Establishes the restrictive housing oversight committee ("committee") for the purpose of monitoring the use of restrictive housing ("solitary confinement"), as well as disciplinary and administrative confinement at the department of corrections.
H5927 would create a new chapter in Rhode Island law called the Restrictive Confinement Oversight Act. The bill sets standards for restrictive housing and disciplinary confinement in Department of Corrections facilities, including minimum daily out-of-cell time, access to basic necessities, and limits on how long prisoners can be denied those necessities after a housing transfer. It also defines key terms such as “cell,” “disciplinary confinement,” “general population,” and “vulnerable population,” with special attention to people with serious mental illness, developmental disabilities, pregnancy-related conditions, sensory impairments, or serious medical conditions.
The bill also establishes a restrictive housing oversight committee within the Public Safety Grant Administration Office to monitor restrictive housing practices. That committee would appoint and supervise a restrictive housing ombudsperson, hold quarterly meetings and semiannual public hearings, conduct unannounced biannual inspections, and report findings to the governor and corrections director. The ombudsperson would investigate complaints, review compliance, and communicate confidentially with incarcerated people. The bill further creates a private right to seek declaratory judgment in Superior Court when the Department of Corrections allegedly violates the chapter or related rights.
In addition to operational standards, the bill requires the Department of Corrections to publish an annual public report with data on restrictive housing use, including the number of prisoners affected, the reasons for placement, length of confinement, demographic information, vulnerable-population counts, and average out-of-cell time. It also amends the state Administrative Procedures Act to clarify that people in DOC custody are considered members of the public for rulemaking purposes, subject to security-related exceptions. The act would take effect on July 25, 2025.
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill’s structure is strongly reform-oriented and oversight-focused, emphasizing transparency, humane treatment, and external accountability in correctional confinement practices. Although there are no recorded committee transcripts or votes in the provided material, the bill’s sponsors and caption suggest support from lawmakers concerned with prison conditions and solitary confinement reform. The inclusion of a committee member with lived experience, civil rights and social work representation, and public reporting requirements indicates an intent to broaden scrutiny of DOC practices.
The main points of potential contention are likely to involve correctional administration, staffing, security, and the practical limits of restricting confinement conditions. The bill’s minimum out-of-cell requirements, limits on denial of necessities, confidential access for an ombudsperson, and expanded reporting obligations could be viewed by the Department of Corrections or public safety advocates as burdensome or difficult to implement. At the same time, advocates for incarcerated people, mental health professionals, and civil liberties groups would likely support the bill’s protections for vulnerable populations and its stronger oversight mechanisms.
The bill would add a new chapter to Title 42 governing restrictive housing in Rhode Island correctional facilities and would impose enforceable standards on the Department of Corrections regarding out-of-cell time, access to necessities, reporting, and treatment of vulnerable prisoners. It would also create a new oversight committee and ombudsperson structure within the public safety grant administration office, and it would amend the Administrative Procedures Act to treat incarcerated people as members of the public for purposes of agency rulemaking access, with security exceptions. The measure would create new reporting duties, inspection authority, confidentiality rules, and a declaratory judgment remedy for prisoners alleging violations.
The bill appears to have a reform-minded, oversight-heavy orientation, with its text emphasizing transparency, accountability, and protections for incarcerated people. Because there are no recorded votes or committee transcripts in the provided material, there is no direct evidence of floor or committee sentiment; however, the sponsorship and caption suggest support from legislators concerned about solitary confinement and prison conditions. The structure of the bill indicates likely support from criminal justice reform, civil rights, and mental health advocates, and likely caution or resistance from corrections officials focused on security and operational flexibility.
Likely points of contention include whether the mandated out-of-cell time and limits on restrictive housing are workable in facilities with staffing shortages or security emergencies, and whether the bill could constrain DOC discretion in managing violent or disruptive prisoners. The requirement for public reporting on race, ethnicity, religion, and vulnerable-population status may raise privacy or administrative concerns, even though the bill includes confidentiality protections for individual communications with the ombudsperson. Another likely dispute is the scope of the ombudsperson’s access to records and facilities, and whether the new declaratory judgment remedy could increase litigation against the department. Supporters would likely emphasize humane treatment, mental health protections, and transparency, while opponents would likely focus on security, cost, and implementation burdens.