Adding It Up

The Financial Realities of
Ohio’s Pay-to-Stay Jail Policies

Introduction
	 The United States is the largest
incarcerator in the world, and Ohio ranks
eighth in terms of prison population size.1 	
	 Many of the individuals incarcerated
are low-level, nonviolent offenders whose
crimes may not have led to
incarceration 20, 30 or 40
years ago.2 However, mandatory minimum sentencing, the
misguided War on Drugs, and
other tough on crime campaigns have left many courts
with little choice but to incarcerate a person who may be
better served in rehabilitation
or under community control.3
The addiction to incarceration
has had very real consequences — creating a growing class
of individuals with criminal
convictions unable to obtain
employment or housing, and
trapped in perpetual poverty.
As these individuals struggle
under the weight of reentering society,
many see no hope and instead return to
crime. In turn, taxpayers pay increasingly
more money to fund prisons and jails,
which has led to Ohio spending over $1.32
billion in 2010 alone.4
	 In recent years, state legislators have
begun to recognize this problem and have
enacted common-sense legislation that
moderately reformed Ohio’s criminal
sentencing laws and alleviated some of
the barriers formerly incarcerated people
experienced when seeking employment.

Unfortunately, these modest reforms
have not been adequate to turn the tide
of over-incarceration in Ohio, and many
local officials have worried that they may
negatively impact county jails.5 Coupled
with substantial cuts in state
funding to local governments,
many counties are considering implementing or increasing “pay-to-stay” fees levied
against those incarcerated in
county jails.
	 Pay-to-stay policies can
take a number of different
forms, from booking charges
and fees for medical treatment, to per diem charges
for each day of incarceration.
At first glance, these charges
may seem like an innocuous
way to supplement the budgets of struggling jails, but
charging inmates for their
incarceration is not the simple
solution it may appear to be.
	 Criminal justice experts estimate
that at least 80% of individuals in jail
are indigent.6,7 Many of those who do not
enter into jail with low income almost
assuredly will leave in financial distress,
as they will likely no longer have employment, their families will have spent any
savings on basic necessities while the
person was in jail, and they may also face
steep criminal fines imposed by the court.
If local officials hope to reap a financial
windfall off the backs of those housed in
2

their jails, they will be confronted quickly
with the reality that the vast majority of
these individuals simply cannot pay these
fees.
	 In 2007, the Buckeye State Sheriffs’
Association estimated that 60 counties
had implemented pay-to-stay programs.9
While that number may have increased
since then, other counties have turned
away from pay-to-stay programs because
they have recognized these programs expend far more resources than they could
ever hope to collect.
	 Adding it Up: The Financial Realities of
Ohio’s Pay-to-Stay Policies examines the
programs at three jails with long-running
fee programs. The ACLU of Ohio’s research
uncovered several important findings:
•	 Larger fees that build up over time
do not lead to more revenues. The
vast majority of individuals in jail are
low income, and cannot afford high
pay-to-stay fees. Exorbitant charges
simply means that people will have
larger outstanding bills, but does not
translate into higher collection rates.
•	 Aggressive programs to collect fees
after incarceration are likely to fail.
Collection agencies often promise
that they will bring in large revenues
for local officials, but data suggests
that low-income people are no more
likely to pay their fees when collection
agencies are used. Additionally, collection agencies impose a new cost on
jails that are not offset by the meager
revenues accrued through pay-to-stay
programs.

“Pay-for-Stay is like spitting
in the wind. It doesn’t even
make a dent.”8
	

- Phil Johnson, Fairfield County 	
Jail Administrator

•	 Local officials cannot hope to balance
their budgets by assessing fees on
low-income people. The vast majority of people who enter prison are
already indigent, and even more leave
prison with large financial obstacles.
The burden of pay-to-stay fees is often
shared by entire families, as commissary funds deposited by loved ones are
seized to satisfy the fees.
•	 Officials should seek to depopulate
their jails rather than rely on ineffective pay-to-stay fees. The only longterm remedy for over-incarceration
is to invest in programs that will keep
people out of jail, and change rules
and practices that give preference
to incarceration over rehabilitative
services. As state officials have begun
to make strides to reduce the prison
population, local officials must also
partner with elected officials and law
enforcement to depopulate jails.
	 As Fairfield County Jail Administrator Phil Johnson expressed, collecting
pay-to-stay fees is often an uphill battle.
In August 2012, the Fairfield County Jail
suspended its program altogether.
3

