Drug Sentencing Reform in Ohio
This page aims to illuminate the complex evolution of criminal justice and drug sentencing reforms in Ohio from 2010 to 2021. It includes a visualization of Ohio incarceration rates and a timeline of Ohio reforms during that timespan, as well as commentaries and writings on drug sentencing reform efforts in Ohio, prior center events focused on Ohio’s criminal justice reforms, and research aimed at answering some of the most important questions raised by proponents and opponents alike.
Tracing the evolution of Issue 1, HB1, and SB3
Since 2014, seven states have enacted reforms that have defelonized low-level drug offenses: Alaska, California, Colorado, Connecticut Oklahoma, Oregon, and Utah. In late 2020, the Ohio House of Representatives opted not to join this growing list by declining a vote on Senate Bill 3 which sought to reclassify some low-level drug offenses from felonies to misdemeanors. Its origins can be traced back to the ambitious, but ultimately failed, 2018 Issue 1 ballot initiative. The constitutional amendment initiative included language aimed at reclassifying as misdemeanors those offenses related to drug possession and use, prohibiting courts from sending people back to prison for non-criminal probation violation, and reallocating savings created from lowering prison populations toward drug treatment services. Like SB3, Issue 1 was vehemently opposed by judges and prosecutors around the state.
Though SB3 stalled, an array of other criminal justice reforms were enacted in the last General Assembly of 2020, including House Bill 1. HB1 allows more wrongdoers to potentially benefit from alternative dispositions and record sealing. Some argued that the passage of HB1 addressed sufficiently some of the concerns driving support for SB3.
DEPC has gathered a variety of other resources to aid in understanding the complex evolution of criminal justice and drug sentencing reforms in Ohio, including a visualization of Ohio incarceration rates and a timeline of Ohio reforms since 2010. Please see below for commentaries and writings on current and past drug sentencing reform efforts in Ohio, DEPC’s prior events focused on Ohio’s criminal justice reforms, and research aimed at answering some of the most important questions raised by proponents and opponents alike.
Tracing Incarceration Rates and Reforms in Ohio from 2010 to 2021
Explore the developments in incarceration rates and major criminal justice and drug sentencing reform efforts in Ohio since 2010. While Issue 1 (2018) and SB 3 (2020) did not pass, we’ve included them in the timeline for reference. Incarceration data is not yet available for 2020-21.
Drug Sentencing Focus Area Page
Drug sentencing is one of the primary focus areas of the Drug Enforcement and Policy Center. Center faculty and staff examine criminal and civil laws, policies, and enforcement efforts related to drug sentencing and develop programming, evidence-based research projects, and engagement opportunities on these issues and their impacts. Explore our work in the area of drug sentencing.
Commentaries and Writings
Explore our collection of current and past commentaries and writings on the topic of criminal justice and drug sentencing reform in Ohio. The collection includes leading voices representing a variety of political viewpoints and policy positions.
2021
-
Ohio Criminal Sentencing Database and Platform, Ohio Criminal Sentencing Commission
Learn more about the Ohio Criminal Sentencing Commission's (OCSC) work to create a sentencing database and data platform. The Uniform Sentencing Entry and Method of Conviction Entries are the first steps to begin standardized, aggregate felony sentencing data collection in Ohio. The Ohio Sentencing Data Platform is designed to help judges implement the Uniform Sentencing and Method of Conviction forms and to empower courts with accessible and reliable information.
Read about the database -
Ohio’s Statehouse-to-Prison Pipeline, ACLU of Ohio
ACLU of Ohio monitors and analyzes criminal-justice related bills introduced by Ohio lawmakers. This page includes reports generated over the past eight years.
Explore the resource -
Where Do We Go From Here?: Criminal Justice Reform in Ohio
The Drug Enforcement and Policy Center hosted a virtual panel discussion on February 24, 2021. Experts discussed recent reform history, what we might expect in the near future, and how research and experience in other states can inform reform efforts in the Buckeye State. A video recording and transcript of the event are available.
Watch the recording
2020
-
Commentaries
DEPC collected commentaries from a variety of experts on drug sentencing reform efforts in Ohio. Authors include: Andrew Geisler, legal fellow, The Buckeye Institute; Gary Daniels, Chief Lobbyist, ACLU of Ohio; Micah Derry, state director, Ohio chapter of Americans for Prosperity on HB1/SB3; Judge David Matia, Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas on HB1/SB3; and Chief Brandon Standley, Bellefontaine Police Department on HB1/SB3.
2019
-
Federal Sentencing Reporter articles on Issue 1
The Federal Sentencing Reporter covered these issues in Volume 31, Issue 2. The issue includes "Learning from Recent State Drug Sentencing Reform Efforts" by Douglas A. Berman and Steven Chanenson, "Criminal Justice and Drug Sentencing Reform in Ohio after Issue 1" by Sara Andrews, and "Issue 1 Died, Ohio’s Criminal Justice Reform Lives" by Daniel J. Dew.
