Retaining ‘Hard to Reach Groups' in QLR studies : An Example from Criminological Research

1. Retaining ‘Hard to Reach Groups' in QLR studies: An Example from Criminological Research Stephen Farrall, Centre for Criminological Research, School of Law, University of Sheffield.

2. An Outline of My Talk • Introduce the project • Outline what we did to re-trace sample members • Summary ‘what worked’ (and why it worked) • Provide some pointers for others

3. Tracking Progress On/After Probation • 199 probationers (aged 17-35) Aut ‘97-Spr ‘98. • They and their POs interviewed at the start of their orders, six months later and at end of order (1997-1999). [Sweeps 1-3]. • 4th sweep (1/4 sample) (2003-04). N = 51. • 5th sweep (2010-2012). N = 104. • 5th sweep = Mar 2010 – Jan 2013 (34mths).

4. Fieldwork Outcomes N % Interviewed 104 52 Agreed but missed appointment 3 2 Refused Interview 6 3 ‘Silent’ refusal (found but didn’t reply) 7 4 Felt they had little to add (stopped before swp4) 7 4 Left UK 3 2 Know to have died 7 4 Suspected to have died 2 1 Found in CJS since 2008 15 8 Contacts refused to help 2 1 Decided not to interview 1 1 Unfit to be interviewed (psychiatric inpatient) 2 1 Untracable 40 20 TOTAL 199 100

5. How We Retraced People • Contact details from earlier fieldwork, (own, friends and relatives’ addresses, phones etc) • Current probation caseload records • Current prison inmate records • Local phone/electoral rolls (www.192.com); • Local newspapers • Facebook • Online BMD records (www.findmypast.co.uk).

6. Activities Undertaken N % No efforts made (known to be dead) 4 - Phone calls 121 10 Letters sent/left 114 9 Visits to last known home 124 10 Facebook message 54 4 192ed 189 15 BTed 66 5 BMDed 65 5 Contacted friends/family 122 10 Ministry of Justice search (probation/prison) 200 16 Probation area search 194 15 Offered more money 20 2 TOTAL 1275 100 Average = just over 12 activities for completed interview.

7. Outcomes of Interest • ‘Located’ (know ‘where’ they are, but not spoken to) [n = 154, 77% of total sample] • ‘Contacted’ (communicated with in some way) [n = 122, 61% of total sample, 64% of available sample] • ‘Interviewed’ [n = 104, 52% of total sample, 81% of sample with meaningful contact]

8. Activities Undertaken and Outcomes (Summarised) Located Contacted Interviewed Phone calls √ √ √ Letters sent/left √ √ √ Visits to last known home X XX Facebook message 192ed BTed X XX BMDed X XX Contacted friends/family √ √ Ministry of Justice search (p = .053) Probation area search Offered more money X Based on 33 2x2 crosstabulation tables. Only stat. sig. resulted reported (so blanks = not stat. sig.) √ = positive association, X = negative.

9. Phoning/writing to people … • Worked in terms of LOCATING, CONTACTING and INTERVIEWING! • So previous sweeps of data were a useful source of information. • Best way of getting back in touch with people. • Letters (even if NOT replied) still prepared people for a visit.

10. Contacting people’s friends … • Did not work in terms of LOCATING people! • Possibly due to ‘Princess and Frog’ phenomenon? (Gotta kiss a lot of frogs to find your Prince!) • Worked in terms of CONTACTING or INTERVIEWING people. • Gave us new leads/ideas about when best to approach.

11. Visiting people’s homes … • Did not work (at all)! • But often used if phones/letters had gone unanswered, so partly used to confirm that the lead was a ‘cold’ one.

12. Probation/prison searches… • Did not work (at all – but CONTACTING close to stat. sig.)! • ALL cases searched. Records incomplete. • Aliases an issue (199 people = 213 known names, but where there more?)? • Often prison sentences were short; still in CJS = anti-social? Data suggest this was the case, contacted but refused interview.

13. Facebook messaging people… • Did not work (at all)! • Our sample aged 29-47 around this time. Slightly wrong demographic perhaps?

14. 192/BT/BMD searches… • Did not work (at all)! • Used as a last resort in many cases. • BMD did however help us identify/confirm some of the deaths amongst sample members (so saved us some time looking for people we’d never find!). • 192 = the precursor to other activities.

15. Offering more case… • Did not work (at all)! • All offered £20. • Some offered more as a further incentive.

16. Subjective Assessments • We also recorded the activities which we felt had been the ‘break throughs’ in locating a person. • These matched closely the quantitative analyses.

17. Advice • Contact Sheets key to re-tracing. Friends? Family? Sisters? Grandparents? • Undertake ‘cold case’ reviews; revisit cases’ leads several times. • Avoid time limits to finding people. • Re-tracer = interviewer (for rapport). • Professional and team approaches allay fears.

18. Advice • Even ‘unfruitful’ approaches work for some. • In fact, more idiosyncratic cases needed unconventional approaches. • Persistence works!

19. Things to be Aware of … • Bifurcation into two types of easy to find cases (‘non-criminal’ and ‘criminal). • What about ‘middle’ group? • No two studies are a like, so adapt this to your needs, remain flexible.