Pilot exercise
A rigorous pilot exercise was important, in view of the relatively modest numbers of DPTC recipients and the fact that there have been no previous attempts to conduct a series of group discussions with DPTC recipients. The pilot was undertaken to test: a) the feasibility of conducting group discussions with DPTC recipients
b) whether the group discussion provided information useful to the Inland Revenue.
The Inland Revenue used the DPTC database to identify all DPTC recipients living in a conurbation in the north west of England who had recently been awarded DPTC as a lone parent, and sent these clients a letter explaining the research, with an opportunity to opt out. After two weeks, names and addresses of 49 lone parents who had not declined were forwarded to the recruiting agency contracted to the Social Policy Research Unit, who made personal visits to invite people to take part.
Recruitment was challenging in view of the relatively wide recruitment area. Six lone parent recipients accepted the invitation and came to a discussion group. Findings from the tape-recorded discussion, which was moderated by a researcher using a pilot topic guide, were reported quickly to the Inland Revenue.
The pilot demonstrated that it was feasible to recruit DPTC recipients to a discussion group, that the research instrument worked well, and findings were helpful to policy makers. Four further discussion groups were convened.
Recruitment
The aim was to include overall, in the five discussion groups including the pilot, a mix of DPTC recipients with different characteristics in respect of age, sex, family and household type. With so few recipients living in any one local area, it was not possible to conduct any further purposeful selection. There were considerable constraints on the choice of areas in which to recruit, due to the relatively low numbers of recipients and their wide dispersal in some areas.
Using the DPTC database, the Inland Revenue identified all DPTC recipients in four different conurbations in the north of England and Scotland who had been awarded DPTC recently. In each area recipients were selected in one of the following groupings: parents in two-parent families; older people aged 50 years and over; younger people aged 28 years and under, and self-employed people. The Inland Revenue sent letters of invitation, with an opportunity to opt-out (copy attached) and dealt with any enquiries or contacts at this stage. After two weeks, names and addresses of recipients who had not declined to take part were forwarded to the recruiting agency, who made personal visits to invite people to discussion groups. Some people wanted time to think, and many repeat calls were necessary.
Discussions were arranged for early evening in accessible and comfortable local venues including a hotel, library and community hall. The recruiter offered to make arrangements for travelling to the venues, or full reimbursement of expenses for people who preferred to make their own travel arrangements. The relatively wide dispersal of the recipients meant that some people were being asked to travel long distances. Costs of any childcare required so that parents might attend were offered. Everybody visited by the recruiter was asked if there were any practical arrangements that could be made to make it easier for them to attend. Refreshments were offered before and during the discussions.
It was expected that some recipients of DPTC whom the recruiter visited would say that their particular impairment or health condition made it especially hard to take part in a group discussion. Parents of young people with severe learning disabilities had raised this issue with the Inland Revenue, in response to the initial letters which had been sent to their sons or daughters. The researchers addressed this and tried to enable everybody who wanted to take part to do so, by offering to meet individually any such young person. Nobody to whom the researchers wrote to this effect, asked to take part in this way however.
Conduct of discussions
The group discussions took one hour, and were moderated by one of the researchers using the topic guide (attached). At some events a second researcher was present, to help with practical arrangements, and observe and make notes on the dynamics of the interactions and interest levels.
Discussion was steered across the following areas:
• learning about DPTC and its relevance to themselves
• how much and what kind of information people needed about DPTC
• the best ways of providing that information.
The discussions were tape-recorded, with permission of participants, and transcribed for analysis.
Participants each received a money gift in acknowledgement of their help, which was given before the discussion started. In addition, they received a pack of information about the two new tax credits currently being advertised, which was prepared by the Inland Revenue.
Table C1 Overall response and recruitment Recipients in DPTC database Opt-out to Inland Revenue Names supplied for recruitment Personal contacts made Took part in discussion group Area A lone parents (pilot) 51 2 49 18 6 Area B older people aged 50+ years 64 7 57 23 6 Area C parents in two- parent families 69 9 60 24 7 Area D younger people aged 28 years and under 54 1 53 34 4 Area A self-employed people 72 5 67 14 5 Characteristics of participants
The people taking part in the group discussions chose themselves how much to share with other people about their personal circumstances and employment situations. There is therefore no systematic information about the characteristics of people taking part. The original selection criteria, and information provided by some people during the discussions, enables the following observations.
Overall, the 28 participants in the group discussions included people in all age ranges; with and without children; in different kinds of paid work, including self- employment. There were 10 men and 18 women People working part-time were included, and people working more than 30 hours weekly. Some were long-term users of in-work financial support, while some were ‘new’ to DPTC. It appeared that those who were recruited on the basis that they were parents generally had children in older age ranges. Some of the participants were people from minority ethnic backgrounds. Not everybody chose to talk about the impairment or health condition which meant that they were entitled to DPTC, but among those who did, some mentioned mental health conditions, musculo-skeletal conditions, injury or accident, and epilepsy.
ANALYSIS AND RESEARCH Room 52 Somerset House London WC2R 1LB Tel No. 0207 438 6437 Fax No. 0207 438 4329 Email:[email protected] 27 August 2002 Dear
Your views on Disabled Person’s Tax Credit
I am writing to ask for your help with an important study. We want to hear the views of people who have received the Disabled Person’s Tax Credit. We are especially interested in finding the best ways to provide the kind of information that people like you need.
We have asked an independent research organisation called the Social Policy Research Unit at the University of York to carry out this work for us. An organisation called ***** is helping to make the arrangements.
If you would like to take part, you don’t need to do anything. A person working for ***** may get in touch with you to come to talk about the tax credit for an hour with a small group of other parents living in ***** who have also used Disabled Person’s Tax Credit.
The person who gets in touch will be able to talk about any arrangements that would make it easier for you to take part. We will pay your travel expenses and pay for any childcare expenses to enable you to come. The meeting room will have accessible toilets close by, and a car park just outside. There will be tea, coffee and soft drinks, and refreshments. You may have other requirements to enable you to take part and the person who gets in touch will ask about these.
Everything that you say in the meeting will be treated in strictest confidence. Nothing you say will affect any dealings you may have with this or any other government department. I do hope you will help us by taking part. Everyone who takes part will receive £20 as a token of thanks as well as their expenses. However, if you definitely do not wish to take
part, please let me know by Tuesday, the 10th of September 2002. You can either write to
me using the FREEPOST envelope provided (no stamp needed) or telephone me on 020 7438 6437.
Unfortunately, the researchers will not be able to talk to everybody who gets this letter. If you have not heard from a researcher by the end of September you will know that you are not being asked to take part any further.
Thank you for your help. I hope you will be able to take part if the researcher gets in touch, and that you enjoy the occasion.
Yours sincerely
Tina Haux