Visitation and contact with family is a vital part of rehabilitation for inmates. I am writing in support of the two bills that make visitation a more accessible, and easier, process for family. I also believe that restricting visitation as a punitive measure is uncalled for. My husband and I are currently experiencing this, DOC removed his visitation for a year (without any institutional charges) because he spoke to a fellow inmate in the background of a video visit. In addition, I would be travelling over 3000 miles to visit in person and the facility would allow me to visit for just three hours. The three hours in an exception to the standard two, but there is no reasonable reason to make visitation so difficult for family and friends. I understand changes were introduced during covid, but we are no longer dealing with a pandemic, so why have these changes remained? Please consider passing these bills and allowing inmates and family to benefit from easier access to visitation.

Dear Members of the General Assembly, I write in strong support of HB173, HB296, and HB1246 based on my lived experience and years of witnessing how powerful visitation can be when it is treated with humanity and consistency. Family connection stabilizes incarcerated individuals, improves behavior, and gives people hope. Visitation is not a luxury; it is a critical part of rehabilitation. Unfortunately, current practices often work against that purpose. On December 6, 2025, my visit at Buckingham Correctional Center was denied, along with three other women, because our jeans were said to be “too tight,” even though visitors wearing nearly identical clothing had been allowed in earlier that same day. One woman had driven nearly six hours and was still denied an in-person visit. This type of inconsistent enforcement discourages families and erodes trust. I have also had a visit stopped because of a one-inch crack in my car window during the middle of summer, in nearly 90-degree heat. Instead of focusing on safety or reasonable solutions, the visit was terminated. Experiences like this make families feel punished rather than supported. What hurts most is that I remember when visitation brought real family unity. I grew up visiting my father during times when DOC hosted family days. We could go out on the yard, eat hamburgers and hotdogs, play cards, and run around in the field. Those moments mattered. They created connection, motivation, and hope. I looked forward to those visits because they felt human. Now, visits feel stripped of that purpose. There is no movement, no access to nourishment, and even using the bathroom can risk ending a visit. Families are expected to sit for hours without basic accommodations. Where is the family unity in that? HB173, HB296, and HB1246 move Virginia toward fairness, consistency, and dignity. They recognize that families are not a threat to safety, but a vital part of rehabilitation. I respectfully urge you to support all three bills. Their passage would help restore trust, humanity, and the true rehabilitative power of family connection in Virginia’s correctional system.

I began visiting Greensville Correctional Center in 2016 and required the use of a wheelchair due to a documented medical disability. I was informed that I needed to provide a doctor’s letter to continue visiting with my wheelchair. My physician provided documentation verifying my medical need on three separate occasions. Despite providing a medical letter, I was denied visits because the warden stated the letter was not “worded correctly” according to his preference. No written policy was provided explaining what wording was required. I believe this constituted improper interference with medical documentation and disability accommodation. On multiple occasions, I was left outside in the weather for extended periods while waiting for a golf cart or transport assistance, despite staff being aware of my mobility impairment. My elderly mother with dementia was also made to put the wheelchair on the golf cart. A correctional officer questioned the legitimacy of my disability during a visit after seeing me in public on a separate occasion receiving a pedicure without wearing my brace. At the next visit, the officer confronted me about this, creating a hostile and intimidating environment. My mother, age 79, was denied visitation after a K-9 jumped on her. Staff claimed the dog “hit on ” her, even though the dog jumped up on her not sitting . No accommodation or alternative screening was offered. Visits were terminated or denied when one of us needed to use the restroom, even when the visit had already begun. These terminations were inconsistent and appeared punitive. Due to fear of retaliation against my incarcerated loved one, I did not feel safe speaking up at the time. The cumulative effect of these actions interfered with my ability to safely and equally participate in visitation due to my disability and age-related cognitive concerns for my mother. These actions caused emotional distress, humiliation, physical discomfort, and prevented lawful visitation. I believe these actions constitute disability discrimination, failure to provide reasonable accommodations, and retaliatory conduct.

HB173 and HB296 represent common sense and humane visitation policies. Strong connections to the outside world are demonstrably vital to reentry success. HB1041 is another obvious gain for everyone concerned, returning citizens, their loved ones, and tax paying citizens of the Commonwealth. HB553 is another no brainer that deserves full support.

