Introduction

	The Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (DR&C) has requested massive budgetary increases topping one billion dollars a year while all over Ohio large numbers of schools are closing their doors. Citing a population of over 46,000 prisoners and increasing over crowding, much of this money is earmarked for new prison construction. With the FBI's Uniform Crime Statistics showing that crime, particularly violent crime, is dropping in the United States, why, then, does Ohio have such a huge problem? Is it because Ohio has an unusually high number of criminals in it's population? Or could this constant, seemingly insurmountable problem of ballooning prison populations and ever-present crime stem from some other even more disturbing cause?

	In an Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction news release dated January 31, 1997, Mr. Reginald A. Wilkinson, the department's Director, stated:

	"We've been good stewards of the taxpayer's dollars. We haven't 	sat idly by as our prison and parole populations have went 	through the roof. We've testified to the legislature about the 	impact of each and every proposed sentencing law. We've pushed 	hard for community-based punishments, and we've got them. The 	rate of people coming into prison is actually declining. 	Balancing that is the fact that violent and repeat offenders 	are staying in longer as they should."

Included in this release are some interesting Department of Rehabilitation facts which proves very revealing:
	"Ohio's prison system is the nation's fifth largest state 	prison system with over 46,000 inmates as of January, 1997. The 	nation's incarceration rate has increased from 293 per 100,000 	citizens in 1990 to 419 in 1996. At the same time, Ohio's 	incarceration rate has increased from 289 per 100,000 citizens 	in 1990, to 397 in 1996;" (i.e; Please note that Ohio's figures 	are below the national average.) "Ohio's prison population 	increased from 31,519 on January 1, 1991 to 45,962 as of 	January 1997, a 45.9 percent increase." (i.e. Please note these 	dates and numbers.) "The Department also supervises over 27,000 	individuals in the community, an increase of over 7,700 or 49.9 	percent increase."

	Wilkinson further states: "We would all rather see this money appropriated to schools and other deserving agencies. But the fact is, we have 46,000 prisoners and 27,000 individuals on the street that we absolutely must supervise in an effective and safe manner. Our safety, and yours, depends upon the tools we're given to do our job."

	Other facts in this news release included: "Ohio has the lowest average daily cost per inmate per day of $40.70 or $14,855 per year, (January 1, 1996), when compared with states holding the ten highest inmate populations. By using prototype designs and construction methods, the cost of building new prisons in Ohio is among the lowest in the nation at $28,400 per bed. The national average is $51,299," (See Appendix - Item One)

	Mr. Wilkinson's statements and ODRC facts paint an interesting picture, which, when compared to operational data pose some interesting questions. First, why has the prison population ballooned between 1991 and 1997 if our incarceration rate is lower than the national average and all of these new community based programs are in place? Secondly, why hasn't the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction and the Ohio Adult Parole Authority, the ODRC's subsidiary agency, told the truth to the legislature and to Ohio's citizens concerning the real reasons behind Ohio's burgeoning prison population? Thirdly, why hasn't the ODRC and the Adult Parole Authority told the citizens of Ohio the real reason behind the criminal recidivism rate? Could it be that to do so would cause irate citizens to call for a disbanding of the Adult Parole Authority and a return to sensible, just punishment for Ohio's errant citizens? By examining the fact we can come to an accurate and fair conclusion.


CRIMINAL LAW SENTENCING STATUTES
The Adult Parole Authority And Its Guidelines:

A Brief Historical Perspective

	On July 1, 1996, Ohio's much touted "Truth in Sentencing Law," known officially as Senate Bill Two, went into effect. Prior to that date Ohio's citizens had been under an Ohio Revised Criminal Code which based it's sentencing structure on what was called ''Indefinite Sentences" or "Tails." This sentencing structure was designed around the concept that an offender could, through good conduct, educational improvement and rehabilitative programs, shorten his or her period of imprisonment and return to society better than when first brought into the system. The inmate's progress was to be monitored and periodically reviewed by the Parole Board and when sufficient progress had been achieved, this inmate would be released back into society.

