Chapter 7 Characteristics of Survey Respondents
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
CHAPTER 7 CHARACTERISTICS OF SURVEY RESPONDENTS 7.1 Introduction In seeking to explore the spatial and temporal patterns of contemporary mobility among Aboriginal people in the study area, and the influences on these mobility patterns, a survey was undertaken as the second stage of the primary data collection process for this study. This chapter explores the demographic, social and economic characteristics of the survey sample, and summarises the cultural and place affiliations reported by respondents. In so doing, it provides the context for Chapters 8 and 9, which analyse the quantitative evidence for the mobility of the survey sample. The survey, undertaken in the study area from April to October 2005, resulted in a total of 192 responses from ten localities. The demographic, social and economic status of the respondents who resided within the study area boundaries are examined in Section 7.2. Eight of the respondents were not resident in the study area and, as foreshadowed in Section 4.4.5, their responses have been excluded for the purposes of analysis of quantitative data in this chapter, and in Chapters 8 and 9. Their circumstances are discussed briefly in Section 7.3. The cultural and place affiliations of respondents resident in the study area are then explored. 7.2 Socio-demographic status of survey respondents 7.2.1 Introduction The age-sex structure of the survey sample was introduced in Tables 5.1 and 5.2 and Figure 5.2, in Chapter 5. This section provides an overview of the survey sample in terms of other socio-demographic characteristics such as labour force status, household structure and housing status. 209 7.2.2 Labourforce status The survey collected data concerning the labour force status of each respondent and, where applicable, his or her partner. Table 7.1 shows labour force data by place of residence. TABLE 7.1 Survey respondents: labour force status Place of Labour force status - number of respondents residence Employed Unemployed Training/ Home Pension Other Total education duties NFA 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Bourke 16 8 1 0 4 1 30 Enngonia 9 1 0 0 1 0 11 Brewarrina 8 2 0 3 4 0 17 Goodooga 8 2 2 5 0 0 17 Weilmoringle 6 0 0 1 2 0 9 Broken Hill 20 9 0 0 2 0 31 Wilcannia 21 4 0 2 2 0 29 Menindee 9 0 0 0 2 0 11 Ivanhoe 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 Dareton 15 2 0 4 4 0 25 Labour force status not stated 1 Total 113 29 3 15 22 1 184 0/0 62 16 2 8 12 1 100 1 Of the 183 respondents to this question, 62% were employed (compared with 36.5% from the census), 16% were unemployed, while 20% were either on the pension or undertaking home duties. Only 2% stated that they were undertaking education or training. The labour force data translate to a workforce participation rate of 78% (46.8% from the census) and an 0 unemployment rate of 20% for respondents (22.1 /0 from the census)2. I Responses in the 'not stated' category have been excluded from the total for the purposes ofcalculating percentages in all tables in this chapter. 2 Sixteen per cent ofall respondents equates to 20% ofrespondents who were in the workforce (i.e. either employed or unemployed and looking for work). Official unemployment statistics calculate the unemployment rate as the percentage ofthe workforce who are unemployed. 210 Responses in the 'employed' category are analysed by employment type in Table 7.2. TABLE 7.2 Survey respondents: form of employment Place of Form of employment - number of respondents residence Permanent Permanent CDEP Seasonal Casual Total full-time part-time NFA a a a 1 a 1 Bourke 8 2 4 a 2 16 Enngonia a 3 5 a 1 9 Brewarrina 3 0 5 0 0 8 Goodooga 2 a 6 a a 8 Weilmoringle 3 a 3 a a 6 Broken Hill 4 1 9 1 5 20 Wilcannia 6 2 8 a 5 21 Menindee 2 a 7 a a 9 Ivanhoe a a a a a a Dareton 7 1 4 2 1 15 Total 35 9 51 4 14 113 °10 31 8 45 4 12 100 Of the 620/0 of respondents who reported being employed, fewer than one third (35 out of 113 employed respondents) are in permanent full-time employment. CDEP participants are funded for approximately ten hours' employment per week unless externally funded CDEP contracts permit the payment of 'top-up' wages for additional hours. The data therefore indicate that only 19% of respondents (35 out of 183 respondents) were employed full-time cmd that the majority of those who are working were employed only part-time in a paid position. The differences in employment level and labour force participation rates between the survey and the census would most likely arise from the much greater level of identification in the survey of CDEP participants (27.8°10 of respondents compared with 8.8% for the census). Some limited