Alternative sentencing works, so Ohio needs to do more of it

Save money, reduce crime

Ohio has made progress in easing prison crowding by offering alternatives for nonviolent offenders. But a look at the numbers shows that more can be done.

The good news is, Ohio already knows what works: putting nonviolent felons in programs that make them better prepared to lead crime-free lives rather than in expensive prisons with hardened criminals. The challenge is to find the resources for the up-front investment.

Alternative-sentencing programs, such as the 18 community-based correction facilities and other programs based on drug-and-alcohol treatment and life-skills training, have a record of reducing recidivism. But the state hasn’t invested in them equally across the state, according to Ohio Division of Rehabilitation and Correction Director Gary C. Mohr.

While the six largest counties have markedly reduced the number of people they send to prison each year, the smaller counties have seen an increase that outweighs the big counties’ reduction. That’s in part because they don’t have enough alternatives. For example, the Star Community Justice Center, a community facility in Scioto County that serves nine southern Ohio counties, has a four-month waiting list.

A proposal contained in one of the mid-biennium budget-review bills would provide about $13 million to add 400 to 500 communityfacility beds across the state. Because stays in such programs typically are three months, each of those beds could allow three people per year to get help and treatment rather than a prison stay. That saves taxpayers money and increases the chance that the offender will go on to a productive life — a double win.

As Ohio’s prisons grow more crowded and potentially more dangerous, the need for more alternatives becomes clearer.

One in every 175 Ohio adults is in a state prison, and with nearly 51,000 inmates, the system has 30 percent more than it was designed for. Considering that each of those inmates costs taxpayers nearly $23,000 a year and that a large number are low-level, nonviolent offenders, it’s an expensive way to deal with societal problems.

A change to state sentencing law in 2011 aimed to ease the burden by steering more nonviolent offenders to community-based correction programs.

The largest counties responded, and two years ago the prison population seemed to be on the decline. But Ohio’s wave of heroin and other opiate addictions, combined with too few alternative-treatment options, have swelled the prison population again. During six months ending in early 2012, the number of people sent to prison for child-support-only violations dropped by 26 percent, incarcerations for low-level nonviolent felonies dropped and the overall prison population fell to 49,846, from a previous peak of 51,278.

But Mohr now finds himself with a new peak population and no reduction in sight unless the state invests more in alternatives.

Legislators should take note of the successful track record of alternative correction and steer available funds in that direction. Ohio won’t benefit from more prisons; putting low-level criminals in prison is a lousy business model with a poor return on investment. Spending less to provide the type of supportive correction that can turn around lives is a much smarter proposition. And it saves prison beds for those who pose the greatest threat to society.