Foreword | Acknowledgements | Tables | Executive Summary | Chapter 1 | Chapter 2 | Chapter 3 | Chapter 4 | Chapter 5 | Chapter 6 | Chapter 7 | Glossary | References | Appendices
2.1 Background
Design
The overarching objective for this research was to investigate the use and perceptions of section 16. A two-component structure based on exploratory study findings was used for the research. These components were:
A combination of qualitative and quantitative data collection methods were used. It was anticipated that the reliability and validity of research would be enhanced if information was gathered from different sources and by using different methods (triangulation). If diverse kinds of data lead to the same conclusions then more confidence can be placed in the validity of those conclusions.[8]
Advisory Group
The advisory group for the section 16 project was established prior to the commencement of the exploratory study. The responsibilities of the group were to assess proposal documents, receive progress reports, advise researchers and comment on draft reports. Initially the group was composed of the Research and Evaluation Manager from the Department for Courts and three policy advisers from the Ministry of Justice (including the Ministry’s Māori and Pacific Peoples advisers). The group was expanded at the completion of the exploratory study to also include a District Court Judge, a team manager from the Department for Courts, and representatives from the Community Probation Service, Te Puni Kōkiri, and Mātua Whāngai.
Māori and Pacific Peoples focus groups
During the early stages of the project, consultation was undertaken with the Ministry of Justice Māori and Pacific Peoples focus groups. Both groups provided advice about research with Māori and Pacific Peoples, advice about the focus of the survey questionnaire and access to networks of Māori and Pacific Peoples working in the criminal justice field.
2.2 Case studies
The objectives of the case studies were:
Exploratory study respondents had reported that use of section 16 was usually not well documented. These respondents did however refer to cases where it was clear that section 16 had been used. These observations, and other information about the range of ways that section 16 was used, provided the rationale for using case studies. Eleven case studies were completed.
The exploratory study also found that Māori and Pacific Peoples were the most frequent users of the provision. This needed to be represented in the selection of cases. Therefore, six of the case studies focused on use of section 16 by Māori, three on use of section 16 by Pacific Peoples, one on use of section 16 by a New Zealand European, and one on use of section 16 by a Japanese.
The key informants for the case studies were:
A suggested case study structure including questions to guide the case study interviews was developed (Appendix two).
Selecting researchers
The researcher’s ability to recognise the significance of the cultural values of the offender and their families was an important consideration for the case study researchers. One reason for this was that offenders and their families were expected to discuss issues that were particularly significant in terms of their cultural values. The researchers therefore needed to be conscious of the cultural values of offenders and their families. It was decided that, where possible, researchers who were of the same ethnicity as the offender and who had research experience within their communities and the criminal justice system, would be contracted to complete the case studies.
The Ministry of Justice project team sought expressions of interest for the case study research from suitably-qualified researchers. Interested researchers were sent a research brief. Strategic Training and Development Services of Hamilton were contracted to complete the case studies involving Māori. The Family Centre of Lower Hutt was contracted to undertake the Pacific Peoples case studies.
Identification of cases
The second-to-last question of the postal survey to lawyers was "would you agree to our contacting you about the possibility of including a case of section 16 use that you have been involved in, in our case study research?" Respondents who reported recent cases, and agreed to be contacted, were contacted by Ministry researchers. Following this initial contact from the Ministry, contact information for cases involving Māori or Pacific Peoples was passed on to the appropriate contract researchers.
Each team of researchers used a different methodology and for this reason their methods are described separately as introductions to their case studies.
2.3 Postal survey
The objectives of the postal survey were to examine the perceptions of professionals and community groups about:
Sampling and access issues
Researchers selected survey respondent groups based on the likelihood that they would have had experience in using or being involved in cases where section 16 had been used. The four types of respondents selected for the survey were:
Researchers sought regions to survey based on the locations and case-flows of District Courts. The overall sample of courts was selected to represent a range of characteristics including: metropolitan, provincial and rural locations; high and low case loads of Pākehā, Māori and Pacific Peoples; North and South Island locations; and locations with a High Court. Case monitoring data[9] and population data[10] were used to determine which courts were selected to take part in the research. The final sample of courts was: Auckland (including Auckland Central and Otahuhu), Hamilton, Whakatane, Gisborne, Hastings, New Plymouth, Wellington (including Porirua), Christchurch, and Invercargill.
Identifying potential respondents within the selected regions was a complicated task. As a first step, researchers obtained approvals to survey professionals in each area from the Chief Justice, the Chief District Court Judge, and Community Probation Service head office.
The Department for Courts provided the names of judges servicing District Courts in each survey region. The judges who serviced Whakatane, Hastings and Porirua courts were based in larger centres. Five High Court judges also volunteered to participate.
The names of the Community Probation staff working in court servicing in each of the survey regions were provided by the Community Probation Service head office.
Initially District Courts were asked to supply contact details for judges, community organisations and lawyers who practised criminal law in their courts. However, responses to this request indicated that each court’s records differed. Due to inconsistencies in this data researchers sought more consistent and reliable information.
Researchers requested lists of lawyers registered to practise criminal law from the presidents of local district law societies in each area. The information provided was cross-checked with information previously received from courts and a database of potential respondents compiled.
District Court staff and Community Probation Service staff identified community organisations that appeared in their courts on behalf of offenders on criminal matters.
Survey design
A core in-depth questionnaire was developed around the objectives of the survey and drawing on exploratory study experience. The main questionnaire was tailored so each respondent group received a questionnaire that reflected their role. The surveys were then sent to the advisory group for comment.
An early version of the survey was piloted in Papakura. The purpose of the pilot was to obtain an indication of the potential response rate from different groups and to test the questionnaire. The pilot was sent out in September 1999. A response rate of 64% was achieved. Respondents were asked to complete and return the questionnaires within two weeks. Those who did not respond to the survey were contacted to ascertain reasons for their non-responses. The main reasons given were pressure of work and lack of experience with section 16.
Following analysis of completed pilot questionnaires, appropriate changes were made. The major post-pilot changes and the reasons for the changes were as follows:
A copy of the survey used for the main study is attached as Appendix three.
Main study
Questionnaires for the main study were sent out to the different respondent groups in November 1999. Respondents were asked to complete and return questionnaires within three weeks of receiving them. Respondent details were recorded as completed questionnaires were received. To boost the response rate, non-respondents received a follow-up letter and phone call, two and four weeks respectively, after the first cut-off date. Information on response rates is presented at the beginning of chapter six.
Survey analysis
Researchers developed codes for the open-ended questions, and coded the surveys when approximately fifty percent of the questionnaires had been returned. Data entry was undertaken with SAS FS EDIT.[11]
The final question of the survey asked respondents for any further comments they had about the use of section 16. These responses were transcribed, then analysed using a qualitative data analysis programme called Nud*ist.[12]
Footnotes
8. See, for example, Chetwin, Knaggs & Young, 1999, p.5.
9. Case monitoring data were extracted from the Law Enforcement System (LES).
10. Population data were extracted from the Statistics New Zealand software package, Supermap.
11. FS Edit is a part of the SAS (statistical analysis software) package and used to manage data entry and database formation.
12. NUD*IST (an acronym for Non-numerical Unstructured Data – Indexing, Searching, Theorising) is software used for managing and analysing textual data.