Bill to limit juvenile "corrective room restriction" advances after robust testimony; proponents call for mental-health check-ins, detention officials warn of ‑

Carson City — Assembly Bill 167, presented March 12 by Assemblywoman Alexis Hansen (Assembly District 32) with youth legislator Satara Reganti as a co-presenter, would add mental-health safeguards to Nevada’s use of corrective room restriction in juvenile facilities. The committee heard more than a dozen witnesses in support, opposition and neutral positions.

Satara Reganti described the amended bill’s core protections: any juvenile placed in a corrective-room restriction must be seen by a licensed mental-health professional within 48 hours, the provider must document observations and recommendations in writing, and the written recommendation should explain whether the juvenile can remain in room confinement or should be moved to a less-restrictive setting and be shared with the juvenile’s guardian when applicable. "This amendment doesn't remove the tool of room confinement. It just makes sure that during those moments, kids aren't left alone in the dark," Reganti told the committee.

Proponents — including the Nevada Psychiatric Association, Return Strong, juvenile-justice advocates and student witnesses — urged limits and added oversight. Sabrina Schnur of the Nevada Psychiatric Association read an excerpt of national medical guidance: "The potential psychiatric consequences of prolonged solitary confinement are well recognized and include depression, anxiety, and psychosis," she said, and added that "any youth that is confined for more than 24 hours must be evaluated by a mental health professional, such as a child and adolescent psychiatrist, when one is available." Advocates said that the majority of harms from isolation are avoidable with time limits and mental-health services.

Supporters also included teen mental-health advocates, legal-service alliances and child-advocacy groups. Return Strong described the measure as "a measured approach" and urged strict rules around youth isolation.

Detention staff and county juvenile-justice leaders testified in opposition or raised operational concerns. Elizabeth Flores, director of the Washoe County Department of Juvenile Services, told the committee that when used appropriately, corrective room restriction "helps reduce the use of force and prevents violent situations from escalating," and that staff already conduct frequent contact and safety checks. Flores said many facilities lack on-staff clinicians and rely on contractors; a 48-hour mandate for licensed clinicians "simply isn't feasible" in many counties and could create a significant fiscal impact.

Several rural-county juvenile-probation chiefs described similar constraints. Carson City Chief Juvenile Probation Officer Ally Bannister and Elko County Chief Juvenile Probation Officer Heather Plager said rural jurisdictions have limited access to licensed mental-health professionals, particularly after hours and on weekends, and that existing statute and facility practices include frequent monitoring and staff training. Brandon Bird (Churchill County) and Tammy Morris (Douglas County) described reliance on contracted clinicians and gaps in after-hours availability.

Clark County officials proposed narrower language. Jeff Rogan, representing Clark County, asked that mandated clinical review apply to youth held in corrective room restriction for 24 hours or more and suggested allowing supervised postgraduate clinicians (those completing licensure requirements) to perform evaluations. Clark County also expressed concern about a mental-health professional making the operational decision to keep a youth in restrictive status, saying that security and behavioral concerns must factor into that decision.

Neutral testimony from Children’s Advocacy Alliance commended reductions in allowable time and added oversight but suggested stronger language modeled after Arizona standards to further limit isolation and require exhaustion of alternatives prior to confinement.

Committee members asked detailed questions. Members sought clarification about whether the 48‑hour requirement was intended to address the cause of placement or continued confinement; Reganti and the sponsor said the aim is to ensure mental-health needs are assessed and documented for juveniles who remain in restrictive settings. Members also noted data provided by the sponsor showing most confinements last 2 hours or less and asked how the policy would affect those cases; presenters and supporters said the amendment was targeted at longer confinements and that local practice differences — including rural clinician availability — must be addressed in drafting.

No committee vote was taken during the hearing. The sponsor and youth legislator told the committee they would work with county officials and Clark County staff to refine language, consider a 24‑hour trigger and address use of postgraduate clinicians. Chair Miller closed the hearing with the record left open for written comments.

If enacted, AB 167 would amend Nevada corrections practice for juveniles by requiring a mental-health check-in and written recommendation when juveniles are held for prolonged corrective room restriction; opponents asked the committee to account for workforce and fiscal constraints and to preserve operational decision-making by detention staff.