Read the articles
2018
-
Expert Commentaries on Issue 1
In an effort to enhance understanding and debate over the multiple provisions and potential impacts of the 2018 ballot initiative known as Issue 1, DEPC solicited short commentaries from a wide array of researchers, policymakers, and advocates concerning both the substantive particulars of Issue 1 and the effort to advance criminal justice reform through a ballot initiative. The commentaries were written prior to the 2018 election.
Review of Existing Research
Opponents of SB 3 argued that SB 3 would have stripped judges of the ability to leverage a threat of a felony record to persuade defendants into the successful completion of substance use disorder treatment. Much of the literature on legally mandated treatment is principally interested in whether legal coercion is an effective tool for improving retention rates in treatment programs and reducing recidivism rates. This body of research has produced mixed results, with some finding that legally coercive methods are more effective than voluntary treatment1,2, and others finding no difference.3,4
Central to the argument of opponents of SB 3, however, is that a felony record and the severity of the sentence that can be imposed with a felony conviction would yield better results than the threat of a misdemeanor. While the empirical work on the relationship between punishment severity and treatment outcomes is limited, there are a few notable exceptions. In a 2002 study, Douglas Young found that the threat of severe penalties did not improve retention in treatment5. Individuals in the study completed a short questionnaire reporting how long they perceived their sentence would be should they fail mandated treatment. Those who perceived that they would serve longer sentences (3 years or more) were no more likely to remain in treatment than those who thought they would be sentenced to a shorter sentence. While Young found that the certainty of a punishment improved retention rates, the severity of this punishment did not garner higher retention rates.
Yet, in subsequent work published in the same year, Douglas Young and Steven Belenko found some severity measures did relate to retention outcomes.6 The authors found that those who perceived a more severe sentence for not completing treatment had higher retention rates than those who perceived they would receive a more lenient punishment. Addressing the discrepant findings on the influence of severity of punishment between Young’s two studies, the authors note, “It may be that severity only comes into play in programs that use some minimal coercive structures such as contracts with clients and agreements with treatment programs that enforce regular contact and progress reports to supervision agents” (p. 321). In sum, the limited early work on the influence of severity of punishment produced mixed results that suggest the effect of punishment severity may be conditioned on other specific aspects of the program.
More recent work, however, suggests that the threat of imprisonment, a felony record, and a lengthier sentence are ineffective deterrents for many suffering from Substance Use Disorder (SUD). Eric LaPlant (2021) interviewed 75 Columbus, Ohio residents suffering from SUD identified through drug courts, an inpatient treatment program, and re-entry services organizations.7 LaPlant found that individuals in the throes of addiction were chiefly concerned with avoiding withdrawal symptoms. Thus, they were motivated to avoid incarceration in-so-far as they are motivated to avoid the onset of drug withdrawals. The threat of a lengthy sentence or a felony record was largely inconsequential to their primary motivation -- avoiding agonizing withdrawal symptoms. His findings suggest a felony record or lengthy sentence would not be an effective strategy for rehabilitative individuals suffering from drug addiction. Instead, his findings lend support for a more public health-oriented approach that entails holding addicts through the period of withdrawal symptoms and simultaneously providing voluntary treatment options and support.
LaPlant’s findings dovetail with lessons learned from macro-level drug incarceration and drug use trends. Specifically, Pew Charitable Trust reports that the United States’ reliance on prisons in response to drug addiction has not reduced its prevalence. States’ imprisonment rates for drug offenses are uncorrelated with drug use, drug arrest, or fatal overdoses.8 Moreover, harsh punishment has shown to be an ineffective deterrence strategy that has come at a high cost.9
Taken together, these findings suggest that the threat of a felony record and longer incarceration are not prerequisites for a successful policy and may fall flat. However, future research is needed that pays specific attention to retention in treatment and long-term sobriety before and after an enactment of defelonization reforms.
_____
1 Perron, B. E., & Bright, C. L. (2008). The influence of legal coercion on dropout from substance abuse treatment: Results from a national survey. Drug and alcohol dependence, 92(1-3), 123-131.
2 Young, D. (2002). Impacts of perceived legal pressure on retention in drug treatment. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 29(1), 27-55.
3 Hepburn, J. R., & Harvey, A. N. (2007). The effect of the threat of legal sanction on program retention and completion: Is that why they stay in drug court?. Crime & Delinquency, 53(2), 255-280.
4 Parhar, K. K., Wormith, J. S., Derkzen, D. M., & Beauregard, A. M. (2008). Offender coercion in treatment: A meta-analysis of effectiveness. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35(9), 1109-1135.
5 Young, D. (2002). Impacts of perceived legal pressure on retention in drug treatment. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 29(1), 27-55.
6 Young, D., & Belenko, S. (2002). Program retention and perceived coercion in three models of mandatory drug treatment. Journal of Drug Issues, 32(1), 297-328.
