Number and composition of focus groups

Six focus groups were held in total, comprising young people aged 16 to 19, who were either classified as either NEET, JWT or NK at the time or had been in the previous three months. Whilst holding six focus groups exceeds the range of three to five recommended by Morgan (1997), it is within the range of four to six supported by Krueger and Casey (2000). Six groups were selected also as this enabled groups to be held in locations recognised as having a higher proportion of young people categorised as NEET (LAX, 2010b). Morgan (1997) also recommends determining a number of target groups, but to have flexibility to hold additional groups if required and this flexibility is maintained within the design, and findings were developed as the focus groups were held. These findings were

79

analysed to determine the emerging issues and to check that a point was reached where those findings were being confirmed and no new themes were emerging, where saturation had been reached. If saturation had not been achieved, then additional focus groups would have been held.

Focus groups were held in locations that were easily accessible and non- threatening for the participants, for example youth centres or community centres. The locations were selected to be centred in areas with known higher levels of young people who were classified as NEET or JWT known based on the findings reported in the Institution Focused Study. Groups were systematically established, drawing on the findings of the Institution Focused Study. Participants were selected through purposive sampling (Morgan, 1997), in order to ensure the characteristics found to be more prevalent in young people who were classified as NEET or JWT were represented, in particular LAC, YO and LLDD. These three categories were selected for particular focus as they are highlighted as the highest risk factors by the local authority (LAX, 2010b), as described earlier in the Institution Focused Study. The criteria for selection are that: the young people were classified as NEET or JWT, or had been so within the last three months; the young people were aged 16 to 19; and the young people lived within five miles of the geographical high concentration of young people classified as NEET or JWT identified through the Institution Focused Study. For young people in the not known category, where their category had been established as NEET or JWT prior to the selection, these young people were included. The sample was designed to give gender balance, representation of ethnic groups reflecting the wider population in the selected Local Authority and representation of LAC, YO and LLDD as particular risk factors highlighted in the Institution Focused Study.

The sample was drawn from the local authority’s database of young people who were classified as NEET or JWT, which included information on the characteristics identified in the Institution Focused Study. I had access to this database through my position working in the local authority, where I had secured permission to access the data for the research. This enabled a purposive approach

80

to sampling prior to contact being made with the young people. Invitations were then issued to the sample for ten young people in each of six focus groups. Where the potential participants exceeded ten, random sampling was employed but in a way which met the criteria highlighted above (Morgan, 1997). The selection of young people, therefore, was a combination of purposive and stratified sampling, but with an element of voluntary sampling as participation was by invitation to those in the selected areas or with the selected characteristics, but also only by voluntary informed consent and participation was open to other volunteers meeting the defined criteria (Blaxter, Hughes and Tight, 1996).

In practice, the organisation of focus groups of young people who were either currently or recently categorised as NEET proved to be more challenging than anticipated. Despite there being over 1,000 young people who were categorised as NEET at the time, there was a reluctance to join focus groups to discuss their experience. Jarrett (1993) highlights the challenges presented in engaging hard to reach groups in focus groups and the need for much more personalised approaches to secure their trust and engagement. A more personalised approach was taken for this research, working with Youth Support Officers (YSOs) to explain the purpose of the research and the nature of the discussion. The YSOs already had established a level of communication and trust with the young people, which supported the initial approach and securing their informed consent to take part in the focus groups. Support for travel was offered through a payment for travel expenses and pizza was provided on the day, as such support had been found to be effective in securing attendance, particularly for those in JWT (Spielhofer et al., 2009). Focus groups were held at times which were convenient for the participants, generally early evening, typically 6.30pm to 8.30pm. Six focus groups were held, comprising 45 young people, with individual groups ranging in size from four to thirteen. The composition of each group is shown in the table below.

81 Focus Group Number of young people

Gender Participation category Identified group Male Female NEET JWT NK LAC LLDD YO

1 7 4 3 4 2 1 2 2 2 2 7 2 5 4 3 0 0 0 0 3 10 4 6 6 4 0 0 2 2 4 13 5 8 10 3 0 0 3 0 5 4 2 2 2 2 0 1 3 0 6 4 4 0 3 1 0 1 2 0 Total 45 21 24 29 15 1 4 12 4

Table 6: Composition of focus groups

It should be noted that young people were either in the category NEET, JWT or NK so the total across the categories was the total number of young people taking part. For the second set of categories, only some young people were either LAC, LLDD or YO and in some cases young people were in more than one of these categories so the total in this section did not match the total number of participants.