I write in strong support of HB296, HB173, and HB1246 as an individual directly affected by Virginia’s visitation policies. I am a long distance visitor who must travel hundreds of miles and coordinate interstate and international travel in order to maintain contact with an incarcerated family member. I am also a parent and a spouse, and the responsibility for planning, funding, and navigating visitation falls primarily on me. My husband is my children’s stepfather and supports them at home while I manage the logistics and emotional labour of maintaining family connection through a complex and inconsistent system. Virginia is nationally recognised for reducing recidivism, with a three year re incarceration rate of approximately 17.6 percent, the lowest in the country. Research consistently shows that maintaining family connections during incarceration is one of the strongest predictors of successful reentry. Individuals who receive visits are significantly less likely to reoffend, with reductions in reconviction rates exceeding 30 percent in some studies. Protecting visitation is therefore not only compassionate policy but a sound public safety strategy. In Virginia, approximately one in fourteen children will experience parental incarceration before age eighteen. As a parent, I experience firsthand how visitation policies affect not only the incarcerated individual but the family member who must absorb the financial costs, travel demands, and administrative barriers in order to keep that connection alive. National data shows fewer than half of incarcerated parents receive in person visits with their children, despite in person contact being the most effective way to preserve meaningful relationships. When visits are shortened or cancelled after significant travel, the burden and impact fall directly on the caregiver who has made those sacrifices. HB173 directly addresses these realities by recognising long distance visitors, minor children, and infrequent visitors, and by establishing a minimum two hour visit. For someone in my position, a short or unpredictable visit does not justify the extensive planning, expense, and disruption required. Limiting suspension of visitation to situations involving a direct and substantial safety threat provides essential protection against arbitrary denials that currently occur without explanation or appeal. HB296 addresses the lack of consistent and clearly communicated visitation rules that I and others must navigate. Requirements often vary by facility or change without notice, creating unnecessary stress and uncertainty. Clear standards improve compliance, reduce conflict, and support staff while ensuring visitors are treated with dignity. HB1246 ensures these reforms are implemented through transparency, data collection, and oversight. Advancing HB296, HB173, and HB1246 affirms Virginia’s commitment to public safety, rehabilitation, and the family members who carry the responsibility of maintaining connection under difficult circumstances.

Support for HOUSE BILL NO. 296 – Correctional Facility Visitation Policies Dear Committee Members, I am writing to express my strong support for HOUSE BILL NO. 296, which seeks to improve visitation policies in Virginia’s state correctional facilities. As someone who travels a significant distance from New York to Virginia—over 550 miles each way—to visit my loved one, I can personally attest to the challenges and hardships that current visitation policies create for families like mine. Due to my demanding job, childcare responsibilities, and the considerable travel expenses involved, I am only able to visit my loved one perhaps twice a year. These visits are precious and essential, both for my loved one’s well-being and my own. Unfortunately, the current system often allows for only very limited and inconsistent visitation—typically two hours once a week, if at all, during the rare occasions when I am able to make the long journey. This restriction creates significant emotional strain and disrupts our ability to maintain meaningful family connections. The ability to have extended, in-person visits when I am finally able to travel would make a profound difference. Longer, more consistent visitation would not only allow us to maintain family bonds, but also provide vital support for my loved one’s rehabilitation, mental health, and eventual reintegration into society. Research has shown that strong family connections reduce recidivism and improve behavior within facilities, which benefits everyone—incarcerated individuals, their families, and the broader community. I am especially grateful that this bill includes provisions for transparency, objective visitation rules, and the involvement of diverse stakeholders in policy development. These measures will help ensure that visitation policies are fair, respectful, and trauma-informed, and that families are not unjustly penalized or denied access due to arbitrary or unclear regulations. I urge you to support HOUSE BILL NO. 296. Making visitation more accessible, consistent, and humane is not just a matter of policy—it is a matter of compassion, public safety, and basic human dignity. Thank you for considering my perspective and for your service to the Commonwealth. Sincerely, Hilary Snyder

Good Morning, the House Of Delegates, I am a member of the Valley Justice Coalition and we support these four (4) bills : HB173, HB296, HB533 and HB1041. These bills are well needed in the Department of Correction for the detained individuals and families in order to maintain a productive re entry to the communities. Please, vote yes. Thank you. Ms Stover

I am a member of the Valley Justice Coalition and I support this bill. Visitation has dropped by 92% since before the pandemic. Staying in touch with family and friends is vital to successful reentry. Visitors feel intimidated when constantly having to guess what is appropriate to wear at each facility. Please vote yes for this bill.

