House Health Care begins review of proposed forensic facility bill; counsel outlines scope, clinical standards and judicial oversight

Legislative Counsel Katie Mlan told the House Health Care committee the current draft of a forensic facility bill would authorize the Department of Corrections to run secure, court-ordered placements for people found not competent to stand trial or adjudicated not guilty by reason of insanity. The draft narrows eligibility relative to some prior proposals, tying placement primarily to people charged with serious crimes who meet defined legal criteria.

Mlan said the facility would be designed to provide secure evaluation, competency restoration, and trauma-informed therapeutic services while maintaining appropriate safety and security. The draft requires the Commissioner of Corrections to operate the facility and provides that the facility may not refuse court-ordered admissions. It leaves open operational options including separate units, multiple facilities, or a standalone site depending on legislative choices and rulemaking outcomes.

The bill includes several clinically focused provisions that the committee was asked to review: a judicially overseen standard for involuntary medication during competency restoration drawn from Supreme Court case law (the medication must be medically appropriate, substantially likely to render the defendant competent, and less intrusive alternatives must be unlikely to achieve the same result); requirements for timely, person-specific treatment plans (initial plan within 72 hours of transfer); 24/7 availability of a registered nurse or physician; staff qualification and training standards; and mechanisms for clinical oversight, documentation, quality assurance and monitoring.

The draft also requires an annual report on the forensic facility describing the number of persons served and the clinical services provided. The bill empowers rulemaking to specify staffing patterns and ratios, safety and risk protocols, victim-notification procedures (what events will trigger notice and how victims may opt in or out), and whether forensic facility services should be operated in units separated from the general correctional population.

Mlan said the bill would require an interim report by Oct. 1 that includes draft rules, proposed facility location(s), space and design considerations, staffing and qualification estimates, potential contracting needs, preliminary cost estimates, and a timeline for fit-up and initial operations. Committee members asked about judicial oversight, custody duration and mixing of populations (for example, people with substance use disorder, traumatic brain injury, or dementia). Mlan said those questions are part of ongoing deliberations across committees and that court orders and periodic judicial review remain central to the legal framework.

Why it matters: The proposal moves the state toward creating secure capacity for justice-involved individuals with clinical conditions who are not appropriate for hospitalization but may require supervised, treatment-oriented custody. The committee must balance clinical care standards, public safety, judicial protections, vendor and staffing capacity, facility design and victim-notification responsibilities.

Next steps: The committee paused to await further witnesses (including staff from the Department of Mental Health and Department of Corrections) and requested more detailed testimony and rule drafts ahead of the October report deadline.