Raising the standard: How we evaluate for impact, equity, and excellence

At Edovo, our responsibility is twofold: to deliver transformative education to incarcerated learners and to maintain the security and trust of every correctional facility we serve. That means our content must do more than educate—it must uphold standards of safety, security, relevance, and educational and rehabilitative value.

Once your content passes Edovo’s initial screening, it enters our Evaluation process—a quality review rooted in more than 13 years of experience designing digital education for incarcerated adults. Evaluation isn’t about critique—it’s how we spotlight resources that reflect the highest standards of learning, usability, and impact. This article outlines what we assess and why it matters.

1. Step 1: Choosing the Right Format for Your Content: Active vs. Passive Learning Experiences
   

2. Step 2: Prepare Your Content for Upload (Edovo Editor vs Edovo Spreadsheet)
   

3. Step 3: Edovo Content Screening (Aka What’s Not Allowed)
   

4. Step 4: What Happens After Screening? Evaluation.
   

5. Step 5: Your Ripple Effect Starts at Publish

Your cheat sheet for this article

1. Evaluation starts after screening confirms your content is safe, appropriate, and aligned with Edovo’s mission.

2. Our Evaluation process highlights content that meets the highest standards for impact, relevance, and usability in correctional education.

3. Correctional Agencies, not Edovo, ultimately decide what content is eligible (or not) for their programming.

4. We evaluate content using a research-based rubric informed by adult learning theory,feedback from Learners and facility staff, and over a decade of platform data.

5. The goal of Evaluation is partnership—to surface content that transforms lives and builds second chances.

6. Depending on demand, the screening, evaluation, and publishing process may take up to 30 business days. 
   

What evaluation is, and why it matters

At Edovo, we’ve spent over a decade listening to correctional educators, program administrators, parole boards, judges, and—most importantly—incarcerated learners. That experience, gathered across hundreds of facilities and millions of learning sessions, has shaped a clear, research-informed understanding of what makes education meaningful and transformative behind the walls. Not every item needs to meet every benchmark—but when it does, we call it Edovo’s Best.

Our Evaluation process is how we apply that knowledge. It’s not a grading system. It’s a spotlight—used to recognize content that reflects the strongest practices in digital education for corrections.

Just as a university might designate “honors” for exceptional student work, or a publisher might label a title a “staff pick,” we reserve our highest distinction—Edovo’s Best—for content that exemplifies what’s possible when design, voice, and outcomes align.

With over a million people accessing the Edovo platform, there are over a million ways to connect, teach, and make an impact. There’s no one-size-fits-all approach—no single format, tone, or teaching style that reaches everyone the same way. But there is a clear, research-backed standard for what helps learning resonate, stick, and change lives in a correctional setting—and that’s what our evaluation process is designed to highlight.

Some content is meant to teach. Some to inspire. Some to hold space for healing or spark meaningful reflection. The goal? To raise the bar behind bars—because education inside shouldn’t be second-rate. It should be second chances, done right.

Our evaluation framework helps us identify what strong digital learning looks like in correctional settings. It outlines the qualities that make content effective, inclusive, and transformational—backed by over a decade of hands-on experience, adult learning theory, trauma-informed practices, and real feedback from learners and staff.

Here’s what we look for:

• Curriculum quality & rigor
  Clear, scaffolded content with measurable objectives, active learning moments, and intentional pacing.

• Is it aligned with broader educational or reentry standards—such as workforce development benchmarks or DOC-recognized programming frameworks?

• Is the resource grounded in research-backed strategies—such as CBT principles, trauma recovery tools, or job readiness frameworks?

• Are objectives clear, measurable, and learner-facing?

• Is the structure scaffolded with a beginning, middle, and end aligned to the course objectives?

• Is the content chunked into manageable, modular sections?

• Are activities, knowledge checks, quizzes or reflections included to promote engagement?

• Does it use multiple formats (text, audio, visuals) to support diverse learners?

• Does the structure follow research-back best practices in instructional design for focus and retention?
  
  

• Adult learning principles
  Supports self-direction, real-world application, and respect for learners' lived experience and prior knowledge.

• Is the content self-directed and relevant to real-world experiences?

• Does it respect and build on learners’ prior knowledge?

• Are learners given opportunities for choice and autonomy?

