Establishes standardized procedures for visiting incarcerated individuals in state and local correctional facilities

◆ The sponsor's argument

Why Julia Salazar says this is needed

Visiting is a lifeline for incarcerated people and their families and is one of the only means of maintaining strong family and community ties. Numerous studies have shown that frequent visits produce significant positive outcomes. For children, regular in-person visits with an incar- cerated parent supports a child's adjustment to their parents' incarcer- ation and helps to mitigate negative outcomes. Visits are also critical to the mental health of incarcerated individuals, reducing symptoms of depression and improving overall well-being. In addition, visiting strengthens family bonds, increases the likelihood of reunification, reduces recidivism, improves institutional adjustment, and encourages participation in rehabilitative programming, all of which contribute to a safer and more positive correctional environment. Expanding opportu- nities for regular in-person visiting is a best practice that benefits incarcerated people, their loved ones, correctional staff, and public safety alike. Unfortunately, visits are often treated as a privilege rather than a right. County jails in New York State (NYS) often have limited visiting hours and few, if any, provisions for children or visitors with any vulnerabilities. County jails typically only allow for an incarcerated person to receive a total of two hours of visiting each week, though the majority of people in jails have not been convicted of a crime, these limited visiting hours disrupt their relationships with their children and family. It is rare that a prison or jail has an administrator over- see visiting, collect and report data on visiting, monitor quality and treatment of visitors, and respond to visitors' questions and concerns. The lack of attention and oversight regarding visiting means that visit- ing a New York correctional facility or forensic facility is often stressful, confusing, and too commonly traumatic. Since the unauthorized work stoppage by Correction Officers in February 2025, visiting in NYS prisons has been in crisis. For over a month, DOCCS suspended visiting at all 41 NYS prisons, resuming weekend visit- ing on March 22nd, 2025. More than a year later, visiting remains significantly limited as seven day a week visits at maximum security prisons and holiday visits remain closed. Starting April 29th, 2026, DOCCS restored one weekday visit at all maximum security prisons, while holiday visits remained suspended at all NYS prisons. On May 18th, 2026, Clinton correctional facility became the only maximum security prison (out of 13) to return to seven day a week visits. Visitors to NYS prisons frequently endure long lines, severe overcrowd- ing, and shortened visits due to space constraints. In addition to reduced visiting hours, the introduction of body scanners-rolled out shortly after the strike at the request of striking officers-has created another unnecessary barrier to visiting. Visitors must now pass through body scanners in addition to metal detectors, handheld wands, and, in many cases, canine searches. These practices have resulted in visitors being mistreated, harassed, and denied access to their loved ones based on inconclusive "anomalies" or mere suspicions of contraband rather than physical evidence. In many cases, denials are not limited to a single day, but instead result in lengthy suspensions of 30 days, 90 days, six months, or even indefinitely. Revoking visiting rights based on one inconclusive scan is unjust and unnecessarily punitive. Body scanners have resulted in more than 2,500 visitors being denied visits over a ten-month period. Yet DOCCS' own Body Imaging Report (1), covering July 2024 through June 2025, found no instances involving drugs or suspected drugs connected to body scanner use on visitors, and only two instances involving recovered weapons. The report does not distin- guish whether those weapons were found on staff or visitors, nor does it define what qualifies as a "weapon." In addition to the high number of denied vi

This is the sponsor's own case for the bill, quoted from their memorandum. It is not Agora's description of what the bill does.