Discussion 1: Sampling Structures Probability and nonprobability are the two general categories of sampling. Probability sampling uses random selection, whereas nonprobability sampling does not. For example, if you wanted to study the effects of divorce on the psychological development of adolescents, you could gather a population of a certain number of adolescents whose parents were divorced. Then, out of that population, you could randomly select 25 of those people. If you wanted to use nonprobability sampling, you would choose specific people who had met predetermined criteria. For this Discussion, consider how samples would be chosen for both probability and nonprobability sampling structures. Post your explanation of the following:  o Using your research problem and the refined question you developed in Week 4, develop two sampling structures: probability and nonprobability. o Explain who would be included in each sample and how each sample would be selected. o Be specific about the sampling structures you chose, evaluating both strengths and limitations of each. Please use the resources to support your answer. References Yegidis, B. L., Weinbach, R. W., & Myers, L. L. (2012). Research methods for social workers (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Allyn & Bacon. Discussion 2: Generalizing Study Results Generalizability is the extent to which research findings from your sample population can be applicable to a larger population. There are many best practices for ensuring generalizability. Two of those are making sure the sample is as much like the population as possible and making sure that the sample size is large enough to mitigate the chance of differences within the population. For this Discussion, read the case study titled "Social Work Research: Program Evaluation" and consider how the particular study results can be generalizable. · Post your explanation of who the sample is. Also explain steps researchers took to ensure generalizability. ·  Be sure to discuss how the study results could possibly be generalizable. Please use the resources to support your answer. Reference Plummer, S.-B., Makris, S., & Brocksen S. M. (Eds.). (2014). Social work case studies: Foundation year . Baltimore, MD: Laureate International Universities Publishing. [Vital Source e-reader]. Social Work Research: Program Evaluation Major federal legislation was enacted in 1996 related to welfare reform. Financial assistance programs at the national level for low-income families have been in place since the mid-1960s through the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program. The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, or welfare reform, created TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families). Major components of the new TANF program were to limit new recipients of cash aid to no more than 2 years of TANF assistance at a time and to receive no more than 5 years of combined TANF assistance wit.

1. Discussion 1: Sampling Structures
Probability and nonprobability are the two general categories of
sampling. Probability sampling uses random selection, whereas
nonprobability sampling does not. For example, if you wanted
to study the effects of divorce on the psychological
development of adolescents, you could gather a population of a
certain number of adolescents whose parents were divorced.
Then, out of that population, you could randomly select 25 of
those people. If you wanted to use nonprobability sampling, you
would choose specific people who had met predetermined
criteria. For this Discussion, consider how samples would be
chosen for both probability and nonprobability sampling
structures.
Post
your explanation of the following:
o
Using your research problem and the refined question you
developed in Week 4, develop two sampling structures:
probability and nonprobability.
o
Explain who would be included in each sample and how each
sample would be selected.
o
Be specific about the sampling structures you chose, evaluating
both strengths and limitations of each.
Please use the resources to support your answer.

2. References
Yegidis, B. L., Weinbach, R. W., & Myers, L. L. (2012).
Research methods for social workers
(7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Allyn & Bacon.
Discussion 2: Generalizing Study Results
Generalizability
is the extent to which research findings from your sample
population can be applicable to a larger population. There are
many best practices for ensuring generalizability. Two of those
are making sure the sample is as much like the population as
possible and making sure that the sample size is large enough to
mitigate the chance of differences within the population. For
this Discussion, read the case study titled "Social Work
Research: Program Evaluation" and consider how the particular
study results can be generalizable.
·
Post
your explanation of who the sample is. Also explain steps
researchers took to ensure generalizability.
·
Be sure to discuss how the study results could possibly be