Fairfield County
	 Fairfield County Jail first implemented
its pay-to-stay system in 2003. Inmates
entering and exiting the jail were assessed
booking fees as well as fees for medical
care and other expenses. These inmates
were also charged a daily fee based on
income and number of children. Each day
in jail could cost anywhere from $5 for a
person making $5 per hour with two or
more children, up to $60 per day for a person making $30 an hour with no children.
These fees could be collected from an inmate’s commissary account anytime while
in jail. If the pay-to-stay fees remained
unpaid for 90 days after release, they were
turned over to a collection agency.
	 On paper, the program seemed like
it would generate revenue through large
fees and robust enforcement. However,

these aggressive attempts to recoup
money, from the moment inmates were
committed until every last cent of their
reimbursement was paid, failed to deliver
the results local officials had hoped.
	 Overall, the Fairfield County program
proved extremely ineffective at bringing in
revenue for the jail. Only about 15% of
pay-to-stay fees charged from 2008-2011
were collected (graph 1). In fact, booking
fees and per diem fees combined made up
less than half of total jail revenues.
	 Fairfield County’s pay-to-stay system
was fundamentally flawed because their
source of funding was unreliable. While
there were peaks and valleys in terms of
revenue, the trend over time was unquestionably negative, with revenue falling approximately $39 per month.

Graph 1
County Month
Over
Month in
Charges
Payments
Charges GrewFairfield
While Payments
Remained
Stagnant
FairfieldvsCounty
from 2008-2011
450000
400000
350000

250000
200000
150000
100000
50000

1
ar
-1
M

Se
p10
N
ov
-1
0
Ja
n11

Ju
l-1
0

0
ar
-1

ay
-1
0

M

M

Se
p09
N
ov
-0
9
Ja
n10

Ju
l-0
9

9

ay
-0
9

M

ar
-0
M

Se
p08
N
ov
-0
8
Ja
n09

Ju
l-0
8

8

M

ar
-0
M

ay
-0
8

8

0

Ja
n0

Dollars

300000

Month-Year
Amount Charged

Amount Paid

4

	 While this amount may seem relatively insignificant, it accounts for a 2-3%
loss in revenue each year, despite a jail
population that rose by 4% from 20082010. This loss came from both decreased
booking fees and per diem fees, representing a 3% and 6% annual loss in revenue respectively. Ultimately, after years
of poor results, Fairfield County’s pay-tostay policy ended in August 2012.
	 This program failed because many inmates simply could not pay the expenses
imposed on them by the jail, no matter

how aggressively the debt was enforced.
Many of those entering jail were already
indigent, but upon release were even less
poised to pay fees. On average, those
charged under the county’s pay-to-stay
program owed $154.91, or nearly half a
week’s gross wages for a worker making
$8 an hour — hardly possible for the many
formerly incarcerated people who could
not find even minimum wage employment while managing to provide for family
members.

Collection Agencies Prove Ineffective
Fairfield County officials contracted with a collection agency in the hopes that it
might raise revenues, but the effort proved ineffective. Data shows that use of a
collection agency did not increase the proportion of people who paid their fees
versus those who did not face collections. In fact, comparing people who faced
a collection agency with those who did not illustrates that a larger proportion of
people who were solicited by collection agencies did not pay off their debts and
had higher debt. (graphs 2-3) The collections process was eventually abandoned
in 2009 due to high costs and low returns.
Graph 2

Graph 3

Collection Agencies Led to More People with Higher Debt

Outstanding Debt Without Collections

Outstanding Debt Using Collections
22%

28%

40%

53%

25%

32%
$0 or less

Between $0 and $100

$100 or more

$0 or less

Between $0 and $100

$100 or more

5

Hamilton County
	 Pay-to-stay fees are not a new idea
in Hamilton County. In 2000, a lawsuit
put an end to the county’s practice of
charging fees to people who had yet to be
convicted and were in jail pending trial. A
federal judge ruled that this violated basic due process protections and ordered
the county to pay $1 million in refunds
and $150,000 for an inmate education
program.
	 However, the Hamilton County Jail
soon reintroduced their pay-to-stay program in 2008.10 This new incarnation of
its program charges a relatively high, flat
$40 booking fee to individuals who have
either pled guilty to or are convicted of
an offense.
	 Once a person is incarcerated, the jail

