Juvenile Law - Confinement and Restrictive Housing - Limitations
HB 921 limits when minors confined in facilities operated by the Department of Juvenile Services may be placed in restrictive housing, often referred to as juvenile isolation or segregation. The bill prohibits placing a minor in restrictive housing solely for discipline, punishment, administrative convenience, retaliation, or staffing shortages. It allows restrictive housing only as a temporary measure when there is clear and convincing evidence of an immediate and substantial risk of physical harm or facility security, and only when no less restrictive alternative is available.
The bill also requires several safeguards when restrictive housing is used. These include prompt notice to the minor, a mental health screening within one hour, provision of needed mental health services, a six-hour maximum placement period, and a plan to return the minor to general population as soon as possible. If the minor remains in a special setting after that period, the Department must either return the minor, transfer the minor for medical care, or provide individualized programming with supervision, education, behavioral planning, and daily progress review. The bill further allows restrictive housing at the minor’s request, with the ability to revoke that request at any time.
In addition, HB 921 amends regulations governing residential facilities operated by the Department of Human Services. It tightens rules on locked door seclusion and restraints by limiting their use to situations involving immediate and substantial risk of physical harm or imminent escape, requiring that less restrictive measures be exhausted first, and mandating trauma-informed, time-limited procedures with frequent checks, medical and behavioral assessments, access to basic needs, and a debriefing afterward. It also clarifies that these practices may not be used as punishment, for convenience, as a staffing substitute, or in retaliation.
The bill’s impact is to narrow state-authorized uses of isolation and seclusion for children in juvenile and residential care settings and to impose more detailed procedural and health-related protections. It affects the Department of Juvenile Services and the Department of Human Services by requiring policy and regulatory changes, and it creates enforceable standards for facility staff regarding when restrictive housing may be used and what services must continue during such placements.
The overall sentiment appears favorable, as reflected by the committee report and the House’s adoption of the bill, along with strong floor passage by a 100-30 vote. The main points of contention are likely the bill’s restrictions on facility discretion and the operational burden of complying with short time limits, assessment requirements, and enhanced programming obligations. Supporters appear to favor stronger child welfare and anti-abuse protections, while any opposition likely centers on safety, staffing, and facility management concerns.
HB 921 adds a new section to the Correctional Services Article governing restrictive housing for minors in Department of Juvenile Services facilities and amends the Human Services Article to strengthen rules on locked door seclusion and restraints in residential facilities operated by the Department of Human Services. It changes state law by limiting when isolation-like practices may be used, requiring mental health and medical safeguards, and mandating documentation, access to services, and individualized programming. The bill directly affects incarcerated minors, children in residential care, and the state agencies that operate or regulate those facilities.
The bill appears to have broad support in the House, as indicated by a favorable committee report, adoption of the committee amendments, and passage on third reading by a 100-30 vote. The available record does not include committee debate, but the vote suggests a generally positive view of the bill’s child-protection focus. Any resistance likely came from concerns about restricting facility staff’s ability to respond to safety and behavioral issues in secure settings.
The likely points of contention are the bill’s strict limits on when restrictive housing, seclusion, and restraints can be used, especially the prohibition on using them for punishment, convenience, retaliation, or staffing shortages. Facility operators and some lawmakers may have concerns about whether the bill leaves enough flexibility to manage immediate safety threats, escape risks, and staffing constraints. Supporters, by contrast, are likely focused on preventing abuse, reducing harmful isolation practices, and ensuring access to mental health care, education, and basic necessities for confined minors.