Multi-Site Survey of Victims of Crime and Criminal Justice Professionals Across Canada

2. Methodology

2. Methodology

2.1 Selection of Sites

The multi-site survey was conducted in 16 sites within the 10 provinces in Canada; the territories were not included in this study. The 16 sites represent five regions: Atlantic (Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, and Newfoundland and Labrador), Quebec, Ontario, Prairie (Saskatchewan and Manitoba), and Western (British Columbia and Alberta). Each region included at least three sites of varying size (small, medium, and large), with consideration of diversity in geography (rural, urban, northern) and population (especially cultural and linguistic). A subcommittee of the Federal Provincial Territorial Working Group on Victims of Crime (FPTWG) guided the research team and recommended some of the locations selected for site visits.

The choice of sites was intended to provide a cross-section of the country. Six small sites were chosen with populations between 1,500 and 33,000; four medium sites with populations between 60,000 and 160,000; and six large sites were chosen with populations over 350,000. The small and medium sites selected for this study represent rural areas or locations with smaller populations and are not simply municipalities within a larger metropolitan area. Cultural diversity came largely from immigrant groups in the large urban sites, although small and medium sites also provided cultural diversity, particularly through their Aboriginal populations. To obtain insight into the experiences and opinions of those in more remote areas, the study also included two northern sites. However, analysis of differences along cultural, linguistic, and racial lines was beyond the scope of this research as numbers for individual respondent groups were not large enough to allow this analysis.

2.2 Respondent Groups

Data for this study came from criminal justice professionals and victims of crime. Victims of crime provided their information through in-depth in person interviews. This was done in order to ensure that detailed data on each individual victim's experience in the criminal justice system could be obtained. Criminal justice professionals who participated in the study were from 10 different groups: judges, Crown Attorneys, defence counsel, police, victim services workers, victim advocacy groups, probation officers, and three types of parole representatives (from the National Parole Board, Correctional Service Canada, and the provincial parole boards in Quebec, Ontario, and British Columbia). They participated through either self-administered questionnaires or interviews (in person or telephone). Sections 2.2.2 and 2.2.3 below describe both of these methods in detail.

Relying on two forms of data collection allowed for the most complete method of gathering information on the research questions. The use of self-administered questionnaires ensured that a large proportion of the criminal justice professionals in each site could participate, while the use of interviews meant that more in-depth, qualitative data could also be obtained. The process of identifying respondents, gathering the data through interviews and self-administered questionnaires, and integrating and reporting results is discussed in detail below.

2.2.1 Identifying Criminal Justice Professionals

Prairie Research Associates (PRA) Inc. began the process of identifying respondents by compiling an initial list of primary contacts for the various categories of criminal justice professionals included in the study. For each of the 16 sites, PRA used Internet and referral sources to identify the Chief Crown Counsel; the Chief Provincial Court Judge; the Chief Justice (Queen's Bench); directors of victim services and advocacy organizations; the director of the provincial defence bar organization or law society; the Chief of Police; and heads of probation and parole. The initial list contained mailing addresses, telephone numbers, and fax numbers for each primary contact.

Once the list was compiled, the Department of Justice Canada (DOJ) sent letters to the primary contacts informing them of the study and requesting their cooperation in its execution. The letter advised the primary contacts that a representative of PRA would contact them in the future to discuss how their organizations might participate in the research (see Appendix B).

As the research proceeded, the list of primary contacts expanded, and each new contact received a letter of explanation, either from the DOJ or from PRA. All letters included the name and telephone number of a DOJ representative who would be available to respond to any questions or concerns.

2.2.2 Interviews with Criminal Justice Professionals

In total, PRA completed 214 interviews with criminal justice professionals. Interviews were completed with representatives from five respondent groups: victim services, police, Crown Attorneys, judiciary, and defence counsel. Table 1 below shows the total number of interviews completed for each category of key informants by small, medium, and large sites.

TABLE 1: INTERVIEWS WITH CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROFESSIONALS
Respondent Category: Large Sites Medium Sites Small Sites Total
Victim services 43 19 7 69
Police 18 8 12 38
Crown Attorneys 18 8 11 37
Judiciary 17 6 8 31
Defence counsel 20 4 15 39
Total 116 45 53 214

PRA requested the assistance of the primary contacts in identifying suitable individuals to interview. The fact that the primary contact was responsible for identifying key informants may have introduced selection bias into the research, except in small sites where all criminal justice professionals in a given respondent category were interviewed. Once the primary contact had identified appropriate key informants, PRA contacted these individuals directly to schedule interviews. In a number of instances, the primary contacts volunteered to schedule the interviews on our behalf. Although the majority of interviews were conducted in person during visits to the sites, some key informants at each location were unable to take part due to scheduling or other conflicts. These key informants were interviewed by telephone. Interviews were conducted in the preferred language (English or French) of key informants and tape-recorded with their permission.