sets up an account. Any money in this account can be confiscated by the jail to pay
off the booking fee as long as there is a
minimum of $5 left in the account. Given
the often inflated prices of commissary
items, this pittance is unlikely to allow
the incarcerated person to purchase
many items at the commissary. Any
money still owed to the jail at the end of
incarceration is invoiced to the inmate.
	 This aggressive strategy has led to
mediocre results for Hamilton County.
The county may boast new revenue,
bringing in anywhere from $142,000 to
$192,000 per year between 2008-2011.
However, these are relatively small revenues given that the jail’s large population
has steadily increased since 2009. The

Graph 4
Hamilton County Received
Half What
It Charged from 2008-2011
Month Approximately
Over Month Aggregate
Amounts
1600000

1400000

1200000

800000

600000

400000

200000

Ju

S

l-0
8
ep
-0
8
N
ov
-0
8
Ja
n09
M
ar
-0
9
M
ay
-0
9
Ju
l-0
9
S
ep
-0
9
N
ov
-0
9
Ja
n10
M
ar
-1
0
M
ay
-1
0
Ju
l-1
0
S
ep
-1
0
N
ov
-1
0
Ja
n11
M
ar
-1
1
M
ay
-1
1
Ju
l-1
1
S
ep
-1
1
N
ov
-1
1

0

M
ay
-0
8

Dollars

1000000

Month-Year
Booking Fee Charges (Est.)

Booking Fee Revenues

6

number of inmates receiving charges
the economy by renting an apartment,
has increased as well, but the jail is only
purchasing local goods, and supporting
collecting roughly half of what they are
their families. Inability to find employcharging inmates (graph 4).
ment is also a factor that leads to a high	 It is important to consider how far
er probability they will be arrested again.
this money will go in terms of coverAs a result, taxpayers lose by paying for
ing the jail’s overall expenses. In 2010,
incarceration, failed fee collection prothe Hamilton
grams, public
County Jail
assistance, and
spent nearly
possible future
“When it came time to collect the
$31 million.
incarceration.
pay-to-stay,
it
ended
up
costing
Even the most
	Demanding
basic operatalmost as much if not more to run payment from
ing expenses
these already
the program.”11
are vastly more
struggling indiexpensive
- A.J. Rodenberg, Clermont County Sheriff viduals is both
than booking
counterintuitive
revenues. For
and unproducexample, in 2010 the jail spent nearly
tive. This can be seen clearly in Hamilton
three times more on food alone than they County, where the amount of unpaid debt
brought in from booking fees from 2008- continues to grow each year (graph 5).
2011.12
	 While these revenues are miniscule
when compared to expenses, they potentially cost communities even more
revenue in lost tax dollars and support
of local businesses. Studies on the economic impact of incarceration have found
that as many as 60% of previously incarcerated individuals remain unemployed
one year after release. Many formerly
incarcerated individuals face employers
unwilling to hire people with criminal
records, lack marketable job skills, are
unable to network in the working population, and lack employment history or
references.13 These individuals are likely
to need government assistance, and are
also unable to pay taxes and stimulate

7

	 To its credit, Hamilton County Jail
does inquire whether an inmate is indigent and avoids charging them fees. However, people who are low income or face
financial hardship may still not meet the
jail’s definition of indigent. For instance, in
2011, only 52% of inmates were declared
indigent. This number does not align with
national figures, which estimate at least
80% of the jail population is low income.
	 Additionally, the county does not take
into account whether inmates will be indigent when they leave jail, nor the effect
the fees may have on their families.

	 Many inmates cycle in and out of jail,
unable to pay their new booking fee as
well as their past fees. Unsatisfied payto-stay fees can remain active permanently, so each subsequent incarceration
increases their fees and decreases the
likelihood of successful payment. In fact,
estimates suggest the average debt per
released inmate increased by as much as
51.4% from 2008-2011, rising from $37.26
to $56.42. These rising fees bury inmates
who are unable to pay their fees in a
mountain of debt that few have any hope
to pay.

