et al. (2016b) discovered in a controlled trial on criminal offenders that adolescents, who have not had time to build resilience, are more prone to developing maladaptive coping mechanisms. Therefore, the scope of formerly incarcerated youth should be studied in an intersectional manner, considering both age and criminal history, so that communities and national organizations can develop more effective reintegration strategies. This study addresses the following research question: How does self-reported experienced social stigma from the direct community impact recidivism for formerly incarcerated youth, through the investigation of testimonies from national organizations? The hypothesis is that formerly incarcerated youth who report higher levels of experienced social stigma from the direct community after release may also exhibit maladaptive coping mechanisms more frequently, which may lead to a higher likelihood of recidivism.
Literature Review
To understand this topic further, this paper will explore social stigma following release, maladaptive and adaptive coping mechanisms, and the relationship between social stigma, coping, and recidivism. The synthesis of these themes will support the novel gap for academic exploration.
Youth in social services often experience intersectional (overlapping) stigma from multiple parts of their identities, including age, race, and ability (Martínez-Jothar et al., 2025). While these identities collectively amplify adverse experiences after release (Martínez-Jothar et al., 2025), the stigma associated with incarceration is particularly damaging because it is institutional and reflects the collateral consequences imposed after criminal conviction (Tobin-Tyler & Brockmann, 2017). Through a narrative analysis of formerly incarcerated individuals, Ahmed (2015) discovered that collateral consequences extend across schools, healthcare settings, courts, police stations, and workplaces. This is connected to social stigma, which Moore et al. (2016b) categorized into perceived stigma (awareness of others’ stereotypes), internalized stigma (acceptance of those stereotypes), and anticipated stigma (expectation of future discrimination). These processes reinforce one another (Moore et al., 2016b). Hence, social stigma can be considered an invisible punishment because it contributes to lower self-esteem and emotions of anger, shame, and resentment (Ahmed, 2015). Moore and Tangney (2017) found in a longitudinal examination of social stigma that formerly incarcerated youth tend to react to adverse experiences either adaptively or maladaptively. Barrett and Katsiyannis’ (2015) analysis of juvenile justice archival data illustrated that adaptive coping mechanisms can buffer social stigma by promoting optimism, resilience, and emotional regulation. Specifically, Casimir (2023) discovered that formerly incarcerated youth who practiced adaptive coping viewed stigma as a motivator to correct their behavior and engage with community resources. Meanwhile, Moore et al. (2016a) found that maladaptive coping was associated with concealment, fear, defensiveness, and social withdrawal. The most common of these was social withdrawal, as greater stigma caused formerly incarcerated individuals to alienate themselves from stereotyped domains (Moore et al., 2016a).
The interaction between stigma and coping gives rise to important implications for recidivism. Ascani’s (2012) review of labeling theory revealed that individuals labeled as “ex-convicts” or “offenders” tend to alter their behavior to conform to the label (p. 80), creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. Copenhaver et al.'s (2007) qualitative study on social stigma found that this process is especially prominent in higher education. While anticipated stigma from peers may eliminate recidivism by causing withdrawal from both criminal and non-criminal groups (Moore & Tangney, 2017), evidence suggests it is associated with greater proximity to the criminal community and increased recidivism (Moore et al., 2016a). The closeness to others with a similar criminal background offers a unique kind of projection, which encourages identification with deviant groups. On a grander scale, a geographical analysis study by Harris et al. (2011) showed that clusters of formerly incarcerated youth created hotspots of accelerated recidivism in Philadelphia neighborhoods.
Methods
The purpose of the study was to explore how self-reported experienced social stigma from the direct community impacted recidivism among formerly incarcerated youth while considering the influence of coping mechanisms. The direct community was defined as the immediate social environment surrounding formerly incarcerated youth, including family, peers, neighbors, employers, social workers, and members of the general public. This study used a deductive, qualitative approach through content analysis, which is defined by research experts Leedy and Ormrod (2015) as the examination of material to identify patterns, themes, and/or biases. This research design was selected to mitigate the ethical and accessibility challenges of primary research, including restricted juvenile records and the sensitive nature of disclosing recidivism experiences.
