skip to main content
Washington State Institute for Public Policy
Back Button

Correctional education (combined)

Adult Criminal Justice
Benefit-cost methods last updated December 2024.  Literature review updated April 2024.
Correctional education (combined) encompasses most types of correctional education, including Adult Basic Education (ABE); General Educational Development (GED) exam preparation; college- and university-level courses; and trade, occupation, apprenticeship, or vocation training. These courses are provided in varying ways for varying lengths of time with the aim of improving employment and opportunities after incarceration. Per the studies in our analysis, classes are available regardless of sex, age, and risk level.

Individual analyses evaluating the effectiveness of basic, post-secondary, and vocational education are analyzed separately.
 
ALL
BENEFIT-COST
META-ANALYSIS
CITATIONS
For an overview of WSIPP's Benefit-Cost Model, please see this guide. The estimates shown are present value, life cycle benefits and costs. All dollars are expressed in the base year chosen for this analysis (2023).  The chance the benefits exceed the costs are derived from a Monte Carlo risk analysis. The details on this, as well as the economic discount rates and other relevant parameters are described in our Technical Documentation.
Benefit-Cost Summary Statistics Per Participant
Benefits to:
Taxpayers $4,792 Benefits minus costs $13,430
Participants $1,161 Benefit to cost ratio $8.04
Others $8,189 Chance the program will produce
Indirect $1,196 benefits greater than the costs 100%
Total benefits $15,337
Net program cost ($1,907)
Benefits minus cost $13,430

^WSIPP’s benefit-cost model does not monetize this outcome.

^^WSIPP does not include this outcome when conducting benefit-cost analysis for this program.

Meta-analysis is a statistical method to combine the results from separate studies on a program, policy, or topic to estimate its effect on an outcome. WSIPP systematically evaluates all credible evaluations we can locate on each topic. The outcomes measured are the program impacts measured in the research literature (for example, impacts on crime or educational attainment). Treatment N represents the total number of individuals or units in the treatment group across the included studies.

An effect size (ES) is a standard metric that summarizes the degree to which a program or policy affects a measured outcome. If the effect size is positive, the outcome increases. If the effect size is negative, the outcome decreases. See Estimating Program Effects Using Effect Sizes for additional information on how we estimate effect sizes.

The effect size may be adjusted from the unadjusted effect size estimated in the meta-analysis. Historically, WSIPP adjusted effect sizes to some programs based on the methodological characteristics of the study. For programs reviewed in 2024 or later, we do not make additional adjustments, and we use the unadjusted effect size whenever we run a benefit-cost analysis.

Research shows the magnitude of effects may change over time. For those effect sizes, we estimate outcome-based adjustments, which we apply between the first time ES is estimated and the second time ES is estimated. More details about these adjustments can be found in our Technical Documentation.

Meta-Analysis of Program Effects
Outcomes measured Treatment age No. of effect sizes Treatment N Effect sizes (ES) and standard errors (SE) used in the benefit-cost analysis Unadjusted effect size (random effects model)
First time ES is estimated Second time ES is estimated
ES SE Age ES SE Age ES p-value
Crime
Any criminal conviction according to court records, sometimes measured through charges, arrests, incarceration, or self-report.
 30 16 25623 -0.152 0.041 31 -0.152 0.041 39 -0.152 0.001
Technical violations^^
Violations of the conditions of an individual’s terms of probation, parole, or supervision.
 30 2 1010 0.090 0.056 31 n/a n/a n/a 0.090 0.104
Employment^^
Any employment, including part-time work.
30 2 6082 0.229 0.057 32 n/a n/a n/a 0.229 0.001
Earnings
Percent change in labor market earnings, typically weekly or monthly wages.
30 2 7605 0.026 0.012 32 0.000 0.032 33 0.026 0.037
Prison misconduct^
Criminal or deviant behavior during incarceration. Misconduct is often associated with violating policy within a prison or secure facility.
30 4 9419 -0.130 0.100 31 n/a n/a n/a -0.130 0.193
1In addition to the outcomes measured in the meta-analysis table, WSIPP measures benefits and costs estimated from other outcomes associated with those reported in the evaluation literature. For example, empirical research demonstrates that high school graduation leads to reduced crime. These associated measures provide a more complete picture of the detailed costs and benefits of the program.

2“Others” includes benefits to people other than taxpayers and participants. Depending on the program, it could include reductions in crime victimization, the economic benefits from a more educated workforce, and the benefits from employer-paid health insurance.