I am writing to oppose the current slate of firearm restriction bills before the General Assembly. While these proposals are framed as public safety measures, in practice they disproportionately harm marginalized Virginians — including racial minorities, LGBTQ+ individuals (especially trans people), immigrants, and low-income residents — who often face higher risks of targeted violence and slower or unequal police response. These bills add costs, delays, and bureaucratic hurdles to exercising a fundamental right. Increased fees, mandatory waiting periods, feature bans, and expanded disqualifications fall hardest on people with limited financial resources, unstable work schedules, or justified concerns about their personal safety. For many vulnerable individuals, the ability to lawfully and promptly acquire a firearm is not about ideology, but about self-defense. History shows that restrictive gun laws are most aggressively enforced in minority communities, amplifying disparities in arrests, prosecution, and legal exposure — even when no harm has occurred. Expanding civil liability, criminal penalties, and subjective risk standards increases that risk. Public safety should not come at the expense of civil rights or equal access to self-protection. Policies that price people out of their rights or delay lawful self-defense do not address the root causes of violence and instead leave the most vulnerable less safe. I respectfully urge you to oppose these bills and support approaches that protect both public safety and the rights of all Virginians, regardless of income, identity, or background. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Dear Delegates, I write in strong support of House Bill 296. My son-in-law is incarcerated within the VA Department of Corrections. My daughter has personally experienced repeated denials of visitation at Virginia state prisons when trying to visit her husband. On multiple occasions, she was told there was an “anomaly” on the body scanner; when she offered to be searched, staff refused. When she asked for clarification, she was disrespected by staff and cursed at (told her that they didn't have to tell her sh*t) My 11-year-old granddaughter was also denied visitation to see her father because one of the staff members did not like her pants. The officer claimed they were orange and it wasn't allowed, however, her pants were peach colored sweatpants. My daughter drives four hours each way to visit her husband, only to be offered a video visit with no explanation. Across multiple facilities, what is acceptable attire at one prison is not accepted at another, creating confusion and inconsistency for families. HB296 addresses these issues by requiring clear, publicly posted dress codes, standardized procedures, and accountability when visits are denied. It ensures families can maintain meaningful contact, which is critical for rehabilitation and family stability. I respectfully urge you to vote in favor of HB296. Sincerely, Thomas Brust

I am writing in support of Virginia House Bill 361. My perspective comes from personal experience. My loved one has been incarcerated within the Virginia Department of Corrections for 17 years. During that time, he has spent long periods confined under conditions and policies that offered no opportunity to earn sentence credits — despite consistent effort, good behavior, and personal growth. HB 361 is not about excusing past mistakes. It is about fairness. Time served is time lived, and individuals should not be denied earned sentence credits simply because of when their incarceration occurred or circumstances beyond their control. After 17 years, I have seen how denying earned credits deepens hopelessness while recognizing effort encourages accountability and rehabilitation. I respectfully urge you to support HB 361 and help ensure Virginia’s sentencing system reflects fairness, humanity, and modern justice principles.

Commenting on HB296 visitation, Dress Code First time visitors at a new facility always ask the FB groups what they can wear at the new facility because they really don't know. It can be very different from one facility to another.. Im sure many have had the frightening and frustraating experience ofrefusal and was sent out in search of the local Dollar General. I have worn the same pants to visitation for years afraid to try other pants because I might be refused. No wonder visitation has dropped by 92%. Valley Justice Coalition Supports this bill. Please vote Yes!

