A. The Director shall maintain a system of classification which (i) evaluates all prisoners according to background, aptitude, education, and risk and (ii) based on an assessment of needs, determines appropriate program assignments including career and technical education, work activities and employment, academic activities which at a minimum meet the requirements of § 66-13.1, counseling, alcohol and substance abuse treatment, and such related activities as may be necessary to assist prisoners in the successful transition to free society and gainful employment.
B. The Director shall, subject to the availability of resources and sufficient program assignments, place prisoners in appropriate full-time program assignments or a combination thereof to satisfy the objectives of a treatment plan based on an assessment and evaluation of each prisoner's needs. Compliance with specified program requirements and attainment of specific treatment goals shall be required as a condition of placement and continuation in such program assignments. The Director may suspend programs in the event of an institutional emergency.
C. For the purposes of implementing the requirements of subsection B, prisoners shall be required to participate in such programs according to the following schedule:
1. From July 1, 1994, through June 30, 1995, an average of 24 hours per week.
2. From July 1, 1995, through June 30, 1996, an average of 28 hours per week.
3. From July 1, 1996, through June 30, 1997, an average of 30 hours per week.
4. From July 1, 1997, through June 30, 1998, an average of 36 hours per week.
5. From July 1, 1998, and thereafter, an average of 40 hours per week.
D. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, prisoners refusing to accept a program assignment shall not be eligible for good conduct allowances or earned sentence credits authorized pursuant to Chapter 6 (§ 53.1-186 et seq.) of Title 53.1. Such refusal shall also constitute a violation of the rules authorized pursuant to § 53.1-25 and the Director shall prescribe appropriate disciplinary action.
E. The Director shall maintain a master program listing, by facility and program location, of all available permanent and temporary positions. The Director may, consistent with § 53.1-43, establish a system of pay incentives for such assignments based upon difficulty and level of effort required.
F. Inmates employed pursuant to Article 2 (§ 53.1-32 et seq.) of Chapter 2 of this title shall not be deemed employees of the Commonwealth of Virginia or its agencies and shall be ineligible for benefits under Chapter 29 (§ 2.2-2900 et seq.) of Title 2.2, Chapter 6 (§ 60.2-600 et seq.) of Title 60.2, Chapter 5 (§ 65.2-500 et seq.) of Title 65.2 or any other provisions of the Code pertaining to the rights of state employees.
1993, c. 768; 1994, 2nd Sp. Sess., cc. 1, 2; 2001, c. 483; 2012, cc. 803, 835; 2020, c. 759.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
10
cases (
6 in the last 5 years), 1995–2026 · leading case:
Commonwealth v. Woodward, 452 S.E.2d 656 (Va. 1995).
Commonwealth v. Woodward, 452 S.E.2d 656 (Va. 1995).
· cites it 4× “* In 1993, the General Assembly enacted Code § 53.1-32.1. Acts 1993, ch. 768. That statute, inter alia, provides for an inmate classification system to determine “appropriate .”
Ross v. Keelings, 2 F. Supp. 2d 810 (E.D. Va. 1998).
· cites it 2× “The Virginia statute at issue states: “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, prisoners refusing to accept a program assignment shall not be eligible for good conduct allowances or earned sentence credits-” Va.Code Ann. § 53.1-32.1 (Michie 1994). This statute was passed in…”
Navarro, No. 7:25-cv-00789 (W.D. Va. June 17, 2026).
· cites it 4× “contends that the challenged regulation violates his rights to due process and equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.”
Prease v. Clarke, 888 S.E.2d 758 (Va. 2023).
“3(B) provides that: Level I sentence credits shall be awarded to persons who participate in and cooperate with all programs to which the person is assigned pursuant to § 53.1-32.1 and who have no more than one minor correctional infraction and no serious correctional infractions…”
Parker v. Clarke, No. 1:22-cv-00534 (E.D. Va. Feb. 22, 2024).
· cites it 2× “LEXIS 73515 , *4-5 (May 29, 2012) (noting the “vast discretion” provided by Virginia Code §§ 53.1-32.1 and 32.2 to prison officials in managing prison resources).”
Simpson v. Youngkin, No. 3:23-cv-00032, 2024 WL 943456 (E.D. Va. Mar. 5, 2024).
“1-25, through program participation as required by §§ 53.1-32.1 and 53.1-202.3, and by meeting such other requirements as may be established by law or regulation.”
Hoglan v. Youngkin, No. 7:22-cv-00460, 2023 WL 5214122 (W.D. Va. Aug. 14, 2023).
“1-25, through program participation as required by §§ 53.1-32.1 and 53.1-202.3, and by meeting such other requirements as may be established by law or regulation.”
Dudley v. Dotson, No. 1:24-cv-00451 (E.D. Va. June 4, 2025).
“1-25, through program participation as required by §§ 53.1-32.1 and 53.1-202.3, and by meeting such other requirements as may be established by law or regulation.”
Jesus Jehovah v. Harold Clark, No. 13-7529 (4th Cir. July 22, 2015).
“See Va. Code § 53.1-32.1. In February 2011 Jehovah was assigned to a cleaning position, and his supervisor required him to work seven days a week.”
Jesus Jehovah v. Harold Clarke, No. 13-7529 (4th Cir. Aug. 11, 2015).
“See Va. Code § 53.1-32.1. In February 2011 Jehovah was assigned to a cleaning position, and his supervisor required him to work seven days a week.”
Va. Code Ann. § 53.1-32.1(A): 1 case
Commonwealth v. Woodward, 452 S.E.2d 656 (Va. 1995).
“* In 1993, the General Assembly enacted Code § 53.1-32.1. Acts 1993, ch. 768. That statute, inter alia, provides for an inmate classification system to determine “appropriate .”
Va. Code Ann. § 53.1-32.1(F): 1 case
Commonwealth v. Woodward, 452 S.E.2d 656 (Va. 1995).
“* In 1993, the General Assembly enacted Code § 53.1-32.1. Acts 1993, ch. 768. That statute, inter alia, provides for an inmate classification system to determine “appropriate .”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.