










































34 | Columbia SoCial Work revieW, vol. vii Columbia SoCial Work revieW, vol. vii | 35 

Program Description 

This evaluation focuses on the Legal Aid Society program called the 
Parole Revocation Defense Unit (PRDU). Specifically, the study focuses 

on the written mitigation drafted by social workers at PRDU and its impact 
on preventing parole revocation. Written mitigation is a powerful tool that 
details  a client’s personal life and relevant history. It humanizes the client so 
judges can see the human being beyond the alleged crime (The Legal Aid 

Evaluating the Success of Written Mitigation 
in Reducing Prison Sentences and Achieving 
Alternatives to Incarceration for Parole Violations

Nnenna Onyema, Jaime Buseman, and Carrie Maldovan

It is estimated that 2.4 million individuals are incarcerated in federal, state, 
and county prisons and jails in the United States, the largest number seen in 
the developed world (Flatow, 2014). In addition, there are an estimated 4.75 
million, or 1 in 51, adults under community supervision in the United States 
(Herberman & Bonczar, 2014). This includes individuals on probation, 
parole, and other forms of  post-prison supervision. There are issues with the 
mass incarceration system in the United States that extend beyond the sheer 
number of  individuals incarcerated. For instance, people of  color make up 
30% of  the population but 60% of  those imprisoned (Kerby, 2012). For 
the about 850,000 on parole, many face struggles adapting to society and 
attaining basic needs such as health care, housing, and employment. These 
factors, among many others, lead these individuals to violate parole and become 
re-imprisoned, creating a cycle of  perpetual contact with the legal system. The 
Parole Revocation Defense Unit at the Legal Aid Society provides services 
for those who have had their parole revoked or face parole revocation. Social 
workers work together with lawyers to provide comprehensive plans to reduce 
sentences and recommend alternatives to incarceration. One tool, known to 
be powerful within PRDU at the Legal Aid Society, is written mitigation, a 
process used to advocate for and provide holistic presentations of  clients. This 
paper evaluates the benefits of  written mitigation by looking at the sentencing 
for 20 cases before and after written mitigation. The findings show that written 
mitigation was helpful in reducing sentences and resulting in alternatives to 
incarceration with statistical significance. This information learned contributes 
to the larger discussion of  the relevance of  social workers in legal settings to 
provide holistic services and broader conversations of  criminal justice reform and 
elimination of  institutions that produce outcomes that do more harm than good.

stujourn
Typewritten Text

stujourn
Typewritten Text

stujourn
Typewritten Text

stujourn
Typewritten Text

stujourn
Typewritten Text
© 2016 Onyema, Buseman, and Maldovan. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits the user to copy, distribute, and transmit the work provided that the original author(s) and source are credited.

stujourn
Typewritten Text

stujourn
Typewritten Text

stujourn
Typewritten Text

stujourn
Typewritten Text

stujourn
Typewritten Text

stujourn
Typewritten Text

stujourn
Typewritten Text



36 | Columbia SoCial Work revieW, vol. vii Columbia SoCial Work revieW, volume vii | 37 

evaluaTing THe SuCCeSS of WriTTen miTigaTion onyema, buSeman, and maldovan

Society, 2012).
A major aim of  written mitigation is to reduce sentences issued by judges 

compared with those they would have given without mitigation. The short-
term objective is that clients are released from jail into the community to 
begin recommended treatment and programs. The mid-term objective is for 
clients to successfully complete parole supervision. The long-term objective 
of  PRDU is for clients to adjust to society with more opportunities for self-
sufficiency and fewer interactions with the criminal justice system.

Study Aims 
Because written mitigation is one of  the few tools PRDU social 

workers use to advocate for reduced sentences, it is important to explore its 
effectiveness. The original sentences judges intended to give are compared 
with their final decisions to identify any changes. The level of  efficacy in 
reducing sentences through written mitigation can assist social workers in 
improving their work and achieving better outcomes for clients. 