Graph 5
Unpaid
Pay
to Stay
Fees
Unpaid Fees GrewAccumulated
Rapidly for Inmates
Who
Could
Not Pay
Between 2008-2011
700000

600000

400000

300000

200000

100000

ay
-0
8

Ju
l-0
8
Se
p08
N
ov
-0
8
Ja
n09
M
ar
-0
9
M
ay
-0
9
Ju
l-0
9
Se
p09
N
ov
-0
9
Ja
n10
M
ar
-1
0
M
ay
-1
0
Ju
l-1
0
Se
p10
N
ov
-1
0
Ja
n11
M
ar
-1
1
M
ay
-1
1
Ju
l-1
1
Se
p11
N
ov
-1
1

0

M

Dollars

500000

Month-Year
Unpaid PTS Fees

8

Southeastern Ohio Regional Jail (SEORJ)
total bill $29.
	 SEORJ has had a pay-to-stay policy
14
	 This high collection rate more than
since it opened in 1998. Like Fairfield
makes up for the lower fee amounts and
County Jail, this facility bills individuals
both a booking fee and a daily fee. Howev- allows the jail to cover anywhere from
9.5% to 13.5% of non-medical inmate
er, its more lenient policies make SEORJ
supplies. Since individuals are not indistinctly different from other examples.
voiced nor subject to a collection agency
	 Inmates at this facility are charged a
upon release, they face less of a burden
flat $15 booking fee and a flat $1 per day
than people housed in other county jails.
fee for each day in jail. To recover these
However, the financial burden of these
fees, the jail can take money out of a
pay-to-stay
commissary
fees often
account that
shifts to their
is established
‘’If I thought I could raise revenue,
families since
for the person
I’d
go
through
[pay-to-stay]
in
a
many prowhile incargrams subcerated. Once
heartbeat, but it just did not work
sist off funds
the person is
the way it was drummed up to be.”15 deposited into
released, the
jail does not
- Neil Hassinger, Medina County Sheriff inmates’ commissary acinvoice or seek
counts. These
payment. If an
funds are proinmate is revided by family members, who often have
arrested within three years, the charges
less income because their family member
remain active and can be collected once
they are in jail again. Again, the jail makes is unable to work while incarcerated.
	 Among the items people may purno active effort to recoup additional
money owed after the person is released. chase in commissaries include toiletries,
reading materials, stamps, phone calls,
	 While it seems counterintuitive to
and snacks. Some jails require inmates to
some that a more lenient system would
purchase required clothing, non-prescripbe more effective, this system has
tion medical supplies, and other imporachieved the highest level of success in
the sample (graph 6-7). From 2008-2011, tant items from the commissary. Not only
SEORJ collected nearly all of the fees they is this taking money from families of incharged. This is likely due to the low daily carcerated individuals, it also directly imfee at $1 and the average stay in jail about pacts the individual’s success when they
leave jail. Multiple studies have shown
14 days, making the average inmate’s

9

Graph 6
SEORJ Collected
Nearly All itsPer
Modest
Fee Charges
from 2008-2011
SEORJ Accumulated
Diem Daily
Revenues
vs. Net Charges
30000

25000

Dollars

20000

15000

10000

5000

Ja

n08
M
ar
-0
8
M
ay
-0
8
Ju
l-0
8
Se
p08
N
ov
-0
8
Ja
n09
M
ar
-0
9
M
ay
-0
9
Ju
l-0
9
Se
p09
N
ov
-0
9
Ja
n10
M
ar
-1
0
M
ay
-1
0
Ju
l-1
0
Se
p10
N
ov
-1
0
Ja
n11
M
ar
-1
1
M
ay
-1
1
Ju
l-1
1
Se
p11
N
ov
-1
1

0

Month-Year
Net Charges Growth

Revenues Growth

Graph 7
Monthly Booking Fee Charges vs Revenues
SEORJ’s Collection of Booking Fees Fluctuated from 2008-2011
1800
1600
1400

1000
800
600
400
200
0

Ja
n08
M
ar
-0
8
M
ay
-0
8
Ju
l-0
8
Se
p08
N
ov
-0
8
Ja
n09
M
ar
-0
9
M
ay
-0
9
Ju
l-0
9
Se
p09
N
ov
-0
9
Ja
n10
M
ar
-1
0
M
ay
-1
0
Ju
l-1
0
Se
p10
N
ov
-1
0
Ja
n11
M
ar
-1
1
M
ay
-1
1
Ju
l-1
1
Se
p11
N
ov
-1
1

Dollars

1200

Month-Year
Monthly Revenues

Monthly Charges

10

that maintaining a strong family bond is
incredibly important to make it less likely
a person commits crime in the future.16
Reentry is often a difficult process, and
family is needed to help ease the process
of integrating back into society. These
policies take funds from inmates who may
wish to purchase phone calls home, which
may be expensive. For a 15 minute call to
Columbus from the Fairfield County Jail
or SEORJ, individuals must pay $8.15 to
a private phone company.17 To maintain
any meaningful contact with family over a
two week or month long jail stay, individuals will need every penny in their commissary to pay these excessive rates.

