The Lasting Impacts Of Juvenile Solitary Confinement in the United States.

By Melanie Ulloa '27

In the late twentieth century, the implementation of punitive consequences for youth in the United States rose substantially. (1) These measures, coined “get-tough” policies, drastically shifted how youth crime was addressed across the nation. The aftermath of this zero-tolerance approach slowed progress for rehabilitative programs meant to help troubled youth, especially in underserved communities. Instead, a school-to-prison pipeline became prominent in many poverty-stricken areas within the United States. In these situations, students commonly faced arrest and criminal prosecution for in-class misbehavior, rather than being provided educational programs. A significant portion of these youth were sent to juvenile detention facilities or rehabilitation centers following these proceedings. Among those most disproportionately affected by the increase in arrests were Black students and other juveniles living in economically underdeveloped areas. (2) One of the forms of punishment used regularly in these places is solitary confinement—“generally allow[ing] little or no contact with any people except for the facility staff.” (3) Although it has been discouraged nationally, solitary confinement continues to be overused by these facilities and has been proven to have harmful consequences for youth in detention. 

Current Situation 

In 2019, about 700,000 adolescents were detained, sparking widespread advocacy movements for the reform of juvenile justice system practices. (4) The criminalization of youth had continuously expanded in the United States until this point without much resistance. While underaged individuals of color only account for 34% of the U.S. population, they represent 62% of the detentions in the juvenile court system. (5) Soon after awareness campaigns regarding the prominence of juvenile imprisonment rose, so did awareness of punitive treatment within the facilities holding them. Correctional officers, responsible for maintaining order and the safety of incarcerated minors, were revealed to usually be insufficiently trained for their roles. While solitary confinement was initially intended for security of juveniles within centers, a nation-wide report in 2010 revealed officers instead “lock them [juveniles] up alone as discipline.” (6)The violent treatment of minors continued without almost any repercussions for correctional officers. 

Mental Health in Facilities

The use of restraining measures, such as solitary confinement, is usually followed by strains on the mental health of detained youth. As it stands before entering these permanent treatment facilities, many youth are already diagnosed with behavioral disorders or mental illnesses. (7) The presence of mental health disorders in the majority of minors entering the juvenile justice system stems from the common background of unstable homes and low-income neighborhoods within those adjudicated. These pre-existing conditions are exacerbated by the development of additional mental illnesses such as Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and sexual trauma. (8) Given that methods of restraint meant solely for clinical purposes have become a punitive tactic, they have endangered the mental wellbeing of the isolated youth. 

The negative consequences of solitary confinement on youth mental health increases depending on the amount of time they are placed in a restrictive setting. During a survey conducted in 2016 by a non-profit organization, the Lowenstein Center for the Public Interest, it was published that “47% of juvenile detention centers locked youths…for more than 4 waking hours” while some facilities made them endure “up to 23 hours' ' in confinement. (9) Longer isolation periods lead to more prolonged damage to their mental health. The longer the periods of time that youth spend in confinement, the more rehabilitation education (the main priority of detention centers) slows. (10) Youth development has been proven to be harmed by isolation, and those who have come to scrutinize the use of most punitive measures in these facilities are referencing these findings. 

Reintegration and Recidivism

The goal of juvenile permanent detention centers is to foster an environment that prepares the adjudicated youth for reintegration into society. During their time in the justice system, juveniles are meant to develop these foundational abilities through educational lessons and a supportive community. Because of the system’s prioritizing of retributive justice—punishing those found guilty—instead of focusing on achieving this rehabilitation, there is still room for improvement to accomplish an effective reintegration. Since isolation prevents the dissemination of basic life skills in detention centers, when youth return to their old communities, they are more susceptible to recidivism (reoffending). 

With programs that last up to two years on average, the reality is that most youth return to their old environments still lacking the tools necessary to avoid falling back into crime, as youth returning to school environments have a high likelihood dropout and recidivism. (11) The gap between the intended effects of juvenile justice and its negative effects on troubled youth can be witnessed within many of the local and state centers across the country, revealing systemic challenges that demand urgent attention. While the national government turns its attention to address these issues, it becomes vital to reassess the efficacy of ongoing programs. The prohibition of isolation and restrictive methods for punitive purposes is necessary if we intend to allow room for focusing on rehabilitation. 

Endnotes

(1) Merlo, A. V., and P. J. Benekos. "Is Punitive Juvenile Justice Policy Declining in the United States? A Critique of Emergent Initiatives." Youth Justice 10, no. 1 (2010): 3-24. https://doi-org.yale.idm.oclc.org/10.1177/1473225409356740.

(2) Public school students were more likely to face arrest and police intervention for failing to follow school protocols.

Marinelli, John A.D. "Education Under Armed Guard: An Analysis of the School-to-Prison Pipeline in Washington, D.C." Georgetown Law, American Criminal Law Review 59, no. 4 (2022).

(3) Whitley, Kevin, and John S. Rozel. "Mental Health Care of Detained Youth and Solitary Confinement and Restraint Within Juvenile Detention Facilities." Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North America 25, no. 1 (2016): 71-80. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1056499315000826.

(4) Tadros, Eman, and Alyssa Vlach. "Protecting Our Youth: Advocating for Family Services in the Juvenile Justice System." Published December 30, 2022. https://doi-org.yale.idm.oclc.org/10.1111/jfcj.12229.

(5) Tadros, and Vlach. "Protecting Our Youth", 55.

(6) Mendel, Richard. Maltreatment of Youth in U.S. Juvenile Corrections Facilities: An Update. Technical Report. June 2015. The Annie E. Casey Foundation.

(7) Whitley and Rozel, "Mental Health Care," 72.

(8) Julian D. Ford, Damion J. Grasso, Josephine Hawke, John F. Chapman. "Poly-victimization among juvenile justice-involved youths." Child Abuse & Neglect 37, no. 10 (2013): 788-800. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2013.01.005. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0145213413000227.

(9) Jane Lindahl, Neha G. Reddy, Madeline Chin, Isabel Chin, Sylvianne Shurman, Shannon Pine, Elizabeth Lowenhaupt. "Adverse Psychiatric and Health Impacts of Restrictive Housing for Adolescents in Juvenile Correctional Settings." Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry 61, no. 1 (2022): 23-25. doi:10.1016/j.jaac.2021.04.015. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0890856721002963.

(10) Valentine, Colby L., Emily Restivo, and Kathy Wright. 05/19/2019. "Prolonged Isolation as a Predictor of Mental Health for Waived Juveniles." Journal of Offender Rehabilitation 58 (4): 352-369. doi:10.1080/10509674.2019.1596188.

(11)