A BILL to amend and reenact § 53.1-39.2 of the Code of Virginia, relating to restorative housing and isolated confinement; restrictions on use.
HB35 amends Virginia Code § 53.1-39.2, which governs the use of restorative housing and isolated confinement in correctional facilities. The bill adds and clarifies definitions used in the section, including “isolated confinement,” “lockdown,” “medical evaluation,” “mental health evaluation,” “medical practitioner,” “mental health professional,” and “out-of-cell programmatic interventions.” These definitions are intended to standardize how correctional facilities classify restrictive housing and the types of services or programming that may occur outside a cell.
The bill’s overall effect is to tighten and clarify the legal framework for when and how incarcerated people may be placed in restrictive housing settings, and how those placements are measured. By defining isolated confinement as 17 or more hours per day in a cell and lockdown as 20 or more hours per day for an entire pod, housing unit, or facility, the bill provides more precise statutory thresholds for correctional administrators and oversight bodies. It also ties placement and treatment decisions more closely to medical and mental health evaluations conducted by qualified professionals.
HB35 would directly amend § 53.1-39.2 of the Code of Virginia, affecting the rules that govern restorative housing and isolated confinement in state correctional facilities. The bill would influence how prison administrators classify restrictive housing, document confinement conditions, and determine when medical or mental health evaluations are required. Its practical impact would fall on the Department of Corrections, facility administrators, incarcerated individuals, and the medical and mental health professionals involved in evaluating placement and treatment decisions.
The available legislative history suggests strong committee support and little visible opposition. The bill was continued to the next session in the Rehabilitation and Social Services Committee by a unanimous 15-0 vote, which indicates broad agreement with the need to clarify and regulate restrictive housing practices. No committee transcript excerpts or recorded floor debate were provided, so the public record here shows consensus rather than controversy.
No specific points of contention are documented in the provided materials. Based on the bill text, any disagreement would likely center on the operational burden for correctional facilities, the practical meaning of the new confinement thresholds, and the extent to which the definitions constrain administrators’ discretion in managing safety, discipline, and programming. However, the available vote and absence of recorded debate suggest these issues were not strongly contested in the committee stage.