In the absence of institutional assistance post-release, family support emerged as a central cross-cutting theme in the narratives of formerly detained youth. Participants emphasized varied degrees of familial involvement, which appeared to serve as a protective factor against recidivism by actively contributing to the reconstruction of social ties. These roles ranged from consistent support to indifference or outright rejection.

Eric (17, carpenter) recounted: “My mother insisted I join the workshop because I had the tools. Otherwise, I’d still be wandering the streets. Once I joined, she made sure to wake me up every morning. I can tell she believes in me now.”

This narrative illustrates not only logistical and material support but also affective and moral encouragement. His mother’s involvement reflects a reintegration rooted in interpersonal care, confirming that aligning with effective reintegration is primarily driven by grassroots actors, notably families.

Grâce (16, tailor) described her brother’s pivotal role: “As soon as I arrived, my brother advised me not to sell the sewing machine. He promised to help find a workspace. Two months later, he went with me to the center, helped me rent a room, and told me I could start earning money again.”

Such fraternal mediation represents a critical yet often overlooked factor in reintegration. Multidisciplinary support systems where families assume strategic roles are essential. These findings advocate for co-responsibility models integrating families, peers, and educators in restorative approaches.

In contrast, Joël (18), who lived with his uncle post-release, reported alienation and stigma:

“My uncle was rarely home. His children treated me like a criminal, constantly monitoring me. At the dinner table, no one spoke to me. Eventually, my aunt suggested I leave so she could help me return to school. Now I’m doing better.” Such experiences indicate that family support must go beyond passive reception it requires consistent, recognizably supportive actions. Access to income-generating opportunities, school reintegration, and family mediation in the community serve as core resilience drivers. Importantly, family support encompasses not just material aid housing, financial help, guidance but also symbolic encouragement, expressions of trust, and affirmation of worth. These elements facilitate a forward-looking self-image that counters stigma and the risk of behavioral relapse ([21]). Ultimately, the family emerges as a critical interface between formal reintegration mechanisms (e.g., NGOs, judicial institutions, educational systems) and the identity reconstruction of released youth. An effective reintegration policy in Burundi must therefore prioritize family involvement through targeted awareness, mediation training, and psychosocial support. The family should not be perceived merely as a post-detention shelter, but as a primary agent of sustainable social rehabilitation.

Findings from this study underscore the critical role of local associations in the social reintegration of juveniles post-release. In the context of institutional vacuum and limited state resources, these organizations fill a significant gap by offering diverse forms of support. As [54] notes, in marginalized neighborhoods, associations adapt their interventions to local realities in response to systemic deficiencies. Similarly, [13] highlights how mutual aid associations (MAAs) provide frameworks for social integration, particularly for individuals with psychological vulnerabilities.

Fabrice (17), a beneficiary of a local association, shared: “After my release, no one from the commune or neighborhood reached out. It was the local association that helped me through my brother working with them to secure a loan. I used it to enroll in training and learned how to repair phones and electronic devices using the small kit I had.” This testimony reflects a proactive and material support dynamic. Rather than merely welcoming the released minor, the association initiated actionable reintegration strategies.

[41] refers to this as social experimentation, where associations act as intermediaries between the state and civil society to generate context-specific public interventions.

Claudine (16), reintegrated in a rural setting, explained: “I had learned sewing before, and when I arrived with my machine and kit, the SANGWE hilltop association provided funds for advanced training. They also give me fabric to work with during community meetings and events. Now I can help my mother.”

Such support goes beyond income generation it fosters dignity, self-worth within the family, and social recognition. [26] conceptualize such accompaniment as helping young people translate aspirations into tangible possibilities at the intersection of reality and personal dreams. This sentiment is echoed by community members. One parent observed: “If these released youth are doing well now, it’s often thanks to the associations helping and supporting them. We maintain connections with them because these youth need community recognition. Without that, they’d likely be forgotten.”

This inter-institutional linkage is pivotal for successful community integration, especially where public systems are weak or absent. [3] emphasizes that in institutional voids, associative actors respond strategically, actively shaping policy adaptation through grassroots expertise. However, several testimonies revealed structural vulnerabilities. Some youth reported abrupt discontinuation of support, citing resource constraints or leadership changes. [16] cautions that while local associations offer tailored opportunities, they remain dependent on institutional dynamics and financial stability. [30] further identifies economic reintegration structures as specialized pathways managing employability, often under-resourced. Despite their crucial role, local associations remain under-consolidated. Their proximity, contextual knowledge, and capacity for innovation such as seed funding and solidarity networks render them essential reintegration agents ([20]). Gérome also argues that these associations contribute to sector professionalization and help define relevant performance indicators. The sustained impact of local associations will largely depend on their ability to align with current public policies through structured partnerships with state institutions and local communities. Broadly, this analysis calls for formal recognition and systemic reinforcement of these associations. Once consolidated, they could become powerful levers for an inclusive and sustainable national reintegration policy, particularly for disadvantaged children and released youth.

