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.

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

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).

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

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).

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.

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]

Activities Undertaken and Outcomes(Summarised)

Located Contacted Interviewed

Phone calls √ √ √

Letters sent/left √ √ √

Visits to last known home X X X

Facebook message

192ed

BTed X X X

BMDed X X X

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Facebook messaging people… • Did not work (at all)!• Our sample aged 29-47 around this

time. Slightly wrong demographic perhaps?

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.

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

incentive.

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.

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.

Advice• Even ‘unfruitful’ approaches work for

some.• In fact, more idiosyncratic cases

needed unconventional approaches. • Persistence works!

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.