RELATING TO STATE AFFAIRS AND GOVERNMENT -- RESTRICTIVE CONFINEMENT, OVERSIGHT ACT
S2977 creates a new chapter in Rhode Island law called the Restrictive Confinement Oversight Act. The bill sets minimum standards for prisoners placed in disciplinary confinement and defines key terms related to restrictive housing, including “basic necessities,” “cell,” “general population,” and categories of vulnerable populations such as people with serious mental illness, developmental disabilities, pregnancy-related conditions, sensory impairments, and serious medical conditions. It requires that prisoners in disciplinary confinement receive specified daily out-of-cell time, with more time required after 15 days, and bars denial of basic necessities.
The bill also establishes a restrictive housing oversight committee within the Public Safety Grant Administration Office to monitor restrictive housing at the Department of Corrections. The committee would include members appointed by legislative leaders, the public defender, and the DOC director, and it would appoint and supervise a restrictive housing ombudsperson. The ombudsperson would investigate complaints, inspect facilities, review compliance, and report findings, while keeping prisoner communications confidential except for non-identifying general findings and policy recommendations. The act takes effect July 25, 2026.
This bill would add a new oversight and reporting framework to Title 42 governing the Department of Corrections. It would impose statutory minimum out-of-cell time requirements for disciplinary confinement, require annual public reporting on restrictive housing populations and conditions, and create a private right to seek declaratory judgment in Superior Court for alleged violations of the chapter. It would also authorize the oversight committee to require additional reporting and would require annual appropriations for the ombudsperson and committee expenses.
No committee transcript or vote record was provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate or recorded support/opposition. Based on the bill’s structure, the measure appears oriented toward reform and transparency in correctional confinement practices, with a strong emphasis on prisoner welfare, oversight, and accountability. The inclusion of bipartisan-style institutional actors such as the public defender and DOC director suggests an effort to balance advocacy and agency input.
The likely points of contention are the bill’s restrictions on correctional discretion and the creation of an external oversight body with access to facilities and records. Potential supporters would include criminal justice reform advocates, prisoner-rights organizations, mental health advocates, and civil liberties groups, while likely critics would include correctional administrators and those concerned about staffing, security, operational burden, and costs. The requirement for public reporting, confidential prisoner complaints, and judicial enforcement may also raise concerns about administrative complexity and institutional autonomy.