The interview guides used to conduct the key informant interviews are in Appendix B. Most of the questions are identical to questions in the corresponding survey instruments for each respondent category (the survey methodology is discussed in Section 2.2.3 below). However, a small number of questions were included only in the interview guides in order to limit the length of the surveys and avoid overly burdening respondents.

All data gathered in the interview questions that were identical to the self-administered questionnaires are included in the full quantitative data set. The main purpose of the interviews was to provide a more nuanced discussion of the findings than would have been possible with quantitative data alone.

To ensure that the qualitative dimension of the data would be included in the final report, PRA summarized the interview findings by respondent group and incorporated these findings into the final report. The purpose was to present any qualitative information from the interviews that could not adequately be captured on the survey questionnaires. For the most part, the qualitative information from the interviews enhances, explains, or provides greater detail about the quantitative data presented in this report. The interviews are clearly identified as the source of this additional qualitative information in this report.[4]

In the case of the questions asked only in interviews, the qualitative data are the only data available. Findings from questions that appear only in the interview guides are also clearly identified as such in the report.[5] In general, the qualitative interview results provide important details that would have been missed had only quantitative data been relied upon.

2.2.3 Self-administered Survey of Criminal Justice Professionals

A total of 1,662 criminal justice professionals were included in this study using 11 different self-administered survey questionnaires (these instruments can be found in Appendix C).[6] Tables 2 and 4 below show the total number of each respondent group included by small, medium, and large sites.

TABLE 2: RESPONDENTS WHO COMPLETED SELF-ADMINISTERED QUESTIONNAIRES BY SITE SIZE
Respondent Group: Large Sites Medium Sites Small Sites Total Self-completed Questionnaires
Victim services 180 39 30 249
Police 393 141 114 648
Crown Attorneys 123 25 3 151
Judiciary 58 13 8 79
Defence counsel 122 15 9 146
Advocacy groups 37 4 6 47
Probation 161 26 19 206
Total 1,074 263 189 1,526

In addition, the survey included 85 National Parole Board officers, 22 Provincial Parole Board officers, as well as 29 Correctional Service Canada personnel (See Table 3 below).

TABLE 3: PROBATION AND PAROLE RESPONDENTS WHO COMPLETED SELF-ADMINISTERED QUESTIONNAIRES
Respondent Group: Total Number of Respondents
National Parole Board 85
Provincial Parole Board 22
Correctional Service Canada 29
Total 136

The victim services respondent group includes a variety of types of organizations. To provide more detail on the organizations participating in the multi-site survey, respondents were asked to identify their organization by type. Table 4 shows the distribution of respondents by type of service and size of site. Please note that respondents could describe their organization using more than one category and responses may more accurately reflect services offered by the organization than the type of organization (i.e., police-based, court-based).

TABLE 4:VICTIM SERVICES PROVIDERS INCLUDED IN THE SURVEY
  Large Sites (N=223) Medium Sites (N=58) Small Sites (N=37) Total (N=318)*
Community-based victim services 51% 55% 43% 51%
Police-based victim services 41% 57% 60% 46%
Specialized victim services for domestic violence 43% 38% 30% 40%
Court-based victim services 31% 35% 35% 32%
Specialized victim services for sexual assaults 34% 38% 14% 32%
Specialized victim services for children 33% 28% 14% 30%
System-based victim services** 21% 28% 27% 23%
Shelters for women or children or Second stage housing 6% -- 8% 5%
Other 13% 10% 3% 11%

Note: Respondents could provide more than one response; therefore, totals sum to more than 100%.

As with the interviews, primary contacts were asked to identify potential respondents for self-administered questionnaires. In some cases, primary contacts were willing to provide the names and addresses of potential respondents directly, while in other cases, they chose instead to distribute the survey within their organizations themselves. There were, therefore, two main methods by which the questionnaire was disseminated. For the agencies that provided contact names and addresses, questionnaires were sent directly to all of the individuals identified. For the agencies that preferred to distribute internally, an agreed-upon number of questionnaire packages were provided to the primary contact, along with instructions for distribution.

