Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
Panel mulls language to bar Department of Corrections from operating forensic facility
Loading...
Summary
Legislative counsel presented draft intent language that would bar the Department of Corrections from operating or staffing a forensic facility, while allowing DOC employees to provide perimeter security if a facility is co‑located on correctional grounds; members debated custody, dual‑jurisdiction options and next steps for a bill expected soon.
Legislative council staff presented draft language to the Corrections & Institutions Committee that would make clear the legislature’s intent that the Department of Corrections (DOC) not operate or staff a forensic facility. "It is the intent of the general assembly that the Department of Corrections shall not operate or staff a forensic facility, with the exception that employees of the Department of Corrections may provide security around the outside perimeter of a forensic facility if it is collocated on the grounds of a correctional facility," Katie, legislative council staff, told the committee.
The draft also breaks the required feasibility plan into subsections and asks for detailed staffing proposals, staff qualifications, potential contracting needs and the clinical services necessary for competency restoration programming. The draft adds a security planning subsection and a reporting requirement: the secretary of human services or a designee must provide an interim status update at the August 2026 meeting of the joint legislative justice oversight committee on the feasibility plan.
Committee members pressed whether transferring custody to the secretary of human services would actually prevent a subsequent handoff to DOC. Several members said they want statutory text that would forbid sole custody by DOC or would specify dual custody arrangements in certain cases. "None of the residents of the forensic facility shall be in the sole custody of DOC," Katie suggested as language the committee could add to a subsection.
Members also discussed operational definitions and licensing language: the draft uses the term "therapeutic community residence," a specific license type cited by legislative counsel, and the committee debated word choice ("individuals" versus "persons") to keep the bill consistent with other committee drafts.
The committee agreed to wait for the bill text expected from House Judiciary and other committees next week and to coordinate across chairs before taking further drafting votes. Members scheduled additional testimony and outreach once the consolidated draft arrives.
The committee did not take a formal vote on the proposal at the meeting; staff said they expect a bill to be transferred to this committee the following Tuesday and that members would seek more detail and witnesses before making final decisions.
