|
Unit of Analysis
| Migrating Unit (MU); Individual |
|
Universe
| The in-scope population comprised adult humanitarian migrants settling in Australia who had been issued with an appropriate permanent visa (PV) under the humanitarian entrant stream. The population was divided into two main groups: permanent offshore (refugees) and permanent onshore (asylum seekers). Permanent offshore migrants were defined as people who came to Australia after being identified by the UNHCR as refugees in need of resettlement, plus people who came to Australia via the Special Humanitarian Program, while permanent onshore migrants were defined as people who were already in Australia when they received a permanent visa. The permanent offshore group included the following subgroups: People under the Refugee Program (Woman-at-risk – visa sub-class 204, Refugee subgroup – visa sub-class 200, Other – visa sub-class 201, 203) and People under the Special Humanitarian Program (visa sub-class 202). The permanent onshore group included the following subgroups: UMAs – Unauthorised Maritime Arrivals (those who arrived by boat without a valid visa) and Non-UMAs (those who applied for asylum after having arrived on a valid visa). To be eligible for the study, offshore visa holders had to have arrived in Australia holding a permanent visa three to six months prior to their wave 1 interview (arrivals between May and December 2013), and onshore visa holders had to have received their permanent protection visa three to six months prior to their wave 1 interview (visa grants between May and December 2013). See Data Users Guide Section 2 for more information. |
|
Time Method
| Longitudinal/panel/cohort study |
|
Frequency
| Annual |
|
Sampling Procedure
| No sampling (total universe). Participants were eligible to be recruited from 11 sites around Australia. A total of 4,035 Migrating Units (MUs) who met the eligibility criteria (visa sub-class and time period of visa grant/arrival in Australia) were identified as potential participants in the study. All eligible MUs were approached to participate in the study. |
|
Collection Mode
| The vast majority of interviews in waves 1 and 3 were conducted face-to-face, either as a Computer-Assisted Self-Interview (CASI) (70.5% of interviews in wave 1 and 63.3% in wave 3), or as a Computer-Assisted Personal Interview (CAPI) (29.5% in wave 1 and 33.4% in wave 3). In waves 2 and 4, interviews were conducted over the phone (99.4% in wave 2 and 100% in wave 4). In wave 3, a one-off Child Self-Report module was completed on paper by selected children aged 11-17 years old. |
|
Type of Research Instrument
| Structured |
|
Characteristics of Data Collection Situation
| The initial five annual waves of data collection took place between 2013–14 and 2017–18, with alternating waves of home visits (waves 1, 3 and 5) and telephone interviews (waves 2 and 4). In waves 1, 3 and 5, the survey was administered using one of the following three methods:
(1) A computer-assisted self interview (CASI) on a small portable computer tablet. In wave 1, the CASI had audio and flashlight functions available so that participants could listen to the questions and answers at the same time as the spoken words were highlighted on the screen. This feature was found to be particularly useful for participants with low levels of literacy. However, due to small numbers of participants who used it in wave 1, it was not included for waves 3 and 5.
(2) A computer-assisted personal interview (CAPI) was offered to participants who preferred to complete the survey with an interviewer.
(3) When neither of these methods was feasible, participants were assisted by an accredited interpreter over the phone or in person, with an interviewer also present to pose the questions and record the answers.
In waves 2 and 4, the survey was primarily administered over the telephone as a computer-assisted telephone interview (CATI) using bilingual interviewers and interpreters where required.
See BNLA Data Users Guide Section 2.2 for more information. |
|
Actions to Minimize Losses
| A letter of invitation to the study from the Australian Institute of Family Studies was sent to the principal applicant (PA) of each migrating unit together with an accompanying information brochure. The letter and brochure were translated into the individual/family's primary language and contained information about the study. Following this initial contact, Colmar Brunton interviewers telephoned each potential participating individual/family to ascertain their interest in taking part in the study and to make an appointment if appropriate. If phone contact could not be made, interviewers undertook a home visit to try to reach potential study members. Starting from wave 2, in case Secondary Applicants (SAs) exited the household of their original PA and established their own household, the exiting SAs were asked to complete a household level questionnaire about their new household. |
|
Weighting
| For the wave 1 dataset, three sets of weights are provided. They were calculated to include an adjustment for non-response and take into account the probability of selection for the entire sample, as well as for Principal and Secondary Applicants separately. See BNLA Data User Guide Appendix C for a more detailed description of the process followed to generate these weights. For each of the subsequent waves, two types of survey weights are available: population weights and longitudinal weights. Population weights adjust BNLA estimates to population totals for PAs and SAs, as well as for a combined sample of respondents. Longitudinal weights adjust for attrition between pairs of waves of BNLA data (as well as the balanced panel) for the same three groups. Further information on how these weights were calculated is contained in BNLA Data Users Guide Appendices D–F. |
|
Cleaning Operations
| Random checks were conducted on the data by the archive for missing variable and value labels, out of range values and wild codes, logical inconsistencies, and confidentiality. |
|
Response Rate
| For wave 1, the response rate, calculated as the proportion of the total eligible sample (n = 4,035) who completed an interview, was 37.4%.
For wave 2, the response rates (calculated as the proportion of the sample initiated for contact who completed an interview) were 84.0% for PAs and 83.3% for SAs; in wave 3 the corresponding responses rate were 77.1% for PAs and 83.4% for SAs; and in wave 4 the response rates were 80.4% for PAs and 85.0% for SAs.
Numbers of respondents in BNLA Release 4.0 are:
Wave 1: 2,399 respondents in total (1,509 principal and 890 secondary)
Wave 2: 2,009 respondents in total (1,284 principal and 725 secondary)
Wave 3: 1,894 respondents in total (1,181 principal and 713 secondary)
Wave 4: 1,929 respondents in total (1,244 principal and 685 secondary)
See BNLA Data Users Guide Section 2.4 for more information. |
