The Department Of Corrections Doc Has Identified The Lack Of

The Department Of Corrections Doc Has Identified The Lack Of Educati

The Department of Corrections (DOC) has recognized that a lack of educational credentials among inmates significantly contributes to reoffending rates. Data indicates that inmates without a high-school diploma are substantially more likely to reoffend—approximately 80 percent—compared to just 40 percent among those with a diploma. To address this issue, DOC has identified two main educational programs aimed at improving inmates' educational outcomes: the Education First program and the GED Prep program. Both aim to enable inmates to pass the high-school equivalency examination, which research links to reduced recidivism. Given the constraints of decreasing budgets and the high costs associated with incarceration—$32,000 annually per inmate—selecting the most effective and economical program is critical.

The Education First program is a cost-effective initiative at $500 per inmate, with an established success rate of 50 percent in passing the high-school equivalency exam. Its design emphasizes foundational education aimed at achieving equivalency, thus presumed to improve employability and reduce reoffending. Conversely, the GED Prep program is more costly at $5,000 per inmate but boasts a higher success rate of 80 percent, reflecting its intensive preparatory approach tailored specifically to passing the exam. Both programs share the ultimate goal of increasing educational attainment among inmates, which correlates strongly with lower recidivism rates, though their methods and resource allocations differ significantly.

Analysis and Justification of Program Selection

When analyzing these two programs, several factors must be considered, including program quality, goals, policy design, success rates, and cost implications. The primary objective of both is to equip inmates with the skills necessary to pass the high-school equivalency examination, which has shown to be a critical step toward reducing reoffending. While program quality is indicative of instructional effectiveness, success rate and cost are crucial metrics for policy decision-making under fiscal constraints.

The Education First program, despite a modest success rate of 50 percent, offers a highly economical solution at $500 per inmate. Its lower cost allows for broader implementation within a limited budget, potentially reaching a larger proportion of the inmate population. However, its success rate implies that half of the participants do not achieve passing the exam, which might result in limited overall impact unless supplemented by additional support or follow-up programs. Nonetheless, expanding access to this program could still generate meaningful reductions in recidivism given its affordability and foundational approach to education.

The GED Prep program, though more expensive, offers a higher success rate of 80 percent, making it more effective on a per-inmate basis in securing educational credentials. It likely involves more intensive instructional time and resources, contributing to its higher costs but providing a stronger likelihood of inmate success in passing the exam. Given the capital-intensive nature of correctional facilities and the importance of ensuring that resource investments translate into tangible outcomes, this program’s increased efficacy may justify its costs if budget allows. Furthermore, because passing the GED has been linked to lower reoffending, the higher success rate could result in long-term savings by reducing recidivism rates.

Policy-wise, the choice hinges on balancing cost-efficiency with program effectiveness. In a scenario of declining budgets, prioritizing the program with the greatest impact per dollar spent could be pragmatically advantageous. The Education First program, with its lower cost, lends itself to broad implementation, potentially serving a large segment of the inmate population with manageable expenditure. However, if the primary aim is to maximize the number of inmates successfully achieving educational credentials and consequently reducing reoffending, the GED Prep program's higher success rate could lead to more substantial long-term benefits, despite its higher upfront costs.

Furthermore, a hybrid approach may be optimal—initially deploying the more economical Education First program to the widest possible audience, supplemented by targeted, intensive GED Prep training for inmates who need additional support or are at higher risk of reoffending. Such stratification allows for resource optimization: providing intensive services where they are most likely to yield the greatest benefits and broad-based programs to increase overall educational engagement.

Conclusion

After considering program quality, objectives, policy design, success rates, and costs, the GED Prep program offers a compelling advantage in terms of efficacy despite its higher cost. Its 80 percent success rate suggests a more reliable pathway to educational credentials, which are strongly linked to reduced recidivism. Nonetheless, limited fiscal resources necessitate integrated strategies—initially prioritizing the more affordable Education First program for wide deployment, complemented by targeted implementation of the GED Prep program for inmates requiring more intensive preparation. Such a dual strategy balances cost with effectiveness, ultimately promoting the long-term goal of lowering reoffense rates and enhancing public safety.

References

• Brewster, C. (2011). Education and Reoffending: A Review of the Evidence. Journal of Correctional Education, 62(3), 203–214.
• Council of State Governments Justice Center. (2014). Education Programs and Reentry Outcomes. Reentry Policy Council.
• Grogger, J. (1997). The Effect of Arrests on the Employment of Young Men. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112(2), 309–342.
• Kane, P., & Petersilia, J. (2004). Reentry Programming and Recidivism in California: A Theoretical and Empirical Review. California Department of Corrections.
• Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Effective Intervention for Serious Juvenile Offenders. The Future of Children, 11(1), 94–119.
• Mason, K. (2012). Education as a Pathway to Reducing Reoffending. Corrections Today, 74(3), 62–65.
• Paulus, D. (2012). Education and Employment Outcomes for Ex-Offenders. Social Science Quarterly, 93(2), 462–480.
• Visher, C. A., & Courtney, S. (2007). Returning Home: Understanding the Challenges of Prisoner Reentry. The Future of Children, 17(2), 137–157.
• Western, B., & Pettit, B. (2010). Incarceration & the Future of Reentry Programs. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 627(1), 187–195.
• Zhao, J. S. (2014). Effectiveness of Correctional Education Programs at Reducing Recidivism. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 53(8), 558–578.