Senate committee hears extensive testimony on bill to clarify restraint, seclusion and out-of-state placement rules for children in care

The Senate Human Services Committee held a public hearing March 27 on Senate Bill 1113, a sweeping measure that would reorganize and clarify Oregon law about the use of restraint and involuntary seclusion in public education programs and regulated care settings, tighten rules around nonmedical secure transport, and preserve reporting and oversight requirements for out-of-state placements of children in state custody.

Committee staff described SB 1113 as "an alternative" to House Bill 3,835 and said it addresses many of the same concerns while preserving statutory protections. Staff summarized main components: (1) revised definitions and policy about restraint and seclusion used in schools and care settings, with clarifying language about what does not constitute a restraint; (2) a focus on secure nonmedical transport (companies that move children outside medical contexts) and explicit exclusions for medical and hospital transports; (3) changes to training and certification requirements for staff who apply restraints; (4) adjustments to civil penalties, retaining penalties for repeated use of restraint by untrained staff and increasing the maximum civil penalty cap from $500 to $1,500; and (5) preservation and tightening of reporting, licensing and oversight requirements for placements out of state.

"This bill modifies the process for the Oregon Department of Human Services to investigate and impose penalties on reports of abuse and neglect," staff told the committee. Staff said several sections originally in an earlier draft were removed to reduce confusion, including a section tied to psychiatric residential treatment facility (PRTF) rules and another that created ambiguity about whether prohibited restraints would carry licensing consequences. The amended bill explicitly clarifies that the use of a prohibited restraint can be a licensing violation subject to department action, and it narrows the scope of who may be investigated for abuse of a child in care to persons who have access to the child because of the child's placement in a regulated setting.

Committee members heard extensive testimony from disability advocates, parents and providers. Students and parents described traumatic personal experiences in which school staff restrained or secluded children for nonemergency reasons; testimony urged that restraint and seclusion be limited to imminent risk of severe bodily harm and that training and staffing investments be made to avoid coercive practices. For example, Gabriel Lincoln, who identified himself as a high school junior with developmental disabilities, told the committee he had been restrained and secluded hundreds of times and described being placed in a small seclusion space. He said that in a later day-treatment program, "staff never put their hands on me, not once," and testified that strong law and training are necessary to prevent similar harm.

Advocates and disability-rights organizations including The Arc Oregon and Disability Rights Oregon testified in support of SB 1113 as a more responsible alternative to HB 3,835. They said the bill preserves the ability to investigate and sanction abusive practices while providing clearer definitions and protecting youth who lack capacity to report abuse. Ben Gurewitz of Disability Rights Oregon told the committee that HB 3,835 "strips away critical safety protections for youth" and that SB 1113 "addresses most of the concerns" without removing oversight.

At the same time, providers of high-acuity psychiatric services urged caution. Steve Chin, chief operating officer for Trillium Family Services, testified in opposition, saying the bill as drafted risks eliminating tools needed in high-acuity settings and could reduce the state's ability to serve youth requiring secure inpatient levels of care. Chin said removing section 10 in the current print appeared to remove the existing mechanism that allows physician-supervised monitored supine interventions at the highest acuity level; he warned that eliminating those options could force acute youth into emergency rooms or the juvenile justice system and expose staff to repeated assaults.

A central contrast between SB 1113 and HB 3,835 highlighted in testimony involves out-of-state placements. Witnesses recalled Oregon's experience in 2019 when many children were placed out of state and described a lack of oversight that led to injuries and documented abuse. Testimony cited the U.S. Senate Committee on Finance report "Warehouses of Neglect," which found systemic problems at some residential treatment facilities. Staff said SB 1113 preserves statutory requirements that out-of-state placements be licensed and subject to contract reporting and oversight; by contrast, they said the House bill would have allowed ODHS to rely more on rulemaking and nonpublic advisory review rather than a publicly updated website and statutory contract requirements.

Committee staff also said SB 1113 contains language clarifying what does not constitute a restraint (for example, brief physical guidance, escorting by temporarily holding a student's hand or wrist, or lifting a child briefly to remove them from immediate danger), and it retains statutory prohibitions on mechanical restraints, neck restraints, supine and prone restraints and similar methods that many advocates identified as inherently dangerous. The bill narrows the set of people subject to investigation for abuse to those who have access to the child because of the child's placement in a regulated setting and explicitly preserves the rule that sexual contact between an adult caregiver and a youth in care constitutes abuse, including for youth aged 18 and older in care settings.

On civil penalties, staff said the bill removes many newly proposed penalties except for a repeated imposition of restraint by untrained staff; the statute's maximum civil-penalty cap is raised from $500 to $1,500.

Committee members said the sponsors are continuing to work with House members and stakeholders to reconcile differences with HB 3,835. Several witnesses invited committee members to additional convenings and training events. No committee vote on SB 1113 was recorded in the March 27 hearing; the committee closed the public hearing after hearing testimony and signaled further amendment work and cross-chamber coordination would follow.

The hearing illustrated the tensions in policymaking: advocates pressed for clear statutory protections and public reporting; providers warned that overly prescriptive rules for dynamic crisis settings could have unintended consequences; and the committee sought text that preserves oversight while clarifying definitions and reducing confusing cross-references in decades-old statute.