This study identifies community and religious mentors as vital figures in the post-release lives of formerly detained youth. These mentors whether formal (e.g., teachers, neighborhood chiefs) or informal (e.g., pastors, imams, village elders) often serve as first responders, working in concert with families to stabilize the reintegration process. [1] argue that informal interventions, frequently anchored in mentorship, help individuals reshape self-perceptions and establish renewed social connections. In contexts where institutional structures are absent, such support plays a pivotal role in fostering prosocial identities and deterring criminal relapse.

Patrice (18), now employed in a welding workshop, recounted: “When I was released, I couldn’t see how to start this project, even though I had the kit. During a meeting, the hill chief mentioned that someone needed help to get their life structured—it was me. He agreed to rent the space where I now work for five months, and others contributed as they could. Later, he introduced me to a welder, and that’s how I got started.”

This account exemplifies the mentor’s role as a broker of trust. The hill chief leveraged his social capital to help Patrice overcome the stigma associated with his incarceration and establish a meaningful trajectory. In a similar vein, Inès (15), who had been expelled from school and detained, shared: “After I was released, my former teacher came to see me. She advised me to go back to school and advocated for me with another school’s principal. She convinced him to let me return and continue my studies like everyone else.”

Here, the teacher mediated between institutional norms and the student’s lived reality, providing not only administrative access but emotional and moral reinforcement. This reflects [8] view of mentorship as integral to the development of social capital especially for women released from custody by connecting individuals with supportive networks and credible references. Mentors function as agents of social resilience, bridging the divide between released youth and their communities. Their moral authority and relational proximity help restore symbolic recognition, counteract societal distrust, and encourage a more accepting view of formerly incarcerated individuals. Analytically, mentors mediate between collective norms and individual pathways, often compensating for relational voids created by family rejection or institutional abandonment.

Their contributions active listening, consistent presence, and capacity to mobilize local actors position them as transformative figures in post-release journeys. Yet, access to such mentorship is not universal. Prosper lamented:

“If someone had spoken on my behalf so I could get that kind of support… maybe I would’ve gone back to school or started a project to earn money.”

This illustrates the structural gap left when mentorship is absent, especially in environments lacking formal reintegration frameworks. Ultimately, community and religious mentors offer more than material assistance they confer social legitimacy upon released youth. Enhancing their roles through training, formal recognition, and integration into official reintegration systems could significantly strengthen policy effectiveness. While they cannot replace the state, they humanize its presence and render it more accessible within local contexts.

Sports and cultural practices play a crucial, though often underestimated, role in the post-release reintegration trajectories of formerly detained youth. Beyond recreational value, these activities offer avenues for social engagement, foster self-esteem, and channel young people’s energy in constructive and stabilizing ways.Didier (16), formerly incarcerated in Ruyigi, shared: “At the center, we had a football field. When we played with others who came from outside, we stopped thinking about everything else. We felt like everyone else. After my release, I continued playing thanks to a neighborhood coach who invited me to join the local team.”

Football, in this context, transcends leisure and acts as a gateway to social normalization. For Didier, the pitch became a transitional space, bridging incarceration and reintegration through collective dynamics. Other participants highlighted the empowering effects of cultural engagement. Clémence (15) remarked:

“When I dance with other girls from the cultural group at weddings in different neighborhoods, I feel like someone of value again. Today, people see me as an artist, not as a former detainee.”

Such activities reshape symbolic identity, reversing stigmatized perceptions and replacing them with recognition of artistic talent. As [4] observes, cultural initiatives serve as levers for post-carceral normalization and reintegration.

According to professionals, the transformative power of these activities lies less in the activity itself and more in the identity forged through interaction. Bernard, a psychologist, noted:

“Truthfully, it’s not the cultural activity that changes the released youth it’s the identity constructed through encounters with others. When playing or dancing, they’re no longer seen as a case to monitor, but as a teammate, a dancer, a citizen.”

This insight aligns with [45], who posits that artistic engagement mitigates the dehumanizing effects of incarceration and initiates reintegrative processes. These spaces enable positive identity reconstruction, often absent in formal institutional pathways. However, their structural marginalization remains evident in juvenile centers and post-release environments manifested by a lack of resources, qualified facilitators, and sustained funding. Some interviewees voiced regret over missed opportunities:

“If they had played theater in the rehabilitation center about children’s rights, drug harms, and juvenile delinquency—maybe they’d leave with a more positive outlook. Even after release, many don’t engage in such events.”

Despite their perceived secondary status, sports and cultural activities fulfill therapeutic, educational, and social functions. They boost self-esteem, foster group cohesion, and bridge individual pasts with dignified futures ([23]; [17]). When institutionalized within both rehabilitation centers and community settings—and integrated with schools, municipalities, and cultural organizations, these practices can concretely address the reintegration needs of formerly detained youth. Ultimately, sports and cultural expression offer youth a chance to reframe their histories not through fault, but through creativity. For many, these spaces represent the first tangible form of a “second chance” post-incarceration. As [2] affirms, cultural engagement helps individuals reclaim personal worth and reconnect with their identities.