CHAPTER 2: RESEARCH METHODS
2.1 This chapter describes the research methods used in the evaluation. The evaluation comprised the following main components: (1) the collection and analysis of data on individuals offered the opportunity to make a victim statement in order to determine whether particular categories of individual (in terms of age, sex or offence type) were more or less likely to do so; (2) interviews with statement makers (in order to obtain their views about the experience of doing so) and non-statement makers (in order to establish why they had chosen not to make statements); and (3) interviews with criminal justice practitioners and related personnel in order to obtain their views on the impact of victim statements and the operation of the scheme.
2.2 In addition to these main components, the research also comprised: (4) a literature review to obtain information on the operation of victim statement schemes in other jurisdictions; (5) an analysis of the content of completed victim statements in order to identify the type of issues raised; (6) an analysis of case outcomes in order to assess the impact of victim statements on sentencing and to estimate the number of cases in which a victim statement was not submitted to the court because the accused was not convicted; (7) an analysis of the offences 'prescribed' for the purposes of the scheme; and (8) an estimate of the number of cases lost to the victim statement scheme due to the offender pleading guilty from custody at the first opportunity and being sentenced immediately (so called 'lost cases').
2.3 The main components of the research are described in more detail below.
COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS OF STATISTICAL DATA
2.4 Data transfer arrangements were agreed with each pilot site to ensure that the researchers received details of all statement packs sent out and those cases in which a statement was submitted. Data from Ayr and Kilmarnock was transferred electronically. 9 Data from Edinburgh was transferred using paper records. The data from both sources was input into a database and was analysed using the SPSS data analysis package.
2.5 Both the electronic and manual data transfer systems provided information on the date on which a statement pack was sent out and whether or not a statement was returned. In addition, information was provided on the nature of the (alleged) offence, age and gender of victims. For the Edinburgh sample, offence information was provided only in terms of the general class of offence. The codes used were those used by VIA generally to categorise offences, 10 rather than the specific charge against the accused. For the Ayr/Kilmarnock sample, information on the precise nature of the charges against the accused was provided.
2.6 The information was provided subject to one limitation. From the outset of the pilot scheme, those receiving a statement pack were informed about the evaluation and were offered the opportunity to opt-out of the research by returning a reply slip. The wording of the original reply slip meant that no data on age, gender or offence category could be supplied about those individuals who opted out of the research. The letter sent to victims was subsequently re-drafted and a revised version came into operation on 6 July 2004. 11 As part of the re-draft, the wording of the opt-out clause was changed to permit the researchers to receive personal information about individuals who had opted out (but not to read any victim statement submitted or to contact the individual for the purposes of an interview). From this point onwards, where they were known, 12 details of gender, age and offence were made available to the researchers for all victims.
2.7 One of the aims of the evaluation was to assess the impact of victim statements on sentencing. To this end, the researchers attempted to secure details of case outcomes for cases in which a statement pack was sent out. This exercise was subject to a number of limitations. First, not all cases had concluded by the time that the final batch of data was transferred, in December 2005. Second, it only proved possible to secure electronic data about case disposals in the broadest of terms - whether the disposal was imprisonment/detention, a fine, a compensation order and so on - rather than the exact length of any period of imprisonment or amount of any fine. This was because the source of the electronic data was the COPFS information system and this does not hold detailed information on disposals. Third, for the Edinburgh sample, case outcome information was provided only for a sample of cases, rather than for every case in which a statement pack was sent out. This was because staff at the pilot sites had to extract the case outcome manually and the work involved in doing this for every single case would have been excessive. All of these factors mean that the analysis of case outcomes in chapter 5 is necessarily limited, although given the multitude of factors that affect sentencing decisions, even if precise data had been supplied, this exercise would have been of limited value. 13
2.8 Finally, for each case that was transferred electronically, the researchers received details of all the charges against the accused. Where this was the case, the only charge entered onto the SPSS database was the most serious. 14 Multiple charges were not entered onto the database as this would run the risk of over-representing the number of victim statements made, if statements were made in cases involving multiple charges. This explains, for example, the relatively small number of cases involving an offence under s41 of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967 (assault on a police officer). 15 This is because these cases often involved an additional charge of common law assault and, where this was the case, it was the charge of assault that was recorded.