	The current Parole Board system was instituted in 1974 and in 1987 the Board formalized their review criteria and published their set of guidelines. In the pamphlet in which these guidelines are outlined the Adult Parole Authority states, "Although most inmates will be released at some point prior to expiration of their sentence, it shall be the purpose of the Adult Parole Authority's decision-making at all levels of the agency to protect the public, to preserve the rights of individuals including the victims of crime, and to satisfy reasonable people that its decisions are fair, and consistent."

	"The guidelines are only a tool to be utilized in enhancing the quality of decisions. An individual case will always be decided by the professional judgment and discretion of the Parole Board. The guidelines may be overridden and should not be viewed as creating an expectation of release in a particular case."

"The goals of the guideline system in order of priority are:

1. To provide for public protection by not releasing those inmates who represent a high risk of repeating violent or other serious crimes.

2. To provide an appropriate continuum of sanctions for crime.

3. To cooperate with correctional management in providing safe, secure and humane conditions in state correctional institutions.

4. To recognize the achievement of those inmates with special identifiable problems relating to their criminal behavior who have participated in institutional programs designed to alleviate their problems.

5. To make the decision-making process of the Adult Parole Authority more open, equitable and understandable to the public and to the inmate."

	The Parole Board's guideline explanation also states: "Nationwide, parole boards have been encouraged to spell out their procedures, their duties under the law, and the precautions taken to protect citizens from career criminals and aggressive and violent felons. Beginning in 1987, the Ohio Parole Board has systematized it's decisions through a weighted point system and carefully developed decision guidelines."

	The Parole Board guidelines as written and published, if applied with fairness and the intention to return an individual to society better equipped to succeed, are workable. Utilized properly their guidelines would provide the incentive necessary to cause a person to want to improve if for no other reason than to be free. This is assuming, of course, that the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction provided the programs through which this individual's improvement could be achieved.

	Indefinite sentences ranged from 1.5 to 5 years for a fourth degree felony, to 5 to 25 years for a first degree felony. At any point after the minimum sentence, minus good time, had been served the Parole Board could release a prisoner. The guidelines, as can be fully reviewed in the Appendix Item Two, set forth reasonable expectations of parole with proper conduct and individual effort.

	As the prison populations increased and costs skyrocketed state officials searched for a solution to their prison's overcrowding. In 1990 the Ohio Legislature established a sentencing commission to formulate new laws to reduce prison populations, make Ohio's law and sentencing structures more reflective of actual time served and stop the growing drain on the state's budget. This commission was officially sanctioned on August 22, 1990, and members included knowledgeable individuals such as a judge from the State Supreme Court. Among the first items on the commission's agenda was the conversion from indefinite sentences to determinate sentences commonly referred to as "Flat Time" and the elimination of the Parole Board. Since the new law would be applied to all prisoners there would no longer be a need for the Board and its inherent costs of operation. What resulted was the formulation of a new sentencing structure which was fair, constitutional and retroactive to all Ohio prisoners. Provisions were included for converting the indefinite sentence minimums to "Flat Time" or definite sentences. This commission's recommendations, if implemented into law as written, would have ended Ohio's overcrowding crisis within a year. But now it had to go to the Ohio Legislature for enactment into law.



THE PROBLEM OF PRISON OVERCROWDING

It's Causes and Ramifications

	With the first whispers that the Parole Board would be abolished frantic lobbying and political jockeying took place. The Parole Board's jobs were on the line. They were fighting for their retirement checks. Two things happened which nre note worthy during the opening days of the new Sentencing Commission's life. First, there was a push to install in the law two things which would guarantee the Parole Board's life. The first was the provision for giving "bad time" or "dead time" for institutional rules violations. The institutional Rules Infraction Board could recommend the giving of bad time but, notably, it was only the Parole Board which would have the power to order this sanction against rules violators. This would, for all practical purposes, add time to the man or woman's court appointed sentence.