Given the prison system’s extensive costs to society , it is necessary to 
investigate the role of  prison in reducing crime and rehabilitating inmates. 
In a comparison of  two studies on recidivism, Ostermann (2013) found 
that a cohort of  released inmates from 1983 had a rearrest rate of  62.5%, a 
reconviction rate of  46.8%, and a return-to-custody rate of  41.4% compared 
with  a cohort of  released inmates from 1994, of  whom 67.5% were 
rearrested, 46.95% were reconvicted, and 51.8% returned to custody. This 
study suggests recidivism and subsequent rearrest, reconviction, and return 
to prison appear to increase over time. Additionally, a study by 

Bales and Piquero (2011)—controlling for sex, race, age, current offense, 
and prior record—found that overall, imprisonment leads to higher recidivism 
when compared with a non-incarcerative alternative. Nagin (2009) also found 
that compared with noncustodial sanctions, incarceration appears to have a 
null or mildly criminogenic effect on future criminal behavior. Therefore, 
findings suggest that prison actually contributes to the likelihood of  future 
criminal behavior for previously incarcerated people.

Given the findings on the ineffectiveness of  prisons to reduce recidivism, 
parole supervision has been used as another avenue to reduce future criminal 
behavior. Ostermann (2013) found that the predicted likelihood of  recidivating 
differed by about 5% between supervised (parole) and unsupervised (non-
parole) groups in the 6-month and 1-year periods; however, parolees who 
were actively supervised for at least 3 years were estimated to recidivate at an 
8% lower rate. While this finding is significant, the incidence of  recidivism 
among parolees continues to be high.

stujourn
Typewritten Text

stujourn
Typewritten Text

stujourn
Typewritten Text

stujourn
Typewritten Text

stujourn
Typewritten Text

stujourn
Typewritten Text



36 | Columbia SoCial Work revieW, vol. vii Columbia SoCial Work revieW, volume vii | 37 

evaluaTing THe SuCCeSS of WriTTen miTigaTion onyema, buSeman, and maldovan

Based on previously incarcerated people’s high incidence of  recidivism, 
the limited effects of  parole alone, and the evidence that prison contributes to 
future criminal behavior, the effectiveness of  the traditional criminal justice 
system has been called into question (Zhang, Roberts, & Callanan, 2006). 
Alternatives to incarceration (ATI) are one promising solution. ATI have 

grown in recent years in response to failures in 
the traditional criminal justice system. These 
programs, which generally include aspects 
such as community service, rehabilitative 
services, and restitution, are less costly, less 
disruptive to families and communities, and 
helpful in maintaining stability and encouraging 

accountability among offenders  (Pew Center on the States, 2009). According 
to the Legal Action Center (2012), alternative programs such as drug courts 
reduce future crime by as much as 35%, while intense community supervision 
combined with rehabilitation services reduces recidivism by up to 20%. 
Mitigation provided by PRDU is the gatekeeper between clients and either 
prison sentences or alternative programs. Therefore, the aim of  the evaluation 
study is to investigate the effectiveness of  mitigation in contributing to a 
reduced prison sentence or the offer of  alternative-program sentences. 

Methodology
The sample consisted of  20 individuals who allegedly violated parole 

during the period from July 2013 to January 2014. The age and ethnicity of  
these individuals vary, but the individuals are mainly middle-aged men who are 
either African American or Latino. Their alleged crimes include both violent 
and nonviolent offenses. Since this evaluation used the existing agency data, 
there was no recruitment process and the sample was convenient. 

Because agency records were used and no new data were collected, 
the study design of  this program evaluation was secondary data analysis. 
Additionally, this is a retrospective study that examines and further analyzes 
client records based on the differences in sentences administrative law judges 
gave clients before and after social workers provided mitigation.

The methodology used in this evaluation is quantitative analysis based 
on the existing data about the individuals who have allegedly violated parole. 
The study compared the judges’ sentencing of  the 20 clients before and after 
mitigation to determine its effect in decreasing prison/jail-time sentences 
or offers of  ATI, such as completion of  a program. In addition, this study 
includes a brief  analysis of  the potential effects of  other variables—including 
type of  offense, gender, ethnicity, mental health status, chemical addiction, or 

“Mitigation provided by 
PRDU is the gatekeeper 

between clients and 
either prison sentences or 
alternative programs.”



38 | Columbia SoCial Work revieW, vol. vii Columbia SoCial Work revieW, volume vii | 39 

evaluaTing THe SuCCeSS of WriTTen miTigaTion onyema, buSeman, and maldovan

educational levels—on sentencing outcomes. 
In terms of  data collection procedures, the program evaluation is based 

on client records from a 6-month period from July 2013 to January 2014, 
including written mitigation provided by the Legal Aid Society. Since all the 
client records used in the study already existed, there were neither interviews 
nor surveys conducted, and clients had no incentives to participate in this 
study. Consent was obtained from the Legal Aid Society. No personally 
identifiable information, including names, was used.