INTERVIEWS WITH STATEMENT MAKERS AND NON-STATEMENT MAKERS
2.9 This component of the research involved 2 sub-components: telephone interviews and in-depth face-to-face interviews.
Telephone interviews
2.10 This aspect of the research was undertaken by the Scottish Centre for Social Research, with input from the University of Aberdeen researchers. Three separate batches of telephone interviews were undertaken with victims who had been offered the chance to make a statement. The first was a pilot survey, which took place in July 2004. The telephone interviews were undertaken using a structured questionnaire. The pilot survey was intended to test this questionnaire, and involved non-statement makers only. 16
2.11 In the event, only very minor changes were made to the questionnaire following the pilot and essentially the same questionnaire was used in 2 further telephone surveys, which took place in December 2004 and September 2005. Both of these surveys involved statement makers and non-statement makers. A copy of the questionnaire used for the telephone interviews is contained in Annex 4.
2.12 Over the course of the 3 surveys, attempts were made to contact and interview 404 victims. Interviews took place with 182, an overall response rate of 45%. 17
2.13 Eighty eight of those interviewed had made victim statements, while 94 had not. Statement makers therefore comprised 48.4% of the sample, which is significantly higher than the overall response rate for the pilot schemes (14.9%). 18 Details of the sample in terms of age, gender, nature of the offence, employment status and educational background are provided in Annex 5. The results of the telephone survey are presented in chapter 6.
Face-to-face interviews
2.14 In addition to the structured telephone interviews, follow-up in-depth face-to-face interviews were undertaken with 20 victims drawn from the telephone questionnaire sample. 19 This aspect of the research was carried out by Mary Munro, an independent consultant with extensive experience of this type of work. The interviews took place in the homes of the respondents. The intention of the face-to-face interviews was to explore in more depth some of the issues that could only be touched upon in the structured telephone survey. The interviews were tape recorded and transcribed and were analysed by the researchers.
2.15 The sample of interviewees was selected in order to try and include a range of ages, offence categories and an approximately equal number of men and women and statement makers and non-statement makers. This was successful up to a point. Some of the interviewees selected proved impossible to contact or, having initially stated in their telephone interview that they were prepared to take part in a face-to-face interview, changed their mind when contacted. The sample details of the 20 respondents are provided in Annex 8.
2.16 The face-to-face interviews were guided by a discussion guide. A separate discussion guide was used for statement makers and non-statement makers. Copies of the discussion guides used are contained in Annex 6 (non-statement makers) and Annex 7 (statement makers).
2.17 It cannot be claimed in any way that this is a representative sample of the population of victims offered the opportunity to make a statement. These respondents have in common the fact that they were (a) contactable at the details provided to the researchers; (b) willing to take part in a telephone interview; and (c) willing to take part in a longer face-to-face interview in their home. The purpose of these face-to-face interviews was simply to illuminate some of the issues covered by the telephone questionnaire, rather than to make any broader claims. As such, the findings are reported alongside the findings from the telephone questionnaire, in chapter 6.
INTERVIEWS WITH CRIMINAL JUSTICE PERSONNEL
2.18 Interviews with criminal justice personnel took place over the course of the project in order to gather their views on the pilot schemes. In total, interviews took place with: 2 High Court judges; 11 sheriffs; 5 procurators fiscal; 3 representatives of VIA; 20 4 defence agents; and 4 representatives of VSS. 21 Many of these participants were interviewed more than once.
2.19 The interviews were usually undertaken by 2 members of the research team together. They were guided by a discussion guide, a sample copy of which is contained in Annex 9. The discussion guides used varied slightly according to the role of the interviewee. The interviews were relatively informal in nature and the participants were not restricted to the topics listed on the discussion guide, being encouraged to give their views on all aspects of the victim statement scheme.
2.20 In addition to these formal interviews, the research has been informed by several informal discussions with those parties involved in the pilot schemes, such as the office staff administering the schemes and the Director of VIA.
2.21 The results of the interviews of criminal justice practitioners are reported primarily in chapter 7. Information gathered during the interviews also serves to supplement other chapters of the report.