	The second item was "Post Release Supervision." With indefinite sentences the offender, once on parole, could be returned to prison for criminal or other rules violations connected with the conditions of parole. This was intended initially as an incentive to offenders to Veep out of trouble. Through abuses inflicted by power hungry parole officers the "Tech. P.V.'s," as they became known, clogged the system. These men and women had committed no criminal acts. They were guilty, quite often, of only being late for appointments. With the passage of the new law this would stop. Parole would stop. More retirement checks were on the line. Once again, through politicing the Parole Board found itself a job. With the inclusion of "Post Release Supervision" the field officers could now disrupt lives for up to five years and in some cases longer. Under the proposed new law ex-offenders who had completed their prison sentences could be snatched off their jobs and away from their families and locked up in "Community Correctional Centers" for up to ninety days for technical violations with no criminal offense involved. This provision would give the Parole Board the power to throw families into economic ruin repeatedly until the Post Release Supervision period ended.

	Through the efforts of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and it's subsidiary, the Adult Parole Authority, the Parole Board and it's field officers were guaranteed jobs under the new statutes if and/or when enacted into law. In order to impress upon the Ohio Legislature the severe need to retain the Board and it's field officers the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction and the Adult Parole Authority used numbers. In order to bolster their position, since passage of the "Bad Time" and "Post Release Supervision" provisions were by no means guaranteed, the ODRC and APA stressed the number of men on indefinite sentences. In order to make the figures impressive they made some changes. All in an effort to insure their retirement checks. These changes are reflected in the 1994 Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction Annual Report.

	The data reflecting the Parole Board's strategy is shown in the Appendix as Item Three. In 1990, the year the new Sentencing Commission started it's work, there were 14,156 parole hearings. From this number there were 6,041 paroles granted. This equates to a 42.7% release rate. As you can see by reviewing Item Three this release percentage suddenly dropped to 33.7% in 1991 and by 1994 was down to 23.9%. The ODRC and the APA announced it was getting tougher on violent and repeat offenders. The data that will be presented will show this to be a lie. What was actually happening was a deliberate effort to load the system with men with Indefinite Sentences. The immediate result of this deliberate reduction in releases was a skyrocketing prison population. In 1990 there were 14,156 people eligible for parole. By 1994 this number had ballooned to 24,429 and climbing fast.

	As was noted earlier the APA guidelines booklet states: "The guidelines are only a tool to be utilized in enhancing the quality of decisions. An individual case will always be decided by the professional judgment and discretion of the Parole Board. The guidelines may be overridden and should not be viewed as creating an expectation of release in a particular case." We must note that this passage uses the terms "professional judgment" and "discretion." It should also be noted that it states that the guidelines "should not be viewed as creating an expectation of release in a particular case."

	Reasonable minds would then conclude that the members of the Parole Board are professionals who would conduct themselves in a professional luanner. With the introduction of the word "discretion," it could then be assumed that this same Board would view all aspects of a case and could reward as well as punish in a just and impartial manner. In 1990 42.7% of those inmates coming before the Board were rewarded. By 1994 only 23.9% could expect another chance to prove their worth. The last sentence from the guideline passage appears to be prophetic when the Parole Board's jobs are threatened.

	In order to identify the exact methods the Parole Board used in it's reduction of paroles we call into play data from the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction's own reports. We also use data provided by CURE Ohio and survey data from one of Ohio's minimum-medium security prisons. The findings demonstrated by this data is and should be very disturbing to all Ohio citizens. The results of the ODRC and APA's actions through the Parole Board have been disastrous! The prison population has skyrocketed artificially thus dramatically increasing the funds required to operate. Virtually all rehabilitative programs have been abolished even though the ODRC still lauds their own efforts to rehabilitate in their own literature. Men and women are crowded together like cattle. This and the lack of viable programs and recreation raises tensions, endangers both inmates and staff and causes an attitude of hostility or hate that will be carried back onto the streets and into society.

	As has been evident in the news the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction has called over and over for funds now exceeding ONE BILLION DOLLARS a YEAR! Much of this is to build new prisons to handle the artificially increased population of justifiably hostile people. At the same time schools are closing and the state is helpless to stop it. With the newsmedia induced citizen hysteria over errant citizens the politicians load the ODRC coffers without questioning why there is this sudden blossoming of our prison population. New prisons are not needed and in truth several existing prisons could be closed. The schools would then have those hundreds of millions of dollars to keep their doors open, the teachers working and the students updated with new texts and equipment.

	These statements will be backed up with facts. Facts carefully prepared and straight forwardly presented. Everything presented should not only dismay but should also infuriate every taxpaying citizen in Ohio.