This study analyzed 19 first-hand testimonies from formerly incarcerated youth, which falls within the range recommended by Wutich et al. (2024) in their review of qualitative data analysis methods. To localize, testimonies were sourced from digital media channels of national organizations that work with, support, or spread awareness about formerly incarcerated youth. A purposive sampling approach was used to identify testimonies focusing substantially on post-release experiences. Afterward, the coding process took place in the content analysis code table in alignment with the content analysis codebook. Overall findings were summarized through a cumulative qualitative analysis.
Several limitations should be acknowledged. The exclusion of second-hand sources may have limited the study’s scope, while first-hand accounts may have been affected by recall and self-reporting biases. Although the findings from content analysis are inherently subjective and not generalizable, efforts were made to select a sample that included subjects from diverse backgrounds, geographic locations, demographics, and incarceration experiences. Nonetheless, youth facing adverse, ongoing experiences with recidivism may have been underrepresented, as publicly available testimonies tend to emphasize success stories.
Ultimately, this study was methodologically designed to minimize ethical concerns. Maier (2017), an associate professor in communications, found that content analysis is a relatively unobtrusive and safe research method because it relies on secondary sources. All subject names were retained from the original source.
Findings
Three pre-set codes were selected to understand how experienced social stigma and coping mechanisms influence recidivism among formerly incarcerated youth: “experienced social stigma,” “coping mechanisms,” and “recidivism outcomes.” These codes were chosen in accordance with the definitions and theoretical concepts from existing recidivism research.
“Experienced social stigma” was derived from Moore et al.'s (2016a) research on the effects of labeling, discrimination, and mistreatment. This code was further divided into “perceived stigma,” “internalized stigma,” and “anticipated stigma” (Moore et al., 2016b). Additional discoveries about the prevalence of perceived stigma across industries (Ahmed, 2015) deconstructed “perceived stigma” into “public stigma,” “structural stigma,” “interpersonal stigma,” and “institutional stigma.”
Conceptual model breaking down the code of experienced social stigma. “Public stigma” is general prejudice from the community; “structural stigma” is systematic barriers from the juvenile justice system; “interpersonal stigma” is prejudice from family and friends; “institutional stigma” is prejudice from people in positions of power.
The code of “coping mechanisms” emerged from the responses to social stigma and adverse experiences. These critical strategies can either harm, benefit, or invoke ambiguous or neutral effects on reintegration (Moore & Tangney, 2017), and were thus categorized as “maladaptive coping mechanisms” or “adaptive coping mechanisms.” The final code, “recidivism outcomes,” captured whether stigma and coping experiences resulted in “positive outcomes” or “negative outcomes,” reflecting the potential for these outcomes to decrease (Barrett & Katsiyannis, 2015) or increase (Copenhaver et al., 2007) recidivism.
Almost all (16) individuals experienced multiple forms of stigma simultaneously, with the most prevalent being public stigma (14). Catherine described how she was “made an example” as the first national case of a teenager with a gun. Besides public stigma, institutional (14) and structural stigma (12) were also pervasive and reinforced each other in 10 testimonies. For example, Adam M.'s testimony criticized the juvenile justice system for treating detainment as a commercial enterprise, while also criticizing the correctional officers who enabled the system to thrive. Other forms of incarceration-related stigma appeared as well, including anticipated stigma (2), internalized stigma (9), and interpersonal stigma (10). Likewise, interpersonal stigma coincided with internalized stigma in 7 testimonies. An example of this is how his father’s disappointment caused Anthony to label himself a “loser,” illustrating how external judgment can transform into negative self-perceptions. Overall, the findings suggest that social stigma emerged as an interconnected process rather than a single form of discrimination. Additionally, the entire experience of social stigma was intensified by intersectionality, specifically race and age. 4 Black individuals (Hamp, Adam M., P.B., and Xavier) described how racial injustice influenced their treatment from law enforcement. Meanwhile, Xavier emphasized that children, too, were often mistreated by the juvenile justice system. These patterns exemplify the idea that post-release stigma does not encompass criminal history alone; it is shaped by the intersection of multiple marginalized identities.
