Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
i <br /> Follow-up Study <br /> March, 1978 <br /> page 2 <br /> what occurred in the previous follow-up). such a comparison <br /> should beldone with respect to as many characteristics as <br /> possible.' This will enable us to search for a bias in the <br /> found group which might lead to erroneous interpretation <br /> of the re ult$, <br /> We did su h a comparison between these two groups with <br /> respect t 15 different variables (sex, race, age at termi- <br /> nation, c mpletor/non-completor of program, labor-force <br /> status at termination, Durham County/Orange County,ofstaff <br /> these <br /> person unfamiliar/familiar to client, etc.). <br /> comparisons are shown in Table 2. <br /> The mos(noticeable differences are that, when compared to <br /> the not-f�ound group, the found group contains a higher <br /> percentage of program completors (this is discussed below), <br /> persons of age 19'22, black females, and persons employed <br /> at the time of termination. It has a lower percentage of <br /> primary rage earners than the not-found group. While these <br /> differences should be kept in mind, taken together they do <br /> be of such a significance that they invdate <br /> not appear to <br /> our procedure be using the found group as being generally <br /> representative of the whole group. This conclusion is <br /> based upon the relatively small degree of most of these <br /> differences and upon several group similarities. <br /> The two groups are similar with respect to the percentages <br /> of those who were economically disadvantaged and those <br /> who were receiving AFDC at time of application. Other <br /> similarities exist in average education, average personal <br /> earnings''.prior to enrollment, average elapsed time between <br /> termination and follow-upland county of residence percentages. <br /> The comparison concerning completors brings up an important <br /> consideration for further follow-up efforts. In the previous <br /> follow-up everyone who had terminated from a Title 1 program <br /> was sought regardless of whether they had completed the <br /> program, and we followed that procedure in this follow-up <br /> in order that the two follow-ups would be comparable. This <br /> comparabillty was further enhanced by the fact that the <br /> period c vered was one year for each follow-up. <br /> We now plan to do follow-up twice a year, changing the <br /> period of time covered from one year to six months. This <br /> change ill, on the one hand, lessen somewhat the degree <br /> of comparability of future follow-ups to the first two. <br /> I But on 'the other hand, it offers us an opportunity to <br /> change our procedures to follow-up only those persons who <br />