Senate Health & Welfare reviews amendment to create secure forensic facility

The Senate Health & Welfare Committee on March 17 examined an amendment to the miscellaneous judiciary bill (S.193) that would require the commissioner of corrections to establish and operate a locked, secure forensic facility to provide evaluation, treatment and competency restoration services for persons transferred under state statutes.

Legislative counsel Katie McGlen, who introduced the amendment language, said the change replaces an existing subsection and lays out design, staffing and clinical expectations for such a facility. She told the committee the draft “strikes out the subsection b… and puts in this new subsection b” to define a facility with a separate entry and dedicated staff and that it is to be “designed and operated in a manner that supports a therapeutic recovery oriented and trauma informed environment.”

The amendment would also add an interim report due Oct. 1 requiring draft rules, a facility timeline, space and staffing considerations and preliminary cost estimates. An annual report would follow each Jan. 15 describing the number of people served and the types of clinical services. The draft replaces an emergency-rule provision with a requirement that the commissioner, in consultation with the Departments of Mental Health and of AHS, adopt ordinary rules to implement staffing, training, supervision, quality-assurance, documentation and safety standards. The amendment phases effective dates for different sections, with some provisions slated for July 1, 2026, most forensic-facility language taking effect Jan. 1, 2028, and a remaining subsection on July 1, 2029.

The Department of Mental Health raised objections. “This is not our language, and we do not support this language. We feel like it is putting the cart before the horse,” said Barbara, general counsel for the Department of Mental Health, arguing that the agencies need flexibility to determine where and how services are provided and noting the small expected caseload: “We're also talking about 3 to 5 people a year.”

Other senators questioned what “separate and apart” means in practice — whether the requirement mandates a wholly separate building or could be met by a distinct unit with separate entryways and staff on a corrections campus. One member asked, “Can that just be a wall in the same building?” McGlen and others said the language was intended to prevent mixing populations but acknowledged that design details and feasibility would be clarified during rulemaking and in the interim report.

Committee members pressed for operational detail: the amendment calls for a clinical services director, staff qualifications and a requirement that a person-specific treatment plan be developed “within 72 hours following transfer,” to be reviewed periodically as clinically indicated; several members suggested qualifying that as an “initial” plan to reflect that fuller plans will follow after clinical assessment.

Supporters framed the amendment as closing a current gap in care for people the courts identify as needing secure treatment but not otherwise served: as Barbara noted in explaining placement decisions, the court sometimes finds “there's no less restrictive option to preserve public safety,” which has left certain individuals without an appropriate treatment pathway.

The committee agreed to continue work on the amendment. Counsel said she would circulate revised language and acknowledged that the Institutions Committee will weigh in on physical-facility planning. The interim-report date (Oct. 1) and the annual-report requirement (Jan. 15) remain in the draft and will provide the committee with further detail before implementation.

The committee did not take a formal vote during the session; members scheduled follow-up review and coordination with other committees on facility design and rule language.