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 corresponding 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. 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 59 a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 6.88. 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