3. generalizable.
Please use the resources to support your answer.
Reference
Plummer, S.-B., Makris, S., & Brocksen S. M. (Eds.). (2014).
Social work case studies: Foundation year
. Baltimore, MD: Laureate International Universities
Publishing. [Vital Source e-reader].
Social Work Research: Program Evaluation
Major federal legislation was enacted in 1996 related to welfare
reform. Financial assistance programs at the national level for
low-income families have been in place since the mid-1960s
through the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC)
program. The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act of 1996, or welfare reform, created TANF
(Temporary Assistance for Needy Families). Major components
of the new TANF program were to limit new recipients of cash
aid to no more than 2 years of TANF assistance at a time and to
receive no more than 5 years of combined TANF assistance with
other service programs during their lifetimes. The goal was to
make public assistance a temporary, rather than a long-term,
program for families with children. Beyond these general rules,
each of the 50 states was given substantial latitude to adopt
requirements to fit their own objectives. The new law also
allowed states that reduced their public assistance expenses to
keep whatever support was already being provided by the
federal government for use at their own discretion. This was
seen as a way to encourage states to reduce welfare dependency.
In response, the state of California decided to call its new
program CalWORKs, the California Work Opportunity and
Responsibility to Kids program. CalWORKs is California’s
application of the new TANF federal law. Like most of the other
states, CalWORKs provided its 58 counties with a fair amount

4. of discretion in how to implement the new provisions. Some
counties chose to develop strong upfront “employment-first”
rules that mandated recipients be employed as soon as possible.
Others chose a response that included testing and assessment
and the provision of education and training services.
One of the largest counties in the San Francisco Bay Area
developed several options for CalWORKs recipients, including
immediate job readiness (Job Club) help, remedial education for
recipients lacking basic skills, and vocational training at local
community colleges and adult education centers for those
seeking higher level education and skills. Recipients could take
up to 5 years to complete these activities and even longer in
certain circumstances to maximize their chances of success.
Recipients were predominantly single mothers. If recipients
fully complied with the rules, they received a variety of
financial incentives, while those who did not comply received
sanctions that often resulted in reduced benefit levels. The
county provided grants to a wide array of education, training,
and service programs to work as partners in serving the needs of
participants.
In 1996, the county’s CalWORKs program enrolled
approximately 22,000 families in various forms of public
assistance programs. Of these, approximately 10,000 elected to
participate in one of the education and training programs, 9,000
elected to attend intensive job placement (Job Club) classes,
and the remaining 3,000 opted to not comply with the new
program and accepted reduced benefit sanctions.
To meet its state and federal mandates, the county carefully
tracked the progress of all program participants and compiled
comprehensive quarterly reports that summarized assignments
and outcomes at each of the contracted partner sites as well as
countywide trends. During the first 11 years of the program,
from 1996 through 2007, the county’s public assistance roles
were reduced by approximately 40%, from more than 22,000 to
about 13,000 families. The best results were obtained among
participants in education and training programs, who accounted

5. for about two-thirds of long-term outcome success, although
this group was also found to be more costly to the local
CalWORKs program during their years of study. These costs, in
addition to the longer period of monthly benefits received, also
included the cost of education and training and, in some cases,
childcare expenses. Among the participants who were placed in
the immediate job search (Job Club) program, total costs to the
county were somewhat less per year, but more than 50% were
still not successful in gaining employment, and those that did
find a job received a much lower salary and fewer benefits, and
another 23% fell back on CalWORKs after later losing their
employment.
Although the results of the CalWORKs program in this county
seemed to be following a mostly positive trend from 1996
through 2007, the situation changed dramatically in the opposite
direction during the national economic downturn from 2007
through 2011. Total public assistance rolls more than doubled to
about 30,000 during this time as the local and state
unemployment rate rapidly grew from about 7% to more than
12%. The county was initially successful in getting the state to
grant it waivers to allow recipients to extend their period of
benefits during education and training, but these waivers were
considerably restricted after 2011 due to major state budget
cuts. Between 2011 and early 2013 the total number of
recipients began to decline again by about 10% from its peak 2
years earlier. However, the total number of CalWORKs
recipients is at 27,000, still about 5,000 recipients higher than
when the program started in 1996.
Compounding the difficulty of more people becoming eligible
for CalWORKs’ benefits due to poor economic conditions, the
state’s budget crisis prompted a reduction in state allocations to
counties and recipients. Nonetheless, county administrators
were still pleased to report that more than more than 16,000
recipients during the program were able to obtain employment

6. or other support that eliminated their dependency on cash public
assistance.