MHRM 6701 Week 7 Testable Social Change Claim Example

A Social Claim That Could Turn Out False: One Testable Sentence About the Residents the County Refers to Allerton, the Chain From a Steady Overnight Wage to the Expected Outcome and How the Claim Is Checked a Year On

Student Name

Walden University

MHRM 6701: Strategic Positioning and Social Change

Instructor Name

Month Day, Year

A Social Claim That Could Turn Out False: One Testable Sentence About the Residents the County Refers to Allerton, the Chain From a Steady Overnight Wage to the Expected Outcome and How the Claim Is Checked a Year On

From Goodwill to a Claim

Statements such as "we give people a second chance" express goodwill, but nothing that happens could prove them false. The reentry hiring pilot at Allerton Linen Services' Cheektowaga plant needs a social claim that could fail, because only a claim that could fail tells anyone whether the pilot worked. The claim this paper proposes is a single sentence:

Of the county residents referred by the reentry office and hired at Cheektowaga in the pilot's first year, at least 60 percent will still be in paid work, at Allerton or elsewhere, twelve months after their hire date, and a smaller share will have been rearrested within those twelve months than among qualified referred residents who applied but could not be hired because all positions were filled.

The sentence names the people, the outcome, the time frame, a target and a comparison. If fewer than 60 percent are working, or if rearrest is no lower than in the comparison group, the claim is false.

Why Employment Elsewhere Counts

The claim counts work at any employer, not only at Allerton. That choice is deliberate. The plant's business case depends on retention at Allerton, but the social case depends on whether residents remain employed. A referred hire who leaves after a year for a better job elsewhere is a loss for the plant and a success for the claim. Keeping the two measures separate prevents either from hiding behind the other.

The Chain From Wage to Outcome

Rogers (2008) argues that program theory, a stated chain of how an intervention is expected to work, lets evaluators see where a program succeeds or fails rather than only whether it does. The chain for this pilot has five links.

The links are not equally certain. The first two are within Allerton's control. The third is likely if hires stay. The fourth is the weakest: Valentine and Redcross (2015) found that one transitional jobs program reduced recidivism while another did not, and Uggen (2000) found that work reduced reoffending only among participants aged 27 or older. The claim may therefore hold for older hires and fail for younger ones, which the analysis should check separately.

Table 1

Program Theory for the Reentry Hiring Pilot

Composite organization.

How the Claim Is Checked

The check happens twelve months after the last first-year hire. Employment status comes from Allerton's records for current employees and from the reentry office's follow-up for those who left, with each participant's written consent obtained at hire. Rearrest data comes from the reentry office, which already collects it for its own reporting, again with consent.

The comparison group is the most important design choice. The reentry office expects to refer about thirty qualified candidates for twelve positions. When more qualified candidates apply than there are openings, choosing among equally qualified candidates by lottery creates a fair comparison: the residents not selected are similar in every way except the job. Their employment and rearrest at twelve months, followed by the reentry office with consent, show what would have happened without the pilot.

What Would Make the Claim False

Three results would count against the claim: fewer than 60 percent of hires working at twelve months, rearrest no lower than in the comparison group, or a difference too small to distinguish from chance with groups this size. The third is likely; with twelve hires, only a large difference would be convincing. The pilot should say so in advance, and treat the first year as evidence toward a larger second year rather than a final verdict.

Limits

Consent may not be given by everyone, and those who decline may differ from those who agree. The reentry office's follow-up may miss people who move away. Both limits should be reported with the results.

References

Rogers, P. J. (2008). Using programme theory to evaluate complicated and complex aspects of interventions. Evaluation, 14(1), 29-48. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356389007084674

Uggen, C. (2000). Work as a turning point in the life course of criminals: A duration model of age, employment, and recidivism. American Sociological Review, 65(4), 529-546. https://doi.org/10.2307/2657381

Valentine, E. J., & Redcross, C. (2015). Transitional jobs after release from prison: Effects on employment and recidivism. IZA Journal of Labor Policy, 4, Article 16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40173-015-0043-8