Advancing Community Reentry

The ACLU of Ohio is committed to advancing community reentry by working to eliminate barriers – legal or otherwise – that serve no purpose toward public good.

One-in-six Ohioans have a criminal conviction. An even higher number have some sort of contact with the criminal legal system. After completing their sentence, individuals face tremendous difficulty finding employment, housing, and other vital resources needed to live a productive and stable life.

In some cases, the barriers are legally imposed by a court of law or government agency. These legal barriers are known as collateral sanctions. Often times, additional barriers result from screening mechanisms, such as background checks, that disqualify people from housing, jobs, and other services. Whether imposed by law or by institutional practice these barriers increase recidivism rates and create systems of poverty and incarceration that weaken our communities and harm public safety.

Collateral sanctions are penalties that go beyond a sentence or conviction. They go beyond prison time, probation or parole, court fines, fees, restitution, and other community control sanctions that result from the actual criminal sentence. In essence, they are penalties people face after already being penalized.

As of 2018, Ohio has more than 850 collateral sanctions ranging from driver's license suspension to bars to certain employment and professional licensure. These sanctions create lasting and damaging limitations on convicted persons and many bear no rational relationship to the offense. Instead some may even be counter-productive such as the suspension of a driver’s license for failure to pay child support. Importantly, the far-reaching effects of these barriers impact not only the individual with the conviction, but also their families, communities, and society at-large.

Visit the ACLU of Ohio YouTube page to watch the Collateral Sanctions video series.

• Agan, A. & Starr, S. (2016). Ban the box, criminal records, and statistical discrimination: A field experiment. Yale Law School Journal. (Link)
• ACLU of Ohio & OJPC. (2016). Looking forward: A comprehensive plan for criminal justice reform in Ohio. Columbus: The American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio; The Ohio Justice & Policy Center. (Link)
• Frank, J., Travis, L. F., Reitler, A., Goulette, N., & Flesher, W. (2011). Collateral consequences of criminal conviction in Ohio. University of Cincinnati, Center for Criminal Justice Research School of Criminal Justice. Cincinnati: Ohio Office of Criminal Justice Services. (Link)
• Kurlychek, M. C., Brame, R., & Bushway, S. D. (2006). Scarlet letters and recidivism: Does an old criminal record redict future offending? Criminology & Public Policy, 483-504. (Link)
• Pager, D. & Western, B. (2009). Investigating prisoner reentry: The impact of conviction status on the employment prospects of young men. National Criminal Justice Reference Service. Washington, DC. (Link)
• Society for Human Resource Management. (2012). SHRM survey findings: Background checking – the use of criminal background checks in hiring decisions. (Link)
• Thatcher, D. (2008). The rise of criminal background screening in rental housing. Journal of the American Bar Foundation. 33(1): 5-30. (Link)

Disclaimer: The information on this website is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. Every case depends on the specific facts and circumstances involved. To submit a complaint for review, please go to our Legal Help page.