For the measurement and data analysis plan, a paired-sample T-test was 
used to compare sentencing decisions given to the clients before and after 
written mitigations to see if  there was any improvement. Using 3 months 
as the unit of  time, there were 14 values of  the dependent variables (coded 
as “Original Offer” and “Final Offer”) ranging from a community program 
sentence (best outcome) to a 36-month jail sentence (worst outcome). A P 
value less than .05 showed the change in sentence was statistically significant, 
meaning the written mitigation improved offers for the clients. Another 
data analysis method used was chi-square, which was used to determine any 
associations or correlations between the following other variables and the 
changing outcomes: instant offense (valued as nonviolent or violent crimes), 
educational levels (less than high school, high school/GED, some college, 
unknown) , and mental health status  (presence of  self-reported diagnosis or 
not), all of  which were categorical. The changing outcomes were valued as no 
change of  outcome, less jail time, and zero jail time. 

Results
The findings based on the quantitative data of  this program evaluation 

included the demographic information, the results of  the paired sample 
T-test result explaining whether mitigation improved the outcome of  the 20 
clients, and the association between other variables and the final outcome.

The sample  contained 20 clients—17 male and 3 female. Ages ranged 
from 19 to 71. Half  the sample—10—identified as African American, while 
3 individuals identified as Latino/a, 2 as white, 3 as two or more races, 
and 2 individuals’ races were unknown. In terms of  educational level, 2 of  
the clients had attended some college, while 6 had a high school diploma 
or GED, 9 did not graduate from high school, and 3 had an unknown 
education level. This information indicated that the sample had a low level 
of  educational attainment compared with the general population. Mental 
illness was prevalent within the sample, with 18 of  20 clients reporting a 
diagnosis. Additionally, 15 out of  the 20 individuals reported substance abuse 
or dependence. Of  the sample, 11 individuals committed a violent crime. 



38 | Columbia SoCial Work revieW, vol. vii Columbia SoCial Work revieW, volume vii | 39 

evaluaTing THe SuCCeSS of WriTTen miTigaTion onyema, buSeman, and maldovan

The number of  parole violations ranged from 1 to 14; however, only 2 of  the 
individuals violated parole more than 2 times.

To determine whether the mean differences were statistically significant, 
which would indicate that written mitigation was effective in improving a 
client’s offer, this evaluation used a paired sample T-test. The results of  the 
test are shown in Appendix A. Figure 1 indicated a significant decrease in 
the means of  time offered by the judges after the written mitigations, which 
decreased from 5.25 to 2.75. This reduction means that sentences decreased 
from an average of  10 months to an average of  less than 3 months or a 
program. Additionally, the difference between “Original Offer” and “Final 
Offer” was statistically significant at a P value of  .005, shown in Figure 2 and 
3 in Appendix A. As a result, there was a statistically significant decrease 
in offer scores from “Original Offer” (M=5.25, SD=3.23) to “Final Offer” 
(M=2.75, SD=2.61), t(19)= 4.80, p<.0005 (two tailed). The mean decrease 
in offer scores was 2.50 with a 95% confidence interval ranging from 1.41 to 
3.59, shown in Figure 3. Therefore, the results from the paired sample T-test 
revealed that the written mitigation from social workers at PRDU improved 
the final sentences of  the clients, either lessening their jail time or getting 
them another program.

Additionally, we performed the Chi-square test to see if  there was an 
association between different variables and the final outcome. The variables 
we highlighted were educational level and instant offense. More specifically, 
the Chi-square test was used to determine whether violent or nonviolent 
offenses would be associated with an improved offer, and whether educational 
level of  the clients would be associated with a change in the final offer. 
However, because the sample size was very small, the lowest frequency in 
some cells was less than 5, which means that an association cannot be proven 
using the Chi-square test. The results of  the Chi-square analysis are shown 
in Appendix B.

Discussion
Statistical, Practical, and Clinical Significance

The results show a statistical significance between written mitigation 
and improved sentences for individuals accused of  violating parole. More 
practically, this illustrates the importance and effectiveness of  advocating for 
vulnerable populations, such as individuals with a prior offense. Humanizing 
individuals involved with the criminal justice system is helpful in  reducing 
or avoiding prison sentences and increases referrals to potentially effective 
programs. This is one aspect that highlights how social workers are invaluable 
within a legal setting and provide such unique services to clients involved 



40 | Columbia SoCial Work revieW, vol. vii Columbia SoCial Work revieW, volume vii | 41 

evaluaTing THe SuCCeSS of WriTTen miTigaTion onyema, buSeman, and maldovan

with the criminal justice system. 
Furthermore, the results suggest that social workers should complete 

mitigation for legal matters more often, as it has an effect on outcomes for 
clients. The results suggest many individuals who are on parole may need 
mental health and addiction services, as the majority of  the sample was 
diagnosed with a mental illness and many had chemical addictions . This is an 
opportunity for social workers to intervene and help decrease recidivism at 
the clinical level. This study is also 
a reminder that social workers must 
provide holistic services and take 
into account environmental factors 
and other macro-level issues that 
may lead an individual to commit a 
crime. 
Limitations

While the study did show 
statistically significant results in 
terms of  the effectiveness of  
mitigation in decreasing a client’s 
sentence, there were significant limitations. Because of  restraints on data 
collection, a sample of  only 20 clients was obtained. This is a very small 
sample, especially for the use of  Paired Sample T-tests which typically 
require a sample of  30 or more individuals . Furthermore, the sample was 
non-random, as clients whose information was accessible were used for the 
sample. Additionally, all clients in the sample received written mitigation, 
so there was no control group. If  the study were to be replicated, a larger, 
random sample of  the client population would be preferable.

The study also did not address variations in the mitigation that may have 
affected the outcome, such as the proposed alternative and the particular 
details about the client’s life as presented by the social worker. Further 
analysis should examine different types of  written mitigation to see which 
were more or less effective. Looking at variations between social workers in 
order to identify the most effective aspects to include in written mitigation 
could also prove beneficial.

The greatest challenge faced was collecting the data about pre-mitigation 
offers from the judges, as this information was not readily available in client 
files. It was difficult to identify more individuals for the sample. A larger 
random sample would have been preferable in order to get more valid results 
in the study.  

“Humanizing individuals involved 
with the criminal justice system is 

helpful in reducing or avoiding prison 
sentences and increases referrals to 
potentially effective programs. This is 
one aspect that highlights how social 
workers are invaluable within a legal 
setting and provide such unique 
services to clients involved with the 
criminal justice system.”



40 | Columbia SoCial Work revieW, vol. vii Columbia SoCial Work revieW, volume vii | 41 

evaluaTing THe SuCCeSS of WriTTen miTigaTion onyema, buSeman, and maldovan

Implications
The implications of  this study for practice and research are very 

significant. The findings show that written mitigation provided by social 
workers is effective in improving client outcomes, leading to either reduced 
jail time or an alternative to incarceration. It may be beneficial to include 
social workers in other departments at the Legal Aid Society and potentially 
in other organizations involved with the criminal justice system that do not 
employ social workers. As social workers, it is important for us to evaluate the 
programs in which clients receive treatment to confirm that they are effective. 
When clients are released from programs, there is rarely any follow up.   The 
results of  this study suggest that social workers should provide services not 
only during clients’ exposure to the criminal justice system but after program 
completion as well, as the unique problems that clients face do not end once 
a case is closed. Social workers should communicate with parole officers, 
family, medical staff, and any other individuals in clients’ lives to ensure the 
best possible outcomes are consistently achieved. While written mitigation is 
helpful, it does not solve the macro-level issues.  
Recommendations

With the current statistics and literature revealing that incarceration is 
not cost-effective and can actually contribute to recidivism (Vera Institute 
of  Justice, 1996, 2012), and other research showing that ATI are increasingly 
effective (Legal Action Center, 2012; Ostermann, 2013; Zhang, Roberts & 
Callanan, 2006), it is important to continue investigating the effectiveness 
of  mitigation, especially for individuals who have violated parole. Therefore, 
further research should be conducted using random sampling and larger 
samples to further investigate the effectiveness of  mitigation in increasing 
the use of  alternatives to incarceration.

Because  written mitigation utilized by PRDU is an effective intervention 
to promote ATI for individuals who violate their parole, a suggestion is to 
replicate this program  in the hope of  increasing the use of  ATI. Additionally, 
replication of  this study within other legal settings may demonstrate a need 
to increase the number of  programs such as PRDU that seek ATI, which 
will limit the number of  individuals given prison sentences for violating 
parole or probation, as well as prevent or reduce initial prison sentences.  
Further studies could also provide valuable information needed to create 
and implement more successful programs such as PRDU and improve the 
effectiveness of  written mitigation. While written mitigation is not unique 
to PRDU, studying its efficacy in other organizations can further increase 
awareness regarding the importance of  social workers and written mitigation 



42 | Columbia SoCial Work revieW, vol. vii Columbia SoCial Work revieW, volume vii | 43 

evaluaTing THe SuCCeSS of WriTTen miTigaTion onyema, buSeman, and maldovan

in legal settings.

References
Bales, W. and Piquero, A. (2011). Assessing the impact of  imprisonment on recidivism. Journal of  

Experimental Criminology, 8(1), 71-101.
Flatow, N. (2014, September 17). The United States has the largest prison population in the world - And 

it’s growing. Retrieved from http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/09/17/3568232/the-united-
states-had-even-more-prisoners-in-2013/

Herberman, E. J., & Bonczar, T. P. (2014, October). Probation and parole in the United States, 2013. Retrieved 
from http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ppus13.pdf

Kerby, S. (2012, March 13). The top 10 most startling facts about people of  color and criminal 
justice in the United States. Retrieved from https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/race/
news/2012/03/13/11351/the-top-10-most-startling-facts-about-people-of-color-and-criminal-
justice-in-the-united-states/

Legal Action Center. (2012). Alternatives to incarceration factsheet. Retrieved from http://lac.org/wp-
content/uploads/2014/07/ATI_Factsheet.pdf

Legal Aid Society. (2012). The Parole Revocation Defense Unit. Retrieved from: https://www.legal-aid.org/en/
criminal/criminalpractice/parolerevocationsdefenseunit.aspx

Nagin, D. (2009). Imprisonment and reoffending. Crime and Justice. 38(1), 115-200.
Ostermann, M. (2013). Active supervision and its impact upon parolee recidivism rates. Crime & 

Delinquency. 59(4), 487-509. 
Pew Center on the States. (2009, March). One in 31: The long reach of  American corrections. 

h t tp ://www.pewt r us t s.o rg/~/med i a/ l eg acy/up loaded f i l e s/pcs_a s se t s/2009/
pspp1in31reportfinalweb32609pdf

Zhang, S. X., Roberts, R. E., & Callanan, V. J. (2006). Preventing parolees from returning to prison through 
community-based reintegration. Crime & Delinquency, 52(4), 551-571. doi:10.1177/0011128705282594

Vera Institute of  Justice. (2012). The Price of  Prisons: What incarceration costs taxpayers. Retrieved 
from http://www.vera.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/price-of-prisons- updated-
version-021914.pdf.

Vera Institute of  Justice. (1996). The Unintended Consequences of  Incarceration. Retrieved from http://
www.vera.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/uci.pdf

Nnenna Onyema is a 2015 graduate of  the Columbia University School of  Social 
Work from New Jersey. Her concentration was Policy Practice, and during her time at 
Columbia, she was selected to be a law minor and Washington DC Fisher-Cummings 
fellow. After graduating from Columbia, Nnenna served as a Graduate Research 
Assistant at Columbia University’s School of  Social Work where she examined the 
mental health effects that police brutality and the media exposure of  such abuses 
have on people of  color. In her current role as a Project Manager with the National 
Initiative for Building Community Trust and Justice, Nnenna works with executive-
level leadership to oversee project implementation and provide strategic advice to 
National Initiative partners and pilot sites. Prior to joining the National Initiative, 
Nnenna worked at the Legal Aid Society connecting incarcerated individuals to 
alternatives to incarceration at Rikers Island. In addition, at the Vera Institute, she 
co-managed survey research efforts for a NIJ grant looking at the relationship and 
challenges between public defenders and their clients with mental illness diagnoses. 
Nnenna graduated from Rutgers University magna cum laude with a BA in Sociology 



42 | Columbia SoCial Work revieW, vol. vii Columbia SoCial Work revieW, volume vii | 43 

evaluaTing THe SuCCeSS of WriTTen miTigaTion onyema, buSeman, and maldovan

and minor in Business Administration.