information about the labour force status of each respondent's partner was also collected to identify whether this influenced the mobility of the respondent. Of 184 responses, 110 respondents were living with a partner and 72 were not at the time of the survey, and two did not state whether or not they 211 were living with a partner. Table 7.3 presents labour force data for respondents' partners. TABLE 7.3 Partners of survey respondents: labour force status Place of Number of respondents residence Respondent Partner's labour force status Total has no Permanent Casual, Not partner work seasonal or working temporary work NFA 1 0 0 0 1 Bourke 8 6 6 10 30 Enngonia 5 1 3 2 11 Brewarrina 8 3 2 5 18 Goodooga 10 1 1 5 17 Weilmoringle 3 1 2 3 9 Broken Hill 13 7 1 10 31 Wilcannia 8 6 4 11 29 Menindee 8 1 1 0 10 Ivanhoe 0 0 0 2 2 Dareton 8 7 3 6 24 Not stated 2 Total 72 33 23 54 184 % 40 18 13 30 100 Of the 110 partners enumerated, 30% of partners were in permanent full-time or part-time work, 21G/o of partners were working on a seasonal or casual basis and 49% of partners were not working. By way of comparison, 52% of respondents (95 out of 182) were working permanent full-time, part-time or for CDEP, 10% were working on a seasonal or casual basis and 38<% were not working. The relationship between mobility, respondent's labour force status and partner's labour force status is further discussed, with reference to the sex of respondents and their partners, in Section 9.2. 1. 7.2.3 Households andfamilies Table 7.4 shows the breakdown of respondents by household type. 212 TABLE 7.4 Survey respondents: household type Household type Respondents % Living as a lone person household 8 5 Living with immediate family members 114 62 Living with immediate family members and others who are not immediate family 37 20 Living only with others who are not immediate family 24 13 Not stated 1 Total 184 100 One third of respondents were living in households which contained people who were not immediate family3 but might include siblings, cousins, nIeces, nephews, in-laws or unrelated persons. This may be a reflection of the traditional extended family structure but might also be a consequence of the shortage of rental housing stock in the study area. Respondents were asked whether they had children at school and, if so, the location of the school(s) their children attended (Table 7.5). Eighteen of the 89 respondents with children at school had children attending school at a location beyond daily commuting distance, so boarding would be necessary. Table 7.6 lists the locations where the children of these respondents attend school, as well as the locations where school is within commuting distance (up to approximately 200 km round trip4) from the respondent's place of residence. Some respondents had children attending school in more than one remote location. Reasons for children being educated away from home were not sought in the survey. As Chapter 5 indicates, educational opportunities in the study area, especially in the more remote localities, are limited. Of the eighteen respondents with children away at school, six did not have a partner. A possible further reason for children being educated away from the respondent's place of residence might therefore be family breakdown (that is, the child may reside with the respondent's former partner). The implications of children's school enrolment for parents' or guardians' mobility is explored in Section 9.3.1. 3 The questionnaire restricted 'immediate family' to partners, parents, grandparents, children and grandchildren. 4 The 200 km figure adopted represents the longest daily commute (Enngonia-Bourke-Enngonia) routinely undertaken by school students in the study area. 213 TABLE 7.5 Survey respondents: children at school Number of respondents Respondent has children at school: Place of Respondent residence has no Within daily Beyond daily In locality of Total children at commuting commuting residence school distance distance No fixed address (NFA) 1 0 0 0 1 Bourke 15 10 0 5 30 Enngonia 5 3 1 2 11 Brewarrina 9 9 0 0 18 Goodooga 7 10 0 0 I 17 Weilmoringle 3 4 0 2 9 Broken Hill 18 10 0 3 31 Wilcannia 19 7 0 3 , 29 Menindee 5 3 0 2 10 I Ivanhoe 2 0 0 0 2 i Dareton 9 11 3 1 24 I Not stated 2 I Total 93 67 4 18 184 I 0/0 51 37 2 10 100 TABLE 7.6 Survey respondents: locations where children go away to school Locations Place of within daily Locations beyond daily commuting distance residence commuting distance Bourke Brewarrina Dubbo Grafton Cairns Brisbane Enngonia Bourke Sydney Weilmoringle Dubbo Broken Hill Wilcannia Dareton Murray Loxton (SA) Bridge (SA) Monash (SA) Wilcannia Broken Hill Brewarrina Warren Windsor (Qld) Menindee Menindee Sydney Hay Dareton Mildura Sydney 214 7.2.4 Housