Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Reentry Fines Fees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill would delay court fines and fees six months after release to aid reentry, witnesses tell committee
Summary
Proponents told the House Judiciary Committee that House Bill 296 would give people released from prison or transitional control a six-month grace period before court fines and fees (excluding restitution) become due, arguing the delay would improve stability and reduce recidivism. Witnesses included formerly incarcerated Ohioans and multiple advocacy organizations; no vote was taken.
At a second hearing on House Bill 296, proponents from faith-based and civil-rights organizations and people with lived reentry experience told the House Judiciary Committee that delaying court fines and fees for six months after release would aid stabilization and reduce the risk of recidivism.
Allie Alphonsetti, legislative strategist for Prison Fellowship, testified that the bill would provide a six-month grace period during which people returning from incarceration or transitional control would not be required to make payments on court-assessed fines and fees; she emphasized the bill would not apply to restitution or forgive amounts owed.
"This bill would help ensure that formerly incarcerated Ohioans can prioritize the stability needed in this key window to leave crime and destructive behavior behind and avoid a return to prison," Alphonsetti said.
Emily Vollmer, who described owing roughly $10,000 in court fines and fees after release and facing the threat of additional incarceration for nonpayment, gave a personal account of how immediate payment obligations made reentry more difficult and extended supervision timelines.
Patrick Higgins of the ACLU of Ohio and a representative from the Ohio Justice & Policy Center also urged support; Higgins suggested the committee consider lengthening the grace period to one year to match recidivism data. Witnesses and members discussed bench warrants, restitution, victims’ interests and the likelihood that delaying payments could improve the ability to repay and reduce collateral consequences.
Sponsors and witnesses said House Bill 296 does not waive or forgive fines or restitution and does not eliminate victims’ rights to restitution; it delays the start of repayment obligations to help stabilize housing and employment. The committee concluded the second hearing after testimony and questions; no formal vote was taken.