Seventeen testimonies described maladaptive coping behaviors as an initial response to experienced social stigma. After facing severe judgment from adults, Xavier returned to seek comfort in his deviant peers, obtaining arms, using violence, and embracing gang culture. This highlights a potential nature component of the nature-versus-nurture relationship, where individuals may be more likely to react to the adverse experience of incarceration itself maladaptively. On the contrary, maladaptive coping could have also originated in childhood and carried over into adolescence. For example, Michael idealized crime from early childhood, glorifying the monetary success and reputation that seemed to come from it. Similarly, Michy believed that “drugs got to be better than love” because her father was a user. This demonstrates a potential nurture component of the nature-versus-nurture relationship, where children may have been groomed into maladaptive practices by authoritative figures. To contrast this, others like Anthony knew that crime was wrong but lacked the support systems needed to build better habits. Peer pressure and social validation appeared to be stronger influences on behavior than stigma itself. Nonetheless, a prominent theme that occurred was the shift from maladaptive to adaptive coping mechanisms over time at certain “turning points.” Aging was identified as a turning point in 17 testimonies, with Adam M. describing how the “light started to turn on,” pushing him to obtain his GED, take vocational trade classes, and come to terms with his trauma. Such gradual and systematic change may reflect the greater emotional maturity that comes with age, along with the desire for stability and normality after spending extended periods of time in confinement. However, 4 individuals described a major event that triggered a more abrupt transformation. Michael, who witnessed someone die in prison, experienced a sudden revelation that prompted him to reevaluate his behavior. These significant moments appeared to function as catalysts for identity reconstruction, encouraging individuals to move toward reform. Furthermore, another turning point, interpersonal relationships, facilitated 10 individuals to shift their coping response from maladaptive to adaptive. 8 individuals, such as Hamp, described this as the desire to take care of loved ones, while 4 individuals leveraged moderate amounts of interpersonal stigma to motivate themselves. For instance, Ryan Ramanrace used his family’s disappointment to conduct an “inventory” of himself, illustrating how stigma can enforce adaptive behavior. However, the turning points did not affect all formerly incarcerated youth universally or linearly. Parker and Lilly’s testimonies showed only one coping mechanism. 8 individuals experienced periods of improvement but then reverted back to old habits, such as Hamp, who was motivated to complete his education but was hindered by the reckless decisions he made in an effort to “have fun.” Such fluctuations indicate that exposure to turning points alone is not sufficient to lead all youth toward adaptive coping mechanisms. A youth’s personal characteristics, including their mindset, mental flexibility, and self-concept, may ultimately determine whether a turning point produces long-term change. For some youth, it may be necessary to accompany internal change with external support to produce tangible outcomes, such as with the presence of social support systems.
Alongside internal, self-directed change, formerly incarcerated youth described structured rehabilitation programs as important in inducing the development of adaptive coping mechanisms. Participation in social support programs exposed formerly incarcerated youth to identities beyond that of an offender, which allowed them to develop a sense of membership within the community and thus mitigated the effects of labeling theory. For example, Alisa’s program at the Sierra Osage Treatment Center assigned her the roles of fundraising and volunteering, which contributed to positive identity formation in the long term. The long-term positive effects of social support programs can be seen even after individuals graduate and move on to other endeavors. Once he entered the workforce, Sloane continued to utilize the social, emotional, and occupational skills he learned at Boys Town. Meanwhile, several (7) individuals became public advocates or created their own initiatives for formerly incarcerated youth. This pattern suggests that providing opportunities for leadership and service replaces stigmatized labels with prosocial roles. As individuals begin to view themselves as contributing members of society, they may develop a greater sense of purpose, leading to advocacy and activism. Thus, this explains how external social support programs may be essential in inducing adaptive coping mechanisms for formerly incarcerated youth who are not capable of self-directed change. Due to the significant variation in social stigma experiences and coping pathways, the testimonies reflected significant heterogeneity in recidivism outcomes. All 19 individuals achieved positive outcomes at some point in their reintegration process, encompassing educational achievement, employment, therapeutic support, and advocacy. One instance of positive growth was seen in Michy, who developed her own healing curriculum for formerly incarcerated individuals, “Cell Dreamer,” which was distributed in 28 states. On the contrary, negative outcomes were common as well, occurring in 15 testimonies and encompassing recidivism, contact with law enforcement, probation violations, involvement with gangs or deviant peers, and being rearrested or reincarcerated. The testimonies suggested that negative outcomes were the most prominent during the period immediately following release, which is also when most individuals tended to react maladaptively. For example, after Adam C. was released from placement in a boy’s school, he immediately reverted back to substance abuse, gun violence, and gang activity, which caused him to be charged with new felonies. Over time, however, as the duration from release increased and individuals were directed toward more adaptive coping mechanisms, positive outcomes became more consistent.
