Behind Locked Doors: What North Carolina’s Detained Youth Are Telling Us
This post is based on Disability Rights North Carolina’s (DRNC) “Behind Locked Doors: Inside North Carolina’s Juvenile Detention Centers” executive summary and related observations from their monitoring work.
When we talk about “juvenile detention,” it’s easy for the conversation to drift into policy language, bed space, staffing, compliance, and operations. DRNC’s Behind Locked Doors pulls us back to the most important truth: these are children. And what happens to them behind secure doors shapes whether they come home safer, healthier, and more ready to thrive—or more traumatized than when they entered.
What DRNC did, and why it matters
DRNC conducted a 13-month monitoring initiative (July 2024–August 2025), making multiple visits to North Carolina’s then-14 Juvenile Detention Centers (JDCs) and completing nearly 400 in-person interviews with detained youth.
That matters because conditions inside detention centers are often hidden from public view. Monitoring, interviews, and direct observation can reveal patterns that complaints alone don’t always capture for youth who may fear retaliation or who don’t have consistent advocates on the outside.
The core message: treatment depends on where a child is held
One of the most striking findings is the dramatic inconsistency across facilities. DRNC reports that youth receive very different levels of education, rehabilitative programming, and basic humane treatment depending on the JDC, while many facilities violate state policies, including policies related to isolation/solitary confinement-like practices.
In other words, in some places, youth are treated in ways that support growth. In others, youth describe conditions that are degrading, isolating, and harmful. DRNC even reports accounts from young people describing being treated “like animals,” alongside reports of minimal education services and heavy reliance on isolation.
That kind of variation isn’t just unfair it’s dangerous. It means a child’s outcomes can hinge less on their needs and more on geography and facility culture.
Key findings that should stop us in our tracks
DRNC’s executive summary highlights several findings that deserve public attention:
Widespread policy violations: The majority of state and county-operated JDCs were found to violate DJJDP policies related to conditions of confinement, discipline, education, and/or recreation, reducing young people’s access to services that help them succeed.
Special education failures: DRNC identifies significant problems with special education identification and implementation across multiple centers, calling for deeper investigation, training, and resourcing involving DJJDP and the NC Department of Public Instruction.
“The Hole” (Durham County): Youth described a small room—called “the Hole”—where a child may be left with only a mattress and forced to urinate/defecate through a hole in the floor. DRNC recommends prohibiting its use under any circumstances.
Isolation that harms kids: DRNC warns that heavy reliance on isolation is especially alarming because it cuts youth off from education, recreation, and peers, exactly the protective factors adolescents need.
And one more fact that should guide every decision we make: disability is common, not rare, in justice-involved youth. DRNC notes that nationally, up to 70% of youth in the juvenile justice system have a disability, and North Carolina reports that 97.7% of youth committed to Youth Development Centers have at least one mental health diagnosis.
So when systems fail to provide special education services, therapeutic supports, or reasonable accommodations, they aren’t failing a small subgroup; they are failing the norm.
Why solitary confinement-like isolation is a youth safety issue
DRNC’s report underscores what many advocates, clinicians, and researchers have said for years: prolonged isolation is not “discipline,” it’s harm for adolescents whose brains are still developing.
Juvenile Law Center describes solitary confinement and harsh conditions as practices that can traumatize youth, interrupt healthy development, and contribute to serious mental health outcomes, including self-harm risks.
In North Carolina, the stakes are not theoretical. NC Health News has reported that youth advocates have raised concerns about teenagers being locked alone for extended periods—sometimes described as 23 to 24 hours a day in extreme allegations—while research consistently links isolation with increased risks of anxiety, self-harm, and suicide.
Not all facilities are failing some are showing what’s possible
One important part of DRNC’s message is that improvement is achievable. The executive summary points to facilities that stood out for best practices in at least several operational areas, including:
the JDC units at Rockingham Youth Development Center (Rockingham County),
Richmond-Jenkins JDC (Richmond County),
Alexander JDC (Alexander County).
This matters because it challenges the “that’s just how detention is” mindset. If some centers can run safer, more supportive, more rehabilitative environments, then the barrier is not possibility—it’s accountability, training, staffing, and will.
What DRNC says needs to change now
DRNC’s executive summary lays out clear recommendations, including:
Real accountability for policy compliance across all state and county-operated facilities.
Elimination of solitary confinement, isolation-as-discipline in all facilities.
Full implementation of state and federal education requirements, including special education protections.
A total ban on “the Hole” in Durham County’s facility.
If North Carolina wants justice-involved youth to return home with stronger skills and healthier futures, detention centers must operate as intended: safe, trauma-informed environments with real education and rehabilitative support not punishment-based isolation and inconsistent services.
What we can do as a community
This isn’t only a “system problem.” It’s a public responsibility issue.
Read and share DRNC’s executive summary with community partners, schools, and local decision-makers.
Ask county leaders and state officials what accountability process exists today to ensure JDCs comply with DJJDP policy and what will change in response to these findings.
Advocate for disability-competent care: staff training, behavioral health supports, special education compliance, and accommodations that prevent behaviors from being mislabeled as “defiance.”
Support community-based alternatives that keep youth connected to family, school, mentorship, and treatment because the most reliable way to prevent detention harm is to reduce unnecessary detention in the first place.
Because the truth is simple: children should not have to “earn” humane treatment. And no child’s access to education, safety, and dignity should depend on which locked door they end up behind.
The Scope of DOJ Cuts
05/1/25
In April 2025, the DOJ canceled more than 365 grants administered through its Office of Justice Programs. This included approximately $136 million from the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), which funds programs aimed at preventing youth delinquency and supporting at-risk youth.
Notable programs affected include:
- Teen and Police Service Academy (TAPS): A Houston-based nonprofit that fosters positive relationships between teens and law enforcement lost nearly $387,600 in funding, jeopardizing its operations that serve over 8,000 youth annually.
- National CASA/GAL Association: This organization, which provides court-appointed advocates for abused and neglected children, had its federal funding terminated, impacting services for over 200,000 children nationwide.
- National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges: The oldest juvenile justice research group in the U.S. lost $15 million in grants, threatening its capacity to provide critical training and support.
Impacts on North Carolina
North Carolina's juvenile justice system relies heavily on federal funding to support various programs, including those aimed at reducing recidivism and addressing racial and ethnic disparities. The state's Three-Year Plan for Juvenile Justice (2024–2026) outlines initiatives funded by federal grants, such as the Children's Justice Act and the Prison Rape Elimination Act.
The abrupt termination of these grants could lead to:
- Program Reductions: Essential services for at-risk youth may face cutbacks, limiting access to counseling, education, and rehabilitation programs.
- Increased Caseloads: Juvenile probation counselors may experience unmanageable caseloads, hindering their ability to provide individualized support.
- Higher Recidivism Rates: Without adequate intervention programs, there is a risk of increased juvenile reoffending, posing long-term challenges to community safety.
Broader Consequences
The DOJ's decision has sparked concern among advocates and policymakers. Critics argue that the cuts undermine efforts to support vulnerable youth populations and may lead to increased incarceration rates. Moreover, the lack of transparency and abrupt nature of the terminations have left many organizations scrambling to adjust.
The well-being of our youth and the safety of our communities depend on a robust and well-funded juvenile justice system. It is imperative that we work collectively to address the challenges posed by these budget cuts and ensure that support systems for young people remain strong and effective.