	 Available data is insufficient to quantify the number of families affected by
these pay-to-stay practices and the magnitude of these effects. However, research
suggests that for many families, the impact may be significant, due to the likelihood of children being involved and the
strain of the incarcerated person’s lost
income on family finances.18,19
	 As these policies wreak havoc on
low-income families, local governments
should instead seek to invest in reentry
and educational programs that will reduce the overall jail populations rather
than continue to pursue revenues through
ineffective pay-to-stay programs.

Federal Communications Commission Considers
End to Phone Price Gouging
	 One of the key items incarcerated individuals must purchase at the jail commissary are phone calls. Family members often must foot the bill for these calls.
The FCC recently conducted a public comment period around rampant price gouging orchestrated by private phone companies. According to leaders in the federal
Legislative Black Caucus, on average a phone call from jail will cost $4 plus an
additional $.55 per minute for long distance calls.20 Some estimates indicate many
prisoners pay in excess of $17 for a 15 minute phone call.21
	 This is far and above the basic rate people outside of prison are expected to
pay, and negatively affects the poorest Americans who are incarcerated. It also
leaves many low-income families with a terrible choice: lose contact with a beloved family member for weeks or months, or purchase expensive phone cards
with money that would be used to support their struggling family. When pay-tostay fees are taken from the commissary, the problem becomes even greater for
financially disadvantaged families.
	 Over 60 civil rights organizations and tens of thousands of individuals submitted public comments urging the FCC to place a cap on how much private companies may charge these individuals.22 The FCC is expected to make a decision soon.
Officials in Cuyahoga County have considered refusing their share of profits in
order to help inmates while the FCC decides.23

11

Recommendations
	 Of all the lessons these jails can teach
about pay-to-stay policies, easily one
of the most important is this: harsher
policies do not lead to higher revenues.
The ACLU of Ohio makes the following
recommendations to officials who seek
to implement pay-to-stay jail policies, or
have them in their community already:
	
•	 Do not drown individuals in exorbitant fees. In each case outlined, the
higher the fees, the less likely inmates
were to pay them, regardless of the
tactics used to pursue payment. Many
people in jail simply do not have the
funds to pay these fees, and charging
them more will not cause them to be
any more likely to pay.
•	 Collection agencies do not work and
may pose an additional cost. Data
suggests that the use of a collection
agency was actually linked to fewer
people paying off their debts. Contracts
with collection agencies, in turn, cost
taxpayers additional money, making
this tactic fiscally questionable. Finally,
collections may have a negative impact on inmates’ credit scores, making it more difficult for them to obtain
employment and housing, leading to
higher rates of recidivism.
•	 Do not allow jail charges to accrue
over a long period. Imposing aggressive financial burdens that grow with
each period of incarceration helps
neither the jail nor the inmate.

•	 Assess whether an inmate is indigent, and do not charge low-income
individuals pay-to-stay fees. If a person is indigent, even a $50 or $100 fee
will be nearly impossible to pay. The
negative impact of using collection
agencies and other post-release collection mechanisms could negatively
affect these individuals’ reentry and
cause them to fall further into poverty.
Jails will rarely be able to collect this
money, and will end up spending even
more to collect it.
•	 Consider other facts, such as impact
on families, when assessing pay-tostay fees. The impact of pay-to-stay
fees is not confined to the jail, no
matter how those fees are structured.
Whether the fees are invoiced directly
or are unwittingly being satisfied by
families supporting their incarcerated loved one, pay-to-stay charges
still affect people who are not part of
the criminal justice system. Families
suffer twofold under pay-to-stay: they
have lost the financial contributions
of their loved one while he or she is
incarcerated, and they often must
bear the financial burden of these
fees at the same time. Even families
who are not technically indigent may
suffer greatly under these policies,
and be forced into poverty because of
aggressive fees.