3“Indirect benefits” includes estimates of the net changes in the value of a statistical life and net changes in the deadweight costs of taxation.
Detailed Monetary Benefit Estimates Per Participant
Affected outcome: Resulting benefits:1 Benefits accrue to:
Taxpayers Participants Others2 Indirect3 Total
Crime Criminal justice system $4,299 $0 $8,189 $2,149 $14,637
Earnings Labor market earnings $493 $1,161 $0 $0 $1,654
Program cost Adjustment for deadweight cost of program $0 $0 $0 ($954) ($953)
Totals $4,792 $1,161 $8,189 $1,196 $15,337
Click here to see populations selected
Detailed Annual Cost Estimates Per Participant
Annual cost Year dollars Summary
Program costs $1,907 2023 Present value of net program costs (in 2023 dollars) ($1,907)
Comparison costs $0 2023 Cost range (+ or -) 30%
The per-participant cost estimate was provided by the Washington State Department of Corrections (DOC). The estimate averages the cost of providing basic, post-secondary, and vocational education per education contract expenditures and program participation in 2023.
The figures shown are estimates of the costs to implement programs in Washington. The comparison group costs reflect either no treatment or treatment as usual, depending on how effect sizes were calculated in the meta-analysis. The cost range reported above reflects potential variation or uncertainty in the cost estimate; more detail can be found in our Technical Documentation.
Benefits Minus Costs
Benefits by Perspective
Taxpayer Benefits by Source of Value
Benefits Minus Costs Over Time (Cumulative Discounted Dollars)
The graph above illustrates the estimated cumulative net benefits per-participant for the first fifty years beyond the initial investment in the program. We present these cash flows in discounted dollars. If the dollars are negative (bars below $0 line), the cumulative benefits do not outweigh the cost of the program up to that point in time. The program breaks even when the dollars reach $0. At this point, the total benefits to participants, taxpayers, and others, are equal to the cost of the program. If the dollars are above $0, the benefits of the program exceed the initial investment.

Citations Used in the Meta-Analysis

Batiuk, M.E., Moke, P., & Rountree, P.W. (1997). Crime and rehabilitation: Correctional education as an agent of change. Justice Quarterly, 14, 167-180.

Callan, V., & Gardner, J. (2005). Vocational education and training provision and recidivism in Queensland correctional institutions. Queensland, Australia: National Center for Vocational Education Research.

Lattimore, P.K., Witte, A.D., & Baker, J.R. (1990). Experimental assessment of the effect of vocational training on youthful property offenders. Evaluation Review, 14(2), 115-133.

Mitchell, O. (2002). Statistical analysis of the three state CEA data. Unpublished manuscript.

Winterfield, L., Coggeshall, M., Burke-Storer, M., Correa, V., & Tidd, S. (2009). The effects of postsecondary correctional education: Final report. Washington, DC: Urban Institute, Justice Policy Center.

Cho, R.M., & Tyler, J.H. (2013). Does prison-based adult basic education improve postrelease outcomes for male prisoners in Florida? Crime & Delinquency.

Johnson, D.C., Shearon, R.W., & Britton, G.M. (1974). Correctional education and recidivism in a woman's correctional center. Adult Education, 24(2), 121-129.

Batiuk, M., Lahm, K., Mckeever, M., Wilcox, N., & Wilcox, P. (2005). Disentangling the effects of correctional education. Criminal Justice, 5(1), 55-74.

Tyler, J.H., & Kling, J.R. (2004). Prison-based education and re-entry into the mainstream labor market (Working Paper No. 2004-10). Providence, RI: Brown University, Department of Economics.

Duwe, G., & Clark, V. (2014). The effects of prison-based educational programming on recidivism and employment. The Prison Journal, 94(4), 454-478.

Duwe, G., Hallett, M., Hays, J., Jang, S.J., & Johnson, B.R. (2015). Bible college participation and prison misconduct: A preliminary analysis. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 54(5), 371-390.

Ooi, E.J. (2021). Vocational training in NSW prisons: Exploring the relationship between traineeships and recidivism. Crime and Justice Bulletin, 239.

Pompoco, A., Wooldredge, J., Lugo, M., Sullivan, C., & Latessa, E.J. (2017). Reducing inmate misconduct and prison returns with facility education programs. American Society of Criminology, 16(2), 515-547.