The Second Chance Coding Act
Senate Bill 353, titled the Second Chance Coding Act, would direct the North Carolina Division of Juvenile Justice to create a program for delinquent juveniles committed to youth development centers that teaches coding, programming, and other computer-related skills. The stated purpose is to help participating youth build job-ready skills, improve financial stability after release, and reduce recidivism. The program must include specialized instruction, opportunities to earn industry-recognized certifications, and access to mentors, internships, and job placement support.
The bill also requires the Division to implement the program by January 1, 2026, and to report its progress to legislative oversight and fiscal committees by October 1, 2025. To support development and implementation, the bill appropriates $250,000 in recurring General Fund money for fiscal year 2025-2026, with that funding becoming effective July 1, 2025. In practical terms, the bill would create a new state-funded juvenile rehabilitation and workforce-training initiative within the Department of Public Safety.
The bill would add a new mandate for the Division of Juvenile Justice to design and operate a technology-skills program for juveniles in youth development centers, expanding the agency’s rehabilitation responsibilities beyond traditional education and treatment services. It would also create a recurring state appropriation of $250,000 to support the program, affecting the General Fund and requiring implementation planning, contracting, and reporting to legislative oversight bodies. The measure primarily affects delinquent juveniles in state custody, the Division of Juvenile Justice, and any partner organizations involved in instruction, certification, mentoring, or job placement.
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee debate or votes in the provided materials, the overall sentiment appears supportive and reform-oriented. The bill is framed as a second-chance workforce development effort aimed at rehabilitation, reentry, and reducing recidivism, which suggests a positive policy approach toward juvenile justice. No contrary positions are documented in the available context.
No specific points of contention are reflected in the provided committee transcripts or voting history, because none were included. Potential areas of debate, if raised, would likely involve the adequacy of the $250,000 recurring appropriation, whether the Division has the capacity to implement the program by the deadline, and whether coding and certification training is the best use of juvenile justice resources compared with other educational or treatment services. However, those concerns are not documented in the supplied materials.