The Alliance for Higher Education in Prison is deeply concerned about the proposed language of Substitute House Bill 338, which would significantly limit educational opportunities for people who are incarcerated in Ohio. As an organization committed to expanding access to high-quality higher education in prison nationwide, we believe this bill, as written, would undermine staff safety, erode strong reentry outcomes, and ultimately harm Ohio families and communities.

In response, we sent a letter to Ohio state legislators outlining our concerns and urging reconsideration. 

While our letter focuses on how the proposed bill would affect higher education in prison, the legislation also carries broader consequences for people incarcerated in Ohio. ACLU Ohio’s Legislative Director, Gary Daniels, provided testimony that highlights the counterproductive nature of the bill’s punitive provisions that will have significant financial, personal, and societal impacts.

We encourage those who live and/or work in Ohio to make their voices heard. We are sharing this letter publicly so that Ohio constituents, educators, and community members may reference or adapt our language if they wish to reach out to their elected officials. Ohioans can find the names and contact information of their legislators online.

Whether you choose to use portions of our letter or craft your own message, your engagement is essential in ensuring that people in prison continue to have access to meaningful educational opportunities that benefit all of our communities.

Our full letter to legislators is included below.

‍

‍

December 8, 2025
‍

To: [Representatives]

From: The Alliance for Higher Education in Prison

Subject: Request to Amend Section 5120.012(F) of Sub. H.B. 338: Preserving Evidence-Based Prison Education

‍

The Alliance for Higher Education in Prison (“the Alliance”) respectfully urges the Ohio General Assembly to strike Section 5120.012(F) of Substitute House Bill 338, which would: “Require the elimination of all higher education programs at high security state correctional institutions.” (Sub. H.B. 338, p. 78). This provision would ban  postsecondary education in several of Ohio’s largest and highest-need prisons, undermining the state’s own public-safety and workforce goals and contradicting well-established national research on the positive role of postsecondary education in improving safety in correctional settings and communities.

As a national organization committed to expanding access to high-quality higher education in prison, the Alliance views the currently proposed restriction in Substitute House Bill 338 as a significant step backward that would undermine staff safety and lead to worse outcomes for Ohio families and communities.

Eliminating higher education programs in high-security settings would work directly against the goals of Andy's Law to improve safety in Ohio's correctional institutions, reduce violence, strengthen staff working conditions and support pathways to stable reentry. Specifically:

• A comprehensive evaluation commissioned by the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction and conducted by the University of Cincinnati Corrections Institute found that college classes reduced violent misconduct by 8.7% among male participants in Ohio prisons, directly improving facility safety for both correctional residents and staff. 
• National research shows that participation in postsecondary education reduces recidivism, increases employment, and saves taxpayers’ money.¹
• Removing college access in high-security prisons will increase idleness, which will increase disciplinary incidents, staff assaults, overtime and workers’ compensation costs, and keep incarcerated individuals in high-security custody longer.² This will increase long-term incarceration and reentry costs for the state of Ohio.

Section 5120.012(F) of Substitute House Bill 338 as currently proposed will eliminate higher education programs in high-security facilities, cutting off access to Pell-supported postsecondary education for an entire segment of Ohio’s incarcerated population. This restriction would run counter to the goal of federal Pell guidelines to expand educational opportunity and limit the reach and impact of Ohio’s existing college-in-prison programs. It may also create compliance and operational challenges for Ohio colleges (including Sinclair, Ashland, Marion Technical, Columbus State, Ohio State, Wilmington College, and Ohio University) that serve and employ thousands of Ohio residents.

Ohio has been nationally admired for its multi-campus correctional education system. So much so that in 2026, the Alliance is planning to hold its annual national conference, the National Conference on Higher Education in Prison, at the Huntington Convention Center in Cleveland. However, section 5120.012(F) of Substitute House Bill 338 threatens to dismantle decades of progress. The Alliance recommends to remove the language requiring elimination of higher education programs in high-security institutions from Section 5120.012(F) and replace it with evidence-based, safety-centered language such as: “The Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction shall ensure that educational, vocational, and rehabilitative programs are implemented in ways that maintain safety and security.”

The Alliance is open to working with Ohio lawmakers to identify a path forward that preserves the safety and rehabilitative benefits of higher education in prison. While educators, facilitators, and college partners have not yet been consulted in the development of this provision, we are ready to provide testimony, meet with committee members, offer technical guidance, or engage in other discussions to help shape a solution that supports both correctional staff and residents without dismantling higher educational programming in high-security facilities. 

We respectfully urge lawmakers to remove the language in Section 5120.012(F) of Substitute House Bill 338 and uphold Ohio’s commitment to safety, evidence-based policy, and the well-being of the people who live and work in its correctional facilities.

‍

1. Pompoco, A., Wooldredge, J., Lugo, M., Sullivan, C., & Latessa, E. J. (2017). Reducing Inmate Misconduct and Prison Returns with Facility Education Programs. Criminology & Public Policy, 16(2), 515-547.

‍2. Bozick, R., Steele, J., Davis, L. C., & Turner, S. (2018). Does providing inmates with education improve postrelease outcomes? A meta-analysis of correctional education programs in the United States. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 14(3), 389–428. https://perma.cc/NKE4-KDFK