Download Department of Rehabilitation and Correction

 Department of Rehabilitation and Correction
Ohio’s adult prison population stood at just 14,000 in 1980. The number of inmates grew dramatically over the next 30 years to a record high of 51,273 in November, 2008.i This population growth was tied to changes in Ohio sentencing laws that increased penalties for drug‐related and other lesser offenses. By the end of the last decade, prison population exceeded the system’s capacity by over 30 percent. Spending on prison programs mirrored these trends. The Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (ODRC) budget grew by 18 percent between 2000 and 2008. After reaching a plateau for a short time thereafter, GRF spending on ODRC programs is again climbing and expected to reach $1.59 billion in FY 2016 and $1.64 billion by FY 2017. This is exclusive of the proposed transfer of the department’s Bureau of Recovery Services to DMHAS. ODRC provided addiction treatment services to over 4,500 inmates in State Fiscal Year 2014. Alcohol and drug screening is completed for all inmates as part of their mental health screening process. The screenings found that nearly 30,000 inmates have a considerable or moderate need for recovery services. Inmates can volunteer to receive treatment while incarcerated, but resources have limited that to 4,500 inmates. ii Table 1
FY 2008
ODRC Budget Allocations (in thousands of dollars) FY 2009
FY 2010
$1,724
$1,773
$1,483*
Source: Legislative Service Commission.
*Includes federal stimulus funds
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
(Est.)
FY 2015
(Est.)
$1,488*
$1,437
$1,502
$1,513
$1,539
Managing Prison Population and Costs In 2011, Governor John Kasich signed House Bill 86 into law, making major changes to the justice and adult corrections system intended to reverse the growth in prison population and reduce recidivism. Known as the criminal sentencing reform bill, the legislation was passed with bipartisan support. Among other provisions, the bill:  diverted some nonviolent offenders into community‐based services, such as halfway houses, treatment programs, and community supervision;  allowed some inmates to reduce their sentences, by 8 percent, with the completion of treatment and/or training programs;  allowed some inmates to be released early, with court approval, after at least 80 percent of their sentence was served; 

equalized sentences for cocaine and crack use; and increased the monetary threshold for theft and other nonviolent crimes, so that they are misdemeanors.iii House Bill 86 was expected to produce a significant net savings of $46.2 million through FY 2015, due to a reduction in the number of inmates.iv Ohio’s prison population did briefly decline by 2 percent, but this was much smaller than had been projected, and the number of inmates has continued to grow following a slight dip in 2013. (Figure 1) Figure 1
Growth in Ohio Prison Population
Number of Inmates in Ohio Prisons
52,000
51,000
50,000
49,000
48,000
47,000
46,000
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Source: Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction Monthly Fact Sheets, January 2005 - January
2015.
Neither sentencing reform, nor privatization has produced the anticipated savings to date. Rather, privatization has done more to increase enmity among the Department’s union employees in addition to raising inmate concerns regarding the quality of care.v What has resulted in savings for the department has been a significant and problematic increase in the ratio of corrections staff to inmates. This ratio, which was 1 to 5.8 in 2004, has risen to 1 to 7.2 by 2015.vi Staff reductions have largely offset increases in prescription drug costs, energy prices, inpatient hospitalization, and improvements in care required by court order.vii The 2014 Mid‐
Biennium Review (130th General Assembly, House Bill 483) included $38.5 million in additional funding over the FY 2014‐2015 biennium for the ODRC to increase prison staffing levels at its facilities in Chillicothe, Mansfield, and Toledo. However, little progress has been made to date in overall staffing patterns. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction Monthly Fact Sheet, January 2015. i
Tracy Plouck. Testimony before the House Transportation Subcommittee. Ohio Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services. March 5, 2015. iii Legislative Service Commission, Final Analysis, House Bill 86, 129th General Assembly iv Ibid. v Jona Ison, “Despite Maggots, Prisons Aim to Renew Food Contract,” Newark Advocate, January 26, 2015. vi Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction Monthly Fact Sheets, 2004 ‐ 2015. vii The Fussell v. Wilkinson lawsuit alleged that Ohio’s prisoners were not receiving medical care which violated their rights under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. As a stipulation of the settlement agreed to in 2005, the state had to improve medical and dental care for inmates including increasing the number of medical professionals on staff at the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction. ii