12

	 As budgets remain tight across Ohio, it
is difficult to find ways to finance even the
most basic services. However, pay-to-stay
fees are not the silver bullet that they may
initially seem. Simply put, inmates are
not a good source of revenue, and local
governments are beginning to realize
this fact. The potentially negative effects
of these fees suggest it is time to abandon this practice altogether and focus all
efforts on ensuring successful inmate
reentry into society.
	 In August 2012, Fairfield County Jail
ended its pay-to-stay policy altogether.
It is our hope this report will help more
communities reexamine and ultimately
eliminate the use of these counterproductive practices.

Methodology
	 This report analyzes records from
three Ohio jails that employed pay-tostay policies from 2008-2011: Fairfield
County Jail, Hamilton County Jail, and
Southeastern Ohio Regional Jail. These
jails were chosen due to their representation of different Ohio regions and
population size, and the length of their
use of pay-to-stay policies.
	 Each county was sent a records
request pertaining to operation of the
pay-to-stay program, revenues and
costs associated with the program,
and inmate population. Details specific
to particular jails, such as documents
relating to fee increases, were also
requested. Further details were also
gathered in subsequent phone calls to
the jails. 		
	 Unfortunately, most of the counties
did not keep accurate records for the
cost of these programs. As a result, the
ACLU was unable to determine how
much counties spend to enforce these
programs — which is just as problematic as finding steep costs.
	 The available data was analyzed
using a variety of techniques, such as
means, medians, and linear trends.
Graphs were created using appropriate data from the documents provided.
The level of detail provided by the jails
varied, so analyses between jails have
differing levels of precision, though all
use the same techniques.

13

Acknowledgments
The ACLU of Ohio would like to acknowledge the following staff members for their
contributions to this report:
Mike Brickner, Director of Communications and Public Policy
Mike has been with the ACLU of Ohio for nine years. During this time, he has
worked on a variety of civil liberties campaigns, including the Cincinnati-based
Police Reform Project and state criminal sentencing reform. Mike frequently
provides commentary to members of the media on core ACLU issues ranging
from ending capital punishment to strengthening state privacy laws. Additionally,
Mike previously coauthored The Outskirts of Hope: How Ohio’s Debtors’ Prisons
Are Ruining Lives and Costing Communities, as well as Prisons For Profit: A Look At
Private Prisons. Mike received his master’s degree in psychology from Cleveland
State University’s Diversity Management Program and his bachelor’s degree from
Hiram College.
Marcus Gaddy, Legislative Associate
Marcus joined the ACLU of Ohio in October 2010. He has served in multiple
capacities focusing on education and outreach on a range of civil liberties issues.
While primarily responsible for monitoring current legislation and preparing
updates on legislation for the public, Marcus also does extensive research
on topics related to Ohio’s criminal justice system. Marcus is an Ohio State
University graduate, with a bachelor’s degree in economics.
Other Contributing Staff:
Christine Link	
James L. Hardiman 	
Ana Perez	
Nick Worner	

Executive Director,
Legal Director,
former Law Clerk,
Communications Coordinator,

Special thanks to the ACLU National Prison Project and Racial Justice Program

14

References
1.	

Prisoners in 2011, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Dec.
2012, available at http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/
p11.pdf.

2.	

American Civil Liberties Union, Reform Cannot Wait: A
Comprehensive Examination of the Cost of Incarceration
in Ohio from 1991-2010 (2010), available at http://www.
acluohio.org/archives/publications/reform-cannotwait-a-comprehensive-examination-of-the-cost-ofincarceration-in-ohio-from-1991-2010?c=.

3.	

The Pew Center for the States, One in 100: Behind Bars
in America (2008), available at http://www.pewstates.
org/uploadedFiles/PCS_Assets/2008/one%20in%20
100.pdf.

4.	

The Price of Prisons, Vera Institute for Justice, Jan.
2012, available at http://www.vera.org/files/price-ofprisons-ohio-fact-sheet.pdf.

5.	

Ohio Sheriffs Concerned About HB 86 Public Safety Impact, WCPO, Oct. 14, 2011, available at http://www.wcpo.
com/dpp/news/local_news/ohio-sheriffs-concernedabout-hb-86-public-safety-impact.