Discussion
Within this study, there was significant variation in the scope of experienced social stigma, coping mechanisms, and recidivism outcomes. While maladaptive coping mechanisms were indicative of negative recidivism outcomes, the expected connection between social stigma and coping mechanisms was not observed. As a result, the hypothesis that greater self-reported experienced social stigma would lead to more negative recidivism outcomes through the adoption of maladaptive coping mechanisms was not supported.
Throughout the study, testimonies frequently described experiencing multiple reinforcing and overlapping forms of social stigma, consistent with Moore et al.'s (2016b) findings that social stigma is an integrated process in which various stigmas can lead to one another. Particularly, Moore et al. (2016) highlight a similar relationship between perceived and internalized stigma. Besides overlapping sub-stigmas, the role of age and race suggests that social stigma is encountered as an intersectional process. This falls in line with Martinez-Jothar et al.'s (2025) study, which illustrated how intersectionality adversely impacts young black males the most, who experience the three overlapping axes of masculinity, racism, and ageism. Thus, reintegration efforts may need to address the discrimination that adolescents face from other parts of their identities.
Moreover, the testimonies revealed considerable variation in how formerly incarcerated youth adopted adaptive (Casimir, 2023) and maladaptive (Moore & Tangney, 2017) coping mechanisms. Despite the diversified severity of social stigma, most youth tended to adopt a similar shift from maladaptive to adaptive coping mechanisms. This implies that the specific coping pathway a formerly incarcerated youth adopts may be independent of stigma severity. Rather than stigma alone determining coping responses, several other internal and external factors may influence how youth react to adversity. The combination of both innate individual characteristics and environmental influences reflects the broader nature-versus-nurture debate regarding human behavior and psychological development.
Most individuals may react to incarceration itself maladaptively, regardless of subsequent stigma levels, given that incarceration is an adverse experience to begin with. Afterward, the ability to shift coping mechanisms may depend on the presence of individual resilience factors. This is shown by the fact that some youth were able to reinterpret interpersonal stigma as a motivator for personal growth, supporting Casimir’s (2023) claim that some forms of stigma can act as catalysts for adaptive coping mechanisms. However, other youth were negatively affected by that same stigma. This contradiction implies that a youth’s individual resilience factors and personal characteristics, including a fixed or growth mindset, can mediate the extent to which social stigma shapes coping. Additionally, the testimonies indicated that some youth were inherently more drawn to one type of coping mechanism, leading them to practice either only adaptive or only maladaptive coping. This finding aligns with Moore and Tangney (2017), who discovered that there may be a psychological predisposition that simply makes some individuals more prone to one coping mechanism or another. Thus, a youth’s individual resilience factors may affect their ability to overcome this psychological predisposition and shift coping mechanisms.