• Does the content incorporate research-based adult learning strategies for long-term retention?
  
  

• Addresses criminogenic needs
  Supports personal growth and rehabilitation by aligning with one or more of the eight core criminogenic need areas shown to reduce recidivism.

• Does the content clearly target at least one criminogenic need (e.g., education/employment, substance use, antisocial thinking or behavior, family/peer relationships, leisure, or engagement with prosocial services)?

• Is the connection between the topic and behavior change clear, relevant, and evidence-informed?

• Does the content offer tools, strategies, or insights that could reduce risk or build protective factors in a learner’s life?

• Evidence-based foundations

In Edovo’s evaluation process, evidence-based means that the content is grounded in practices, strategies, or models that have been proven—through research or repeated real-world application—to support learning, behavior change, or rehabilitation outcomes.

It should reflect approaches that are backed by data, recommended by experts, or widely recognized as effective.

• Is the content informed by established research in correctional education, psychology, or workforce development?

• Does it draw from recognized models (e.g., cognitive-behavioral therapy, trauma recovery, reentry frameworks, motivational interviewing)?

• Are tools, activities, or insights included that reflect best practices in reducing risk and supporting long-term growth?

• Is the source of key claims or strategies traceable to credible evidence or professional consensus?

• Key area alignment
  Fits within one of Edovo’s core content categories. We are especially seeking content that addresses gaps in the following categories:

• Women-centered content (mental health, career development, parenting, reentry, trauma recovery)

• Health awareness (chronic illness, reproductive health, aging in prison, preventative care)

• Trades and career training (including job-readiness, industry certifications, and entrepreneurship)

• Financial literacy (credit, debt, budgeting, banking, fraud prevention)

• Court-ordered class topics (batterer intervention, family violence intervention)

• Religious and spiritual education for Islam, Hinduism, and Indigenous traditions

• Cultural content that centers Latinx, Indigenous, and LGBTQ+ perspectives—especially when framed through storytelling, art, history, or lived experience
  
  

• Tablet-ready format
  Optimized for self-paced, digital learning on 7–12” tablets, with intuitive structure and minimal distractions.

• Is the content broken into clear, manageable chunks that support learning on a small screen?

• Does the structure make it easy for learners to follow along without needing external tools or internet access?

• Are instructions, pacing, and layout intuitive and consistent from start to finish?
  
  

• Accessibility
  For widest access, content should be written at a 5th–6th grade level, visually and audibly clear, and inclusive of learners with low literacy or sensory differences.

• What is the reading level?

• Are fonts, contrast, and layout visually clear?

• Are captions or transcripts provided when necessary?
  
  

• Inclusive language
  People-first, nonjudgmental language that avoids stereotypes, assumptions, and deficit-based framing.

• Is the language people-first and free from judgment?

• Are assumptions about background or ability avoided?

• Is the tone invitational rather than corrective?
  
  

• Audience fit
  Relevant, affirming, and respectful of incarcerated learners’ realities—including those with diverse backgrounds, sentence lengths, and literacy levels.

• Does the content reflect the realities of incarcerated learners?

• Is it relevant across different sentence lengths, ages, and literacy levels?

• Is it designed with system-impacted voices in mind?

• Time & pacing

Designed in realistic, manageable chunks to support focus and attention in a correctional setting.

• Is the time-to-complete clearly labeled and appropriate for the content type?

• Are lessons broken into 5–45 minute blocks to support retention and reduce fatigue?

• Does the pacing support reflection and prevent cognitive overload?

• Production quality

Formatted for clarity, readability, and ease of use on 7–12” tablets.

• Is the content visually clean, with consistent formatting and accessible fonts?

• Is audio clear and free of background noise?

• Are visuals sharp, purposeful, and legible on screen?
  
  

• Multimodal delivery

Uses varied formats to support different learning styles and increase engagement.

• Does the content include more than one medium (e.g., text, video, audio, images)?

• Are these elements used intentionally to reinforce key ideas?

• Does the mix of formats enhance understanding and keep attention?
  
  

• Market relevance

Equips learners with skills, insights, or tools that matter inside and beyond the facility.

• Does the content prepare learners for reentry, employment, or continued education?

• Does it address life skills, recovery, emotional wellness, or digital literacy?

• Would this be relevant or valuable in a community or workforce setting?