House committee reviews H.550 draft 3.1, narrows search and nondiscrimination language and sets reporting timeline

The House Corrections and Institutions Committee on March 12 conducted a line-by-line review of draft 3.1 of H.550, the bill that would set how the Department of Corrections treats transgender, gender-diverse and intersex individuals in intake, searches, housing, and programming.

Hillary Cheddar Ames of the Office of Legislative Counsel told the committee that version 3.1 shows internal edits in yellow and reflects some changes suggested after this morning’s testimony: "This version shows in yellow highlights internal edits from version 2.1," she said, and proposed first reviewing the new edits and then proceeding with a detailed line-by-line pass.

The draft narrows the non-discrimination and search provisions and adds several procedural safeguards. The bill, as revised in committee discussion, would make explicit that the department’s decision not to accommodate an individual’s search, classification, housing, or programming placement request "shall not be based on the anatomy, including the genitalia or other physical characteristics or diverse gender expression of the individual." Committee counsel explained the text is consolidated into a single subdivision to avoid overbroad or duplicative language.

On searches, the draft includes a clear prohibition on searching or physically examining any individual "for the sole purpose of determining the individual's genital status," an edit the counsel said was tied to federal standards. Committee members agreed the bill should avoid prescribing routine medical examinations while preserving the prohibition on searches that are performed solely to ascertain genital status.

The housing and placement provisions were revised to emphasize individualized review. Draft language requires the department to give "serious consideration" to an inmate’s placement request and authorizes DOC to decline accommodation only if it "would pose an unreasonable risk to safety or security, the inmate’s health and safety, or the safety and security of other inmates or staff." The draft also would require the department to document in writing specific reasons when it refuses to accommodate a request.

Committee members retained language directing classification and housing decisions to the department’s existing multidisciplinary review panels and adding an explicit consultation requirement with medical and mental-health professionals who have experience in gender dysphoria or gender-affirming care.

On training, the draft originally required staff, contractors and volunteers to receive gender-responsive training "proportional to their level of interaction with inmates." Members questioned whether DOC provides comparable training now to volunteers; after discussion they agreed to remove volunteers from the mandatory-training clause and to require proportional training for staff and contractors instead.

Jennifer Scraky, Constituent Services Unit director for the Department of Corrections, told the committee that timing for the federal survey and the department’s annual data varies because the Bureau of Justice Statistics and the Census Bureau control the release schedule. "We typically get it — this year we got it in January; we've gotten it in March and in May," she said, and supported drafting the statute to require DOC to submit the same information that it reports to federal authorities. Committee counsel said the bill will direct the commissioner, beginning in 2027, to "annually submit" to the House Corrections and Institutions Committee and the Senate Committee on Institutions the information DOC provides to federal authorities pursuant to PREA standards.

Several lawmakers asked clarifying questions about intake procedure and voluntariness of gender-identity questions. Counsel emphasized that the intake questions are voluntary and that subdivision two of the section is written so an individual "shall not be disciplined for refusing to answer or giving incomplete information" when asked the intake questions at any time.

Next steps: committee members agreed to continue the detailed line-by-line review of searches, classification, housing and related PREA reporting items later the same day after floor business. The committee also added a placeholder directing a joint legislative oversight committee to review gender-affirming care practices and recommend statutory language, with members signaling a preference for an earlier reporting deadline than the draft’s December target.

The committee did not take any formal roll-call votes on H.550 during this session; the committee scheduled further line-by-line work before finalizing the draft for floor action.