6.	

The Right to Counsel: Badly Battered at 50, New York
Times, Mar. 09, 2013, available at http://www.nytimes.
com/2013/03/10/opinion/sunday/the-right-to-counselbadly-battered-at-50.html?_r=1&.

7.	

Census of Public Defender Offices, 2007, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Sept. 2010, available at http://www.bjs.
gov/content/pub/pdf/clpdo07.pdf.

8.	

Plugging the Deficit: How Low Can States Go?, Minyanville, Mar. 14, 2011, available at http://www.minyanville.
com/businessmarkets/articles/public-employeeunions-deficit-collective-bargaining/3/14/2011/
id/33348#ixzz2U4Op76SR.

9.	

Sheriff Revives Proposal to Levy Jail Fees, Akron Beacon
Journal, Jan. 2, 2011, available at http://www.ohio.
com/news/first/sheriff-revives-proposal-to-levy-jailfees-1.178597.

10.	 Sheila McLaughlin, Counties Make Inmates Pay Up,
Cincinnati Enquirer, Jul. 03, 2011.3.
11.	 Sheriff Revives Proposal to Levy Jail Fees, Akron Beacon
Journal, Jan. 2, 2011, available at http://www.ohio.
com/news/first/sheriff-revives-proposal-to-levy-jailfees-1.178597.
12.	 Hamilton County Sheriff’s Office, 2010 Annual Report
(2011), available at http://www.hcsheriff.gov/support/
annual_reports/hcso_annual_rpt_2010.pdf.

13.	 Harold Watts and Demetra Nightingale, Adding It Up:
The Economic Impact of Incarceration on Individuals,
Families, and Communities, The Urban Institute, Mar. 13,
2013, available at http://www.doc.state.ok.us/offenders/
ocjrc/96/Adding It Up.pdf.
14.	 Athens County Sheriff Wants Inmates to Pay More For Jail
Time, Athens Messenger, Dec. 03, 2011, available at
http://www.athensohiotoday.com/news/athens-countysheriff-wants-inmates-to-pay-more-for-jail/article_
e563f37e-1df3-11e1-bf00-0019bb2963f4.html.
15.	 Sheriff Revives Proposal to Levy Jail Fees, supra note 9.
16.	 Creasie Hairston, Prisoners and Families: Parenting Issues During Incarceration, U.S. Dept of Health and Human
Services (2001), available at http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/
prison2home02/hairston.htm.
17.	 Research conducted by ACLU of Ohio, via Securus
Technologies’ online call rate calculator (May 2013),
available at https://www.securustech.net.
18.	 Bruce Weston, Punishment and Inequality in America
(Russell Foundation 2006), available at http://www.
socialsciences.cornell.edu/0407/Western_incarceration_chapter.pdf.
19.	 Prisoners and Families: Parenting Issues During
Incarceration, supra note 16.
20.	 Federal Government Reviewing Prison Phone Charges,
Associated Press, Apr. 24, 2013, available at http://news.
yahoo.com/federal-government-reviewing-prisonphone-charges-210916700--politics.html.
21.	 Over 60 Organizations File Joint Letter with FCC Urging
Cap on Exorbitant Prison Phone Rates, Nation Inside,
available at http://nationinside.org/campaign/prisonphone-justice/press/over-60-organizations-file-jointletter-with-fcc-urging-cap-on-exorbitant-p.
22.	 FCC Could Crackdown On Phone Companies ‘Price Gouging’ Inmates for Calls, Huffington Post, Mar. 27, 2013,
available at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/27/
fcc-phone-companies-inmates_n_2966021.html.
23.	 Cuyahoga County Officials May Cut Inmate Phone Rates
by Refusing Share of the Profits, Cleveland Plain Dealer,
Apr. 27, 2013, available at http://www.cleveland.com/
cuyahoga-county/index.ssf/2013/04/cuyahoga_county_officials_may_cut_inmate_phonerates_by_refusing_share_of_the_profits.html.

15

Adding It Up:
The Financial Realities of Ohio’s
Pay-to-Stay Jail Policies
For more information, contact the ACLU of Ohio
4506 Chester Ave. Cleveland, OH 44103
Phone: (216)472-2200
Fax: (216)472-2210
Email: contact@acluohio.org

www.acluohio.org
Published June 2013