I strongly support this bill and its requirement that the Department of Corrections establish and publicly post an objective, uniform visitation dress code that cannot be exceeded by individual facilities. Current visitation dress code enforcement is inconsistent, subjective, and disproportionately impacts women. I have personally witnessed women being denied entry for wearing underwire bras or leggings, even when their clothing was otherwise modest and fully compliant with posted rules, including tops that fully cover the hips and backside. At the same time, female staff routinely enter and exit facilities wearing athleisure or leggings without issue. This double standard undermines trust and exposes visitors to arbitrary enforcement. Body scanners further compound this problem. Menstruation, clotting, and feminine hygiene products can register as “anomalies,” which are sometimes incorrectly interpreted as contraband violations. These biological realities are not addressed clearly in existing policies, leaving women vulnerable to denial of visitation for circumstances entirely beyond their control. The bill’s requirement that no visitor be denied entry unless they are in clear violation of visitation rules is critical. Just as important is the mandate that any denial be reviewed in person by an administrative duty officer and approved by a regional administrator or superior. This safeguard recognizes a reality many families experience: frontline staff are often required to make rapid judgment calls in high-pressure environments and may not always have sufficient training to interpret scanner results, clothing policies, or edge cases accurately. Meaningful review reduces the risk of error, bias, and unnecessary harm. The annual reporting requirement is also essential. Collecting and publishing data on the number of visitors denied entry and the specific reasons for denial will bring transparency to a process that currently lacks accountability. Disaggregated data will help identify patterns of disproportionate impact, inconsistent enforcement, or training gaps that need to be addressed. Finally, I support the creation of a stakeholder work group to develop practical policy and legislative recommendations related to visitation. Families, formerly incarcerated individuals, correctional staff, and advocates all bring valuable perspectives that can help ensure visitation policies are fair, clear, and workable while maintaining facility security. Visitation is not a privilege to be arbitrarily withheld. It is a stabilizing force that supports family connection, mental health, and successful reentry. This bill introduces fairness, transparency, and common sense into a system that too often relies on subjective judgment. I urge its passage.

I strongly support HB173 because maintaining family and community connections is proven to improve rehabilitation, mental health, and public safety. Reasonable, consistent visitation—especially for long-distance families and children helps incarcerated individuals stay connected to positive support systems and reduces recidivism after release. HB173 creates fair, structured visitation standards while still preserving institutional safety. This bill promotes accountability, family stability, and successful reentry, all of which benefit not only incarcerated individuals, but the Commonwealth as a whole. I respectfully urge you to support HB173.

My thoughts on HB173: (HB173) is a great bill to present. Ever since Covid, visitation in DOC has declined tremendously for (3) reasons. (1) The online visiting process. This process is discouraging to many of our family members because a lot of men and women have elderly parents that are not computer savvy. Before, all inmates had to do was turn in a visitors list and that was that, but now everything is online and a lengthy waiting process. (2) The restroom process is very inhumane. If a visitor has to use the restroom, they have to leave out of the visitation room and walk back to the front entrance instead of being allowed to use the restroom in the visitation room. After being scanned and patted down, visitors should not be subjected to the same process just to use the restroom. (3) There are no food machines in the visitation room. Family members are traveling hours away, some with health issues that require them to eat something over a course of time. Not having food machines discourages family members from not wanting to visit their loved ones. Sitting for hours with no food or drink is very discouraging. DOC should want to encourage family bonding instead of discouraging family bonding. Creating an atmosphere of joy, respect, and peace strengthens that family bond, but neglecting those elements creates separation between the incarcerated and their loved ones. These visitation issues, along with many others, affect the incarcerated mentally.

I support this bill. As an incarcerated individual I understand how visitation is part of rehabilitation, hope, and imperative to social growth. Virginia DOC visitation has been stripped continuously over the years. Instead of taking incarcerated individuals out of prison mentally for a little while it now brings people’s loved ones into prison. Visitation is an important part of rehabilitation and should be treated as such. When people take their time to come see a loved one, that time should be considerate especially when coming from a distance. It should be treated as a program because it supports a part of mental health and social growth.

I have had visitors travel from as far as England (11 hours on a plane) and Arkansas (11 hours on the road) and each was only allowed 2 hours with me. I felt it was inherently unfair that we weren't given more time together after traveling from such a distance. Also, with me being 11 years charge-free, I feel there should be some sort of incentive for guys like myself. Give people a reason to want to do better.

This bill affects me personally because in 20 years I've had 2 visits and mostly people didn’t want to drive to see me for 1 hour after driving 8 hours and that has damaged my mental health a lot of the years. It makes me feel worthless a lot of the time - like I’m not worth a family member coming to visit me. Then finding out that it is unfair to them to have to drive all those hours for a 1 hour visit and having to leave as fast as they got here. This bill will help men and women like myself know that their family loves them by having a meaningful chance to sit down and talk and eat and tell stories to help get through the tough days and weeks that lie ahead. I believe this bill is worth passing, to give families and loved ones a chance to show their love, because visiting someone at their lowest and most troublesome times says a lot about how you really care for that person.

I support this bill because my own family has to travel over 12 hours to visit me. Allowing them to stay longer and or visit for multiple days would encourage family bonds.