On the Shelf

Ta-da! This is what I have to show for the majority of the work I’ve done for IJM — three folders containing the outcome forms, the statistical analyses, and the results for our ’09 clients. Maybe it’s a bit nerdy, but to me, task completion is a reward; these are my trophies.

These babies will be the first of their kind to be added to the archives of the IJM library. Last week I had the opportunity to share the power point presentation with a leader in Aftercare in DC and she was totally impressed. She asked a lot of questions and at the end she said, “This should be turned into an academic journal” — every researcher’s fantasy. The project is not without its flaws but it is what it is and hopefully I will get better with experience. These data make IJM’s work come alive and it’s my hope that IJM will eventually publish what they’re doing because, well, IT WORKS.*

An excerpt from the outcomes presentation

Out of gender, state, project area, district (similar to county), aftercare manager, case, and age, the only statistically significant IV is Case with an eta squared of 35% (which was entered into a three-way ANOVA with District and Project Area after conducting one-way ANOVAs with each IV and choosing the three IVs with the largest eta squared, not counting Aftercare Manager since it was highly correlated with Case), meaning that Case accounts for 35% of the variance in the successful outcome forms. No two cases are identical so the program cannot be adapted in that manner and unfortunately, only the name of the [bonded labor] Case was used, but the details of each case summary lead one to speculate that LIFE WITHIN THE FACILITY as well as additional post-rescue, group-oriented factors (e.g., receiving a release certificate, receiving a land patta) are responsible for the eta squared equaling 35%. The following factors could be considered as new independent variables for future research to obtain a more accurate understanding of what Case is capturing in the data, given what was found as distinctive factors in the ’09 case summaries:

The presence or absence of, the length endured, and the severity of the following factors are likely to further explain Case:

  1. Physical Abuse
  2. Verbal Abuse (degradation because of caste, intimidation, threats)
  3. Sexual Abuse
  4. Neglect (e.g., denied medical treatment, food)
  5. Elements of Bonded Labor: restriction of movement, denied minimum wage, denied freedom to pursue employment elsewhere, illegal loan/advance)
  6. Grief: loss of one or more immediate family members while living in the facility
  7. Erosion of Collective Identity (i.e., denied permission to perform daily activities as a family unit, denied permission to attend funerals, weddings)
  8. Internal Displacement (e.g., seasonal migration, trafficking among owners)

*At the completion of the two-year aftercare program, 94% of the 2009 clients had not returned to bondage.