Testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee on H.B. 296
Members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to provide interested party testimony on H.B. 296. My name is Ashley Braxton, and I am a researcher with Policy Matters Ohio — a nonprofit, non-partisan research institute working to create a more vibrant, equitable, sustainable, and inclusive state for our neighbors.
At Policy Matters Ohio, a major pillar of our work is examining the criminal justice policy landscape in Ohio through data driven, comprehensive research. This includes advocating for policies that support more restorative and equitable pathways to re-entry as well as addressing the harms of collateral consequences and the many barriers they create.
The bill’s 180-day grace period on court-assessed fines and fees is a meaningful step toward a more just re-entry pathway. The grace period allows recently released Ohioans to prioritize finding employment, securing housing, and re-establishing a network of support with their family and community. This gives individuals a better chance of stability and success, and reduces the heightened risk of recidivism, suicide, drug relapse, homelessness, and unemployment that many of our formerly incarcerated Ohioans face.[1]
In addition to these positive impacts, the logic of a 180-day grace period is all but self-evident: Finding gainful employment after release is difficult anywhere,[2] and especially in Ohio, where more than 850 collateral sanctions limit access to jobs after a conviction.[3] Those barriers alone are enough to make immediate payment nearly impossible; a 180-day grace period simply acknowledges that reality.
However, as written, H.B. 296 contradicts its own logic, significantly reducing its positive effects as a result. By excluding restitution payments from the grace period,[4] the bill both weakens its impact and encourages recidivism. With limited access to the workforce and the obligation to immediately come up with funds, people returning from prison must choose: Rely on the generosity of their communities — which the U.S. Department of Justice acknowledges are themselves “often impoverished”[5] — or find illicit ways to immediately begin payments.
With one important change, H.B. 296 could make reentry less difficult for Ohioans who have served their time. Expanding the grace period to include restitution payments does not diminish accountability: The debt is neither discharged nor reduced. In fact, a 180-day delay increases the likelihood that it will be repaid, by allowing people a short time to get their footing and begin working toward a better future.
For longer term solutions, increasing funding for Victim’s Compensation programs like the one hosted by the Attorney General’s office would be more helpful for those seeking restitution, as would expanding the types of costs Victim Compensation programs cover for those seeking to be made whole.
Thanks for your time, and please reach out to abraxton@policymattersohio.org with further questions and comments.
[1] The Supreme Court of Ohio Task Force on Reentry: Final Report and Recommendations. Sept. 2024.
[2] How Criminal Records Hold Back Millions of People by Jamiles Lartey, April 1, 2023, The Marshall Project.
[3] Fired, Denied, Rescinded by Piet van Lier, September 18, 2025, Policy Matters Ohio.
[4] Ohio House Passes Fees and Fines Grace Period Bill, Aiming to Reduce Recidivism. Feb. 18, 2026, The Ohio House of Representatives.
[5] United States Department of Justice. Prisoners and Prisoner Re-Entry. Accessed Mar. 27, 2026.