The number of questionnaires distributed to each organization, as well as the method of distribution, was highly dependent on the preferences of the primary contact. In some instances, particularly at the small and medium sites, all criminal justice professionals within a given organization received a questionnaire, whereas elsewhere, only a sample of potential respondents was surveyed. There is some possibility of selection bias with both approaches. With the first approach, some criminal justice professionals likely self-selected out of the survey process even though all within a given organization received a questionnaire. With the second approach, selection bias may have resulted because the primary contact was responsible for defining the sample (we suggested random sampling, but this could not always be guaranteed). The decision to take one or the other approach was made by the primary contacts.

Questionnaires were distributed in both English and French to respondents at sites in Quebec and New Brunswick, unless we received explicit instructions to the contrary from primary contacts. In other provinces, questionnaires were distributed in English only, except where primary contacts made a specific request for French or bilingual questionnaires. Regardless of whether questionnaires were mailed directly or distributed by primary contacts, respondents had the choice of returning their completed questionnaires in a self-addressed, postage-paid envelope, included with the questionnaire package, or by toll-free fax.

Results from the self-administered questionnaires were entered into a database for processing and analysis. As already noted above, responses to questions posed in both self-completed questionnaires and interviews are included in the reporting of quantitative data. Thus, when the report refers to those surveyed, this includes all respondents to the multi-site survey (both those who completed the self-administered questionnaires and those interviewed in person).[7]

2.2.4 Victim Interviews

In total, 112 interviews were completed with victims of crime. Table 5 shows the number of interviews by small, medium, and large sites.

TABLE 5: INTERVIEWS WITH VICTIMS BY SITE SIZE
  Number Percent
Large site 64 57%
Medium site 30 27%
Small site 18 16%
Total 112 100%

The assistance of the primary contacts in the various victim services organizations was requested at each of the sites visited. Options for contacting victims were discussed with each of the victim services organizations, and they selected the most appropriate approach for their agency. The fact that the primary contact was responsible for identifying potential victim respondents and obtaining their consent may have introduced selection bias into the research.

Each organization was offered a package consisting of a letter explaining the study, a consent card, and a self-addressed envelope. If the agency wished to distribute the packages, victims could simply sign the consent card and mail it back to PRA. The interviewers then contacted these individuals directly to schedule interviews. In some instances, victim services staff contacted victims by phone and either gave them PRA's toll-free phone number and a contact person, or asked them for permission to give PRA their phone number. Some victim services offered to schedule the interviews for the site visit, particularly if the organization was also able to provide an office for conducting the interviews.

If an office was not available, victims were interviewed in a location of their choice. Victims were informed that if they wished, a support person could accompany them during the interview. Following the interviews, victims received a debrief form with contact numbers for the local victim services.

Interviews with victims occurred in person whenever possible. If the victim preferred to be interviewed by telephone or if the interview could not be scheduled during the site visit, interviews were conducted by telephone. Interviews were conducted in the preferred language (English or French) of the victims.

2.2.5 Notes on Reporting

As discussed above, the survey of criminal justice professionals includes quantitative results from both the self-administered questionnaires and quantified responses to corresponding questions in the interviews. All references to "survey respondents," "those surveyed," or the like and all tables of the findings present the quantitative data and include the combined results from these methods of data collection.

The report also includes additional qualitative data from the interviews. To ensure that the reader is aware of the source of the data, the report specifies when the information is from interview responses only. In reporting qualitative data, the report uses the descriptors "several" or "few." This is done to prevent confusion between qualitative and quantitative data. For purposes of this report, "several" refers to six to ten respondents, and a "few" refers to three to five.

Only overall results are presented in this report, rather than results by size of site (small, medium, and large). The number of sites in this study (16) coupled with the number of respondent categories means that the results by size of site do not allow for reliable comparisons. For example, the Crown Attorney data for small sites is based on the responses of 14 individuals (this occurred because each of the six small sites has only two or three Crown Attorneys). Generalizations about the views and practices in small sites cannot be reliably made on the basis of 14 respondents. Therefore, this report relies only on overall findings. Similarly, available victim services, practices and programs vary jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Therefore, the report does not make direct comparisons across these services, practices and programs; only overall findings are provided.

For the multi-site survey of victims of crime only interviews were conducted, so there is no need for any distinctions between survey and interview data. Please note that numbers are used instead of percentages when discussing a small subset of the victim interview data.

The term "victim" is used throughout this report to refer to a complainant in a criminal case. This terminology is used when referring to situations both before and after a conviction and is used for consistency and ease of reading.