Update: The Council of State Government's Justice Center released a report on July 26, 2010 called Justice Reinvestment in Ohio, Analyses of Crime, Community Corrections and Sentencing Policy.  Senate and House leadership have said that they were awaiting release of the report before moving forward with consideration of SB 22 and HB 386.  click here for a copy of the report.  Here are the key findings:

• Property and drug offenders in Ohio cycle through a costly “revolving door”: they are sentenced to state prison for a short time and are subsequently released to the community with no supervision. More than 10,000 fourth and fifth degree felony property and drug offenders were sentenced to state prison in 2008 for an average of nine months at a cost of $189 million. After serving brief sentences, 72 percent were returned to the community with no supervision.
• Community correction programs in Ohio do not have clear criteria to inform the selection of program participants, making it difficult for these programs to be cost-effective tools for diverting people from prison and reducing crime.
  The state invests over $130 million annually in diversion programs, but does not provide any data-driven selection criteria for program participants. Without such criteria, judges cannot be certain they are sentencing people to programs from which they will benefit the most.
• Ohio’s probation system is a patchwork of independent agencies that do not have consistent policies.
  At the end of 2008, an estimated 260,000 people in Ohio were on probation and supervised by one or more municipal, county, or state agencies. The operations of these agencies overlap and are uncoordinated. Training and supervision standards vary significantly, and no meaningful data are collected statewide to provide policymakers information about the overall effectiveness of the probation system.

Substitute SB 22 passed by Senate Judiciary Committee by a 5-4 vote on Wednesday June 17, 2009.   click here for a summary of the bill as approved by the committee.  No further action was taken in the House or Senate prior to June 30, 2009.  Hearings on the legislation are expected to resume in both during the fall legislative session of 2009.

House Bill 386, a companion bill to SB 22 was introduced in the Ohio House of Representatives by Rep Tyrone Yates (Cincinnati) on December 3rd, 2009.  The Bill was assigned to the House Judiciary Committee.  click here for the text of the bill as introduced.

Background

Senate Bill 22 (SB 22) was originallly introduced by Senator Bill Seitz (Cincinnati) on February 10, 2009.  Similar proposals were  included in Governor Strickland's proposed budget for 2010-2011, House Bill 1 (HB 1).  Click here for a summary of the Governor's proposals, which were included in House Bill 1, the state operating budget for fiscal years 2010-2011.  These proposals were subsequently dropped from HB 1 during budget negotiations. 

A summary of the proposals in SB 22 and HB 386 is below.  The Sentencing Reform Measures are following these two parallel paths through the legislature.  It is not clear which path will emerge at this point, so we are tracking and supporting both.

These recommendations targeting low-level non-violent offenders will result in significant cost savings in the State budget and reduce overcrowding in the State’s prisons.  In addition, low-level non-violent offenders will remain in their local communities, ensuring that they are held accountable for continuing and/or seeking employment, paying taxes and child support, and maintaining family support and responsibilities. 

History of Activity on SB 22:  SB 22 has been assigned to the Judiciary-Criminal Justice Committee and the bill passed the Committee on June 17th by a vote of 5-4  The Committee held a hearing on February 25th and another in late May.  Read Ohio Department of Rehabilitaion and Correction Director Terry Collins' testimony .  Here is a story from the GONGWER news service from June 10thon the bill's progress. Send your comments to members of the Senate, particularly those from your local area.  Download sample letter of support.

History of Activity on HB 386:  HB 386 has been assigned to the Judiciary Committee.  No hearings are currently scheduled.

History of Activity on HB 1:  The House of Representatives passed the Amended Substitute HB1 on April 29 without the inclusion of the Sentencing Reform Measures.  The Joint Senate - House Conference Committee is now holding hearings on the 2010-11 biennial budget bill.  DRC Director Terry Collins delivered testimony on April 29 appealing for the restoration of the Sentencing Reform measures.  Click here to read a story about the Collins testimony.

Summary of SB 22/HB 386:

• Increases from $500 to $750 the threshold amount that is used in determining increased penalties for many theft-related offenses, and certain nontheft-related offenses.

• Regarding the offense of vandalism, increases from $500 to $750 the threshold amount of the value of property or amount of physical harm that is required to commit the offense by knowingly causing physical harm to property owned or possessed by another and used by its owner or possessor in the ownerʹs or possessorʹs profession, business, trade, or occupation and the threshold amount of loss to the value of property necessary to constitute serious physical harm for any of the prohibitions under the offense that prohibit causing serious physical harm to specified property.

• In the definition of "corrupt activity" that applies regarding the offense of engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity, increases from $500 to $750 the property valuations that are used in determining whether certain criminal activity constitutes corrupt
activity.

• Provides that, if an offender is convicted of the offense of nonsupport of dependents based on an abandonment of or failure to support a child or a person to whom a court order requires support and the offense is a felony, the court shall first consider sentencing the offender to one or more community control sanctions.

• Specifies that any nonresidential sanction imposed under the requirement described in the preceding dot point must require that the offender participate in and complete a community corrections program if available in the county served by the sentencing court, unless the offender participated in such a program within the past three years.

• By removing from the definition of "detention" that applies to R.C. Chapter 2921. supervision by an employee of the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction of a person on any type of release from a state correctional institution makes the crime of escape inapplicable to a person under such supervision who violates the supervision and specifies the method of sanctioning a person under Department supervision who fails to comply in a specified manner with that supervision.

• Increase from one day to five days the credit a prisoner in a state correctional institution may earn as a monthly deduction from the prisonerʹs prison term for productive participation in specified prison programs, excludes sex offender treatment programs from the type of programs for which a prisoner can earn the credit, and prohibits the granting of the earned credit to a person serving a sentence for a sexually oriented offense.