Ohio courts often impose fines, fees, and other financial sanctions on people who are sentenced to prison, to be paid while they are incarcerated or when they are released. Currently, judges have broad discretion to set the timeline for payment, with no restrictions and relatively little guidance. This can create inconsistent outcomes for similarly situated people and/or make collection of those fees less likely to be successful.
Ohio House Bill 296 would create a “grace period” of 180 days from the time of release before a person can be required to make (or start making) payments. It’s a common-sense change, especially considering how difficult the state makes it for people to find work after a conviction. Giving people time to get a job and begin receiving paychecks can reduce some barriers to reentry.
However, HB 296 falls short by excluding one type of payment from the waiting period: Restitution payments could still be required immediately. Restitution is intended to cover any expenses incurred by the victim as a result of the criminal offense, including the cost of mental health or medical treatment, repair or replacement of property, and lost wages or profits.
To be truly effective, HB 296 should apply to all forms of financial sanctions, including restitution payments.
Restitution payments are a crucial part of making amends, but immediate payment requirements could lead to reincarceration, slowing down or stopping restitution payments entirely.[1] A 180-day grace period would make it more likely that a victim receives the payment they’re owed in a timely manner, as required by state law, since it would reduce the likelihood that the person responsible for paying them is put in jail. This grace period would complement existing policies[2] that allow people experiencing indigency to have mandatory fines waived and to participate in ability to pay hearings that may lead to the suspension of some financial sanctions and discretionary orders of community service instead.
A 180-day grace period that includes restitution payments would also strengthen the effectiveness of investments Ohio has made in vocational training programs.[3] The Transitional Control program provides vocational training and increases access to post-release employment,[4] but even those Ohioans who are eligible to participate in the program may be ineligible for employment until the sentence is completed, making it impossible for them to make immediate payments after release. When people have more time to obtain employment based on vocational training received while incarcerated before making payments, they may be able to find a job in their field rather than taking the first available option that may not cover necessities for survival.
A grace period would also give people making a good faith effort to pay their debts more time to navigate the especially unpredictable and complex processes for assessing, calculating, and paying restitution. Those processes are less consistent than others related to court-assessed fines and fees because the law gives victims a lot of flexibility to determine how much restitution to seek, when it should be paid, and whether to seek payments at all. As a result, it can be difficult for a person convicted of a crime to know when or how much they have to pay in restitution. In fact, according to National Reentry Advocate Alex Harper at a recent Fines and Fees Summit, many are released without knowing that they owe restitution to any victim at all or that they are required to begin making payments immediately. A grace period would give courts more time to clearly communicate about what payments are expected and when.
In practice, very few people returning from prison are able to obtain immediate employment,[5] even with vocational training, because of over 1,000 collateral sanctions in Ohio which could prevent them from entering jobs in their field of work.[6] Applying the 180-day pause to all financial sanctions, including restitution, to all individuals returning from incarceration, would give them more time to find work in a field that allows for second-chance employment within their vocation. Adding this tool to the existing resources available to indigent individuals, rather than restricting assistance, is in Ohio’s best interest.
[1] Marsy’s Law Frequently Asked Questions – Is failure to pay restitution a probation (community control) violation?
[2] Collection of Court Costs & Fines in Adult Trial Courts, The Supreme Court of Ohio.
[3] Transitional Control, Ohio Department of Rehabilitation & Correction.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Out of Prison & Out of Work: Unemployment among formerly incarcerated people by Lucius Couloute and Daniel Kopf, July 2018, Prison Policy Initiative. See Fig. 1. New data on formerly incarcerated people’s employment reveal labor market injustices by Leah Wang and Wanda Bertram, Feb. 8, 2022, Prison Policy Initiative.
[6] See Fig. B, Snapshot of Employment-Related Collateral Consequences, Justice Center Council of State Governments, The National Reentry Resource Center, January 2021.