Beyond these internal factors, external environmental influences may also explain why stigma severity does not appear to directly determine coping. Three turning points: aging, major events, and family support systems shaped how youth navigated reintegration. Family encouragement frequently provided emotional support and accountability, allowing youth to redirect their behavior in a positive direction. This is corroborated by Williams and Small’s (2015) study, which illustrated that positive parenting is more likely to lead to decreased recidivism, while permissive parenting with poor monitoring and inconsistent discipline is more likely to lead to increased recidivism. Similarly, access to rehabilitative resources may have moderated the effects of social stigma. The effectiveness of social support programs in this study aligns with the work of the Vera Institute of Justice’s psychology researcher Frederick (1999), who found that incarceration institutions that provide adequate aftercare programs after release are the most effective. The identified role of social support programs may inform the implementation of community programs or interventions that can lead youth toward positive recidivism outcomes and ultimately increase the likelihood of successful reintegration.
Existing literature has functioned on the belief that social stigma is deterministic of recidivism outcomes due to its implied role in coping. Overall, this study supports the idea that coping mechanisms are a strong indicator of recidivism outcomes, reinforcing Moore and Tangney’s (2017) discovery that maladaptive coping mechanisms are more likely to lead to negative recidivism outcomes, as well as Casimir’s (2023) discovery that adaptive coping mechanisms are more likely to lead to positive recidivism outcomes. However, because the findings of this study minimize the relationship between social stigma and coping mechanisms, it can be implied that social stigma is not necessarily deterministic of a formerly incarcerated youth’s recidivism outcomes. Therefore, efforts to reduce recidivism may be more effective if communities and future research prioritize introducing interventions to induce adaptive coping mechanisms, rather than attempting to address social stigma as a whole.
Although the scope of this study is limited and its results should be replicated for accuracy, the conditions necessary to shift coping mechanisms have not been identified in existing literature before, which may provide valuable insights into the internal and external interventions required to reduce recidivism. Nonetheless, it is important to consider community context when examining the relationship between experienced social stigma, coping mechanisms, and recidivism outcomes. Geographic location, demographic composition, and local crime rates may influence both the extent to which criminal behavior is normalized and the degree of stigma experienced following release.
Conclusion
Through a qualitative and intersectional approach, this study explored the relationship between experienced social stigma, coping mechanisms, and recidivism outcomes. Due to the wide range of coping pathways and recidivism trajectories identified, it can be implied that the relationship between these factors is more complex than previously thought. By centering youth at the forefront of the conversation, this study aimed to overcome the backdrop of adultism (Martínez-Jothar et al., 2025) and conflicting relationships (Casimir, 2023; Moore et al., 2016a) in existing literature.
The results of this study suggest that while the severity and overall experience of social stigma can influence coping responses, it does not necessarily determine them. Certain coping mechanisms and pathways were adopted regardless of stigma severity, implying that coping may be dictated by a psychological aspect that makes formerly incarcerated youth more susceptible to one coping mechanism or another, or by certain internal and external turning points that act as catalysts for change. This both supports and complicates existing literature: although coping remains closely related to recidivism outcomes, the influence of social stigma may not be as strong as previously suggested. Thus, communities may find it more beneficial to shift their focus from addressing social stigma to implementing structured interventions that foster adaptive coping mechanisms, especially as it pertains to the effectiveness of the social support programs highlighted in this study.
However, the sample size and scope of testimonies may limit the extent to which these patterns can be applied, as individual differences in background, environment, and access to rehabilitative resources can shape coping pathways and recidivism outcomes in ways not fully captured within this study. Thus, future research can build on these findings by incorporating larger and more diverse samples, while a focus on primary research could include individuals who are having ongoing, adverse experiences with recidivism.
While this research identifies key turning points and influencing factors of recidivism outcomes, it does not isolate variables or draw causal relationships. Future researchers seeking to identify causal relationships can examine specific factors in greater depth, such as programmatic interventions, to better understand how these elements influence the development of adaptive coping mechanisms. Additionally, longitudinal studies following release may be particularly valuable for evaluating the effectiveness of specific community interventions, as positive outcomes appear to be more consistent as the duration from release increases. Overall, this study underscores the critical role of coping mechanisms in shaping recidivism outcomes. These findings provide opportunities for further research into these trends, emphasizing the importance of actively shaping youth coping strategies.