The lack of education is critical causation of reoffending calls for the Department of Corrections' attention. The established models by the department of Corrections have different advantages and disadvantages in terms of cost incurred. Comparing the costs incurred and the respective outcome, the most effective program in any organization should be that with the highest effect ( Cullen et al., 2017) . The first program renders a 50% output for the students' betterment, while the second program remits 80%. Based on this as the program's primary objective, the Correction department ought to adopt the second program, the General Education Preparatory program.
The GED prep is a program with the highest outcome as the inmates who undertake education via the program return an 80% portion success among themselves. Success in high school equivalency examination enhances the possession of a high school degree among the pupils. Having a large portion of success makes the program the most effective in decreasing offenders' levels in society ( Hanson et al., 2017) . The necessity of a program that focuses on solving the reoffending problem is to ensure that it caters to a large group as possible. When dealing with the GED prep, a large group catered to that of the education first program, making it the most prevalent.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The cost is also a significant consideration while selecting the most program. Although the education first program is considerably affordable, the outcome rendered is low. Many people will be reluctant to pay the applicable fee since the probability of obtaining success is low. Half the number of pupils involved succeed; hence fewer people would be willing to undertake the risk. The second program is a bit expensive, but possessing an expected outcome of 80% successful pupils motivates many and builds their trust in investing in the program ( Pompoco et al., 2017). Considering the cost of incarceration, obtaining education via the GED prep is not expensive, and the corresponding outcome is evident.
References
Cullen, F. T., Jonson, C. L., & Mears, D. P. (2017). Reinventing community corrections. Crime and Justice , 46 (1), 27-93.
Hanson, R. K., Bourgon, G., McGrath, R. J., Kroner, D., D’Amora, D. A., Thomas, S. S., & Tavarez, L. P. (2017). A five-level risk and needs system: Maximizing assessment results in corrections by developing a common language . WS Hein.
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.