7 LaPlant, Eric. (2021). Former Opioid Addicts’ Cycle of Addiction: Examining the Role of Criminal Justice Contact, Deterrence, and Cognitive Change. Unpublished manuscript. Doctoral Dissertation, The Ohio State University.
8 Pew Charitable Trust (2018). More imprisonment does not reduce state drug problems.
9 Nagin, D. S. (2013). Deterrence in the twenty-first century. Crime and justice, 42(1), 199-263.
In 2014, California recategorized some drug and property offenses from felonies to misdemeanors via ballot initiative Proposition 47 (Prop 47). In a study of arrest rates, Public Policy Institute of California found overall declines in rearrests and reconvictions after Prop 47.1 Specifically, re-arrest rates were 1.8 percent lower for individuals with Prop 47 offenses after California’s reform relative to comparable individuals sentenced before the reform. However, Prop 47 may have had some negative effect on property crime. Post-Prop 47, property crimes increased by roughly 9 percent relative to other states. The majority of this rise, roughly 75 percent, is attributed to a rise in thefts from motor vehicles.
In a 2020 study, Bird et al. found declines in rearrest and reconvictions amongst those who received drug convictions after Prop 47 relative to persons with similar conviction histories charged prior to Prop 47.2 This decline is mostly driven by declines in rearrest and convictions for drug offenses. While arrests and convictions declined on the whole, there was a small increase in rearrest (2.8%) and reconvictions (1.1%) for violent crimes. Increases in assault and domestic violence account for much of the increase in violent crimes. The authors caution not to overstate the magnitude of this increase.
While California experienced overall drop in crime rates, Utah’s reform has produced more unintended consequences. A performance evaluation of Utah’s Justice Reinvestment Initiative (JRI) found recidivism rates amongst low-level drug offenders rose and the number of chronic drug offenders nearly tripled. The audit found that the initiative fell short on some of its public health and oversight goals.3 Namely, JRI’s goals to strengthen local oversight, increase support for local corrections systems, expand treatment services, and increase resources for probation and parole supervisions had not been met. While JRI achieved its goal of reducing incarceration of non-violent and less serious offenders, Utah provides a cautionary note of the importance of executing this goal in tandem with adequate oversight and provision of treatment services.
In sum, evidence from other states suggests that defelonization does not lead to spikes in crime more broadly. However, reclassification without adequate supervision and treatment services can have unintended consequences.
_____
1 Bird, M., Lofstrom, M., Martin, B., Raphael, S., Nguyen, V., & Goss, J. (2018). The impact of Proposition 47 on crime and recidivism. Public Policy Institute of California.
2 Bird, M., Nguyen, V., & Grattet, R. (2020). Impact of defelonizing drug possession on recidivism. Criminology & Public Policy, 19(2), 591-616.
3 A Performance Audit of the Justice Reinvestment Initiative (Rep.). (2020, October). Retrieved February 2, 2021 from the Utah State Legislature website: https://olag.utah.gov/olag- doc/2020-08_RPT.pdf
Defelonization, as intended, reduces incarceration rates. California’s Prop 47 reduced its state’s jail and prison population by 15,000, saving $350 million dollars for local and state government. Alaska is projected to have reduced its imprisoned population by 13% in 2024 and have reinvested roughly $100 million of the $380 million saved into treatment, reentry, and victim services. Oklahoma, Connecticut, and Utah have similarly experienced declines in their imprisonment rates.1
Utah, however, experienced both a decline in imprisonment rates and an increase in recidivism rates, underscoring the importance of effectively diverting resources to help ensure that declines driven by changes in criminal justice system responses are not countered by increases in crime driven by inadequate access to treatment and services.
_____
1 Elderbroom, B., & Durnan, J. (2019). Reclassified: State-Drug Law Reforms to Reduce Felony Convictions and Increase Second Chances. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 31(3), 195-207.
In sum, the evidence suggests that the threat of a felony record or more serious punishment may not hold the promise that some have hoped. Moreover, states that have defelonized have experienced both drops in incarceration rates and, in the case of California, in crime rates more broadly. Nonetheless, Utah’s rise in recidivism rates and rise in chronic drug offenders is troubling and underscores the importance of defelonization reform coinciding with an expansion of services and resources.
With that said, more research is needed in this area. For example, California’s reform, unlike SB 3, reclassified some property offenses. While California saw an increase in property crimes, would the same be true for reform more akin to SB 3? Studies of crime trends after comparable reform efforts would improve our understanding of the potential impact of an SB 3-esque bill on crime trends in Ohio.
Additionally, our understanding of the relationship between defelonization and treatment outcomes would greatly benefit from research on treatment outcomes of those before and after reclassification reform. Nonetheless, the lack of empirical research supporting the assertion that the threat of a felony record improves treatment outcomes, the lasting downstream consequences of a felony record, and unprecedented Ohio fatal overdose rates suggest that Ohio is long overdue for creative solutions that move beyond our historical reliance on punitive measures to “fix” a public health crisis.