Jaime Buseman is a 2015 graduate of  the Columbia University School of  Social 
Work. Her concentration was Social Enterprise Administration with a focus in 
health, mental health and disabilities. Prior to attending Columbia, Jaime volunteered 
as a Pennsylvania Certified Sexual Assault Counselor for Victim Services Center and 
as a hospice volunteer for Caring Hospice Services while attending Gwynedd-Mercy 
University and graduating cum laude with her BA in English Literature and a minor 
in Human Services. During her years at Columbia, Jaime worked as a School Social 
Worker at Democracy Prep Charter Middle School and alongside the Community 
Social Work Manager at Metropolitan Jewish Health System - Hospice (MJHS). 
Currently, Jaime is back in her hometown in Pennsylvania and is working on the HR 
team at Teva Pharmaceuticals that provides human resources support to over 8,000 
US and Canadian employees. 

Carrie Maldovan is a 2015 graduate of  Columbia University School of  Social 
Work, where she concentrated in international social enterprise administration.  
Prior to obtaining her Master’s degree she lived and worked in Tanzania, consulting 
with nonprofit organizations and leading the social impact strategy at a tourism 
company. Currently, she serves as the Manager of  Programs and Operations at The 
Adventure Project, an organization working to end extreme poverty by creating jobs 
in developing countries. Carrie is the co-founder of  a responsible and sustainable 
tourism company, Above Safaris, that creates jobs, supports local businesses, and 
channels profits into sustainable community development projects in Tanzania.



44 | Columbia SoCial Work revieW, vol. vii Columbia SoCial Work revieW, volume vii | 45 

evaluaTing THe SuCCeSS of WriTTen miTigaTion onyema, buSeman, and maldovan

Appendix A : Paired Sample T-test

Figure1: Paired Samples Statistics

Mean N Std. Deviation
Std. Error 

Mean
Pair 1 Original 

Offer 5.25 20 3.226 .721

Final 
Offer 2.75 20 2.613 .584

Figure2: Paired Samples Correlations
N Correlation Sig.

Pair 1 Original Offer & 
Final Offer 20 .701 .001

Figure3: Paired Samples Test

Paired Differences

t df
Sig. 

(2-tailed)Mean

Std. 
Devia-

tion

Std. 
Error 
Mean

95% Confi-
dence Interval 
of  the Differ-

ence
Lower Upper

Pair 
1

Original 
Offer 
- Final 
Offer

2.500 2.328 .521 1.410 3.590 4.802 19 .000



44 | Columbia SoCial Work revieW, vol. vii Columbia SoCial Work revieW, volume vii | 45 

evaluaTing THe SuCCeSS of WriTTen miTigaTion onyema, buSeman, and maldovan

Appendix B: Chi-square Tests

MENTAL ILLNESS & FINAL OFFER

Mental Illness * The final improvement of  the outcome Cross tabulation

The final improvement of  the 
outcome

Total
less jail 

time
no jail 
time

no im-
provement

Mental 
Illness

Yes Count 3 10 5 18
% within Mental 
Illness 16.7% 55.6% 27.8% 100.0%
% within The fi-
nal improvement 
of  the outcome

100.0% 100.0% 71.4% 90.0%

% of  Total 15.0% 50.0% 25.0% 90.0%
No Count 0 0 2 2

% within Mental 
Illness 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%
% within The fi-
nal improvement 
of  the outcome

0.0% 0.0% 28.6% 10.0%

% of  Total 0.0% 0.0% 10.0% 10.0%
Total Count 3 10 7 20

% within Mental 
Illness 15.0% 50.0% 35.0% 100.0%
% within The fi-
nal improvement 
of  the outcome

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

% of  Total 15.0% 50.0% 35.0% 100.0%



46 | Columbia SoCial Work revieW, vol. vii Columbia SoCial Work revieW, volume vii | 47 

evaluaTing THe SuCCeSS of WriTTen miTigaTion onyema, buSeman, and maldovan

Chi-Square Tests

  Value df
Asymp. Sig. 

(2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 4.127a 2 .127
Likelihood Ratio 4.628 2 .099
Linear-by-Linear 
Association 2.937 1 .087

N of  Valid Cases 20
a. 4 cells (66.7%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum 
expected count is .30.

