RESEARCH

63

Social Work Research: Chi Square

Molly, an administrator with a regional organization that advocates for alternatives to long-term prison sentences for nonviolent offenders, asked a team of researchers to conduct an outcome evaluation of a new vocational rehabilitation program for recently paroled prison inmates. The primary goal of the program is to promote full-time employment among its participants.

To evaluate the program, the evaluators decided to use a quasi-experimental research design. The program enrolled 30 individuals to participate in the new program. Additionally, there was a waiting list of 30 other participants who planned to enroll after the first group completed the program. After the first group of 30 partici-pants completed the vocational program (the “ intervention” group), the researchers compared those participants’ levels of employment with the 30 on the waiting list (the “comparison” group).

In order to collect data on employment levels, the probation officers for each of the 60 people in the sample (those in both the intervention and comparison groups) completed a short survey on the status of each client in the sample. The survey contained demographic questions that included an item that inquired about the employment level of the client. This was measured through variables identified as none, part-time, or full-time. A hard copy of the survey was mailed to each probation officer and a stamped, self-addressed envelope was provided for return of the survey to the researchers.

After the surveys were returned, the researchers entered the data into an SPSS program for statistical analysis. Because both the independent variable (participation in the vocational rehabili-tation program) and dependent variable (employment outcome) used nominal/categorical measurement, the bivariate statistic selected to compare the outcome of the two groups was the Pearson chi-square.

SOCIAL WORK CASE STUDIES: CONCENTRATION YEAR

64

After all of the information was entered into the SPSS program, the following output charts were generated:

TABLE 1. CASE PROCESSING SUMMARY

Cases

Valid Missing Total

N Percent N Percent N Percent

Program Participation *Employment

59 98.3% 1 1.7% 60 100.0%

TABLE 2. PROGRAM PARTICIPATION *EMPLOYMENT CROSS TABULATION

Employment

TotalNonePart-Time

Full-Time

Program Participation

Intervention Group

Count % within Program Participation

516.7%

723.3%

1860.0%

30100.0%

Comparison Group

Count % within Program Participation

1655.2%

724.1%

620.7%

29100.0%

Total Count % within Program Participation

2135.6%

1423.7%

2440.7%

59100.0%

TABLE 3. CHI-SQUARE TESTS

Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 11.748a 2 .003

Likelihood Ratio 12.321 2 .002

Linear-by-Linear Association

11.548 1 .001

N of Valid Cases 59a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 6.88.

RESEARCH

65

The first table, titled Case Processing Summary, provided the sample size (N 5 59). Information for one of the 60 participants was not available, while the information was collected for all of the other 59 participants.

The second table, Program Participation Employment Cross Tabulation, provided the frequency table, which showed that among participants in the intervention group, 18 or 60% were found to be employed full time, while 7 or 23% were found to be employed part time, and 5 or 17% were unemployed. The corre-sponding numbers for the comparison group (parolees who had not yet enrolled in the program but were on the waiting list for admission) showed that only 6 or 21% were employed full-time, while 7 or 24% were employed part time, and 16 or 55% were unemployed.

The third table, which provided the outcome of the Pearson chi-square test, found that the difference between the intervention and comparison groups were highly significant, with a p value of .003, which is significantly beyond the usual alpha-level of .05 that most researchers use to establish significance.

These results indicate that the vocational rehabilitation inter-vention program may be effective at promoting full-time employ-ment among recently paroled inmates. However, there are multiple limitations to this study, including that 1) no random assignment was used, and 2) it is possible that differences between the groups were due to preexisting differences among the participants (such as selection bias).

Potential future studies could include a matched comparison group or, if possible, a control group. In addition, future studies should assess not only whether or not a recently paroled individual obtains employment but also the degree to which he or she is able to maintain employment, earn a living wage, and satisfy other conditions of probation.