Symmetric Measures

Value Approx. Sig.
Nominal by Nominal Phi .454 .127

Cramer's V .454 .127
N of  Valid Cases 20



46 | Columbia SoCial Work revieW, vol. vii Columbia SoCial Work revieW, volume vii | 47 

evaluaTing THe SuCCeSS of WriTTen miTigaTion onyema, buSeman, and maldovan

EDUCATIONAL LEVEL & FINAL OFFER

Education Level * The final improvement of  the outcome Cross tabulation

The final improvement of  
the outcome

Total
less jail 
time

no jail 
time

no 
improve-
ment

Edu-
cation 
Level

Less 
than high 
school

Count 1 6 2 9
% within Education 
Level 11.1% 66.7% 22.2% 100.0%
% within The final 
improvement of  the 
outcome

33.3% 60.0% 28.6% 45.0%

% of  Total 5.0% 30.0% 10.0% 45.0%
High 
school 
diploma 
or GED

Count 0 2 4 6
% within Education 
Level 0.0% 33.3% 66.7% 100.0%
% within The final 
improvement of  the 
outcome

0.0% 20.0% 57.1% 30.0%

% of  Total 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0%
Some 
college

Count 0 1 1 2
% within Education 
Level 0.0% 50.0% 50.0% 100.0%
% within The final 
improvement of  the 
outcome

0.0% 10.0% 14.3% 10.0%

% of  Total 0.0% 5.0% 5.0% 10.0%
unknown Count 2 1 0 3

% within Education 
Level 66.7% 33.3% 0.0% 100.0%
% within The final 
improvement of  the 
outcome

66.7% 10.0% 0.0% 15.0%

% of  Total 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% 15.0%
Total Count 3 10 7 20

% within Education 
Level 15.0% 50.0% 35.0% 100.0%
% within The final 
improvement of  the 
outcome

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

% of  Total 15.0% 50.0% 35.0% 100.0%



48 | Columbia SoCial Work revieW, vol. vii Columbia SoCial Work revieW, volume vii | 49 

evaluaTing THe SuCCeSS of WriTTen miTigaTion onyema, buSeman, and maldovan

Chi-Square Tests

Value df
Asymp. Sig. 
(2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 10.947a 6 .090
Likelihood Ratio 10.437 6 .107
Linear-by-Linear     
Association 2.897 1 .089
N of  Valid Cases 20
a. 12 cells (100.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum 
expected count is .30.

Symmetric Measures

Value Approx. Sig.
Nominal by Nominal Phi .740 .090

Cramer's V .523 .090
N of  Valid Cases 20

INSTANT OFFENSE & FINAL OFFER

Original Felony * The final improvement of  the outcome Cross tabulation
The final improvement of  
the outcome

Total
less jail 
time

no jail 
time

no 
improve-
ment

Original 
Felony

Violent Count 2 6 3 11
% within Original 
Felony 18.2% 54.5% 27.3% 100.0%
% within The final 
improvement of  the 
outcome

66.7% 60.0% 42.9% 55.0%

% of  Total 10.0% 30.0% 15.0% 55.0%
Non-

Violent

Count 1 4 4 9
% within Original 
Felony 11.1% 44.4% 44.4% 100.0%
% within The final 
improvement of  the 
outcome

33.3% 40.0% 57.1% 45.0%

% of  Total 5.0% 20.0% 20.0% 45.0%
Total Count 3 10 7 20

% within Original 
Felony 15.0% 50.0% 35.0% 100.0%
% within The final 
improvement of  the 
outcome

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

% of  Total 15.0% 50.0% 35.0% 100.0%



48 | Columbia SoCial Work revieW, vol. vii Columbia SoCial Work revieW, volume vii | 49 

evaluaTing THe SuCCeSS of WriTTen miTigaTion onyema, buSeman, and maldovan

Chi-Square Tests

Value df
Asymp. Sig. 
(2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square .683a 2 .711
Likelihood Ratio .686 2 .710
Linear-by-Linear     
Association .601 1 .438
N of  Valid Cases 20
a. 5 cells (83.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum 
expected count is 1.35.

Symmetric Measures

Value Approx. Sig.
Nominal by Nominal Phi .185 .711

Cramer's V .185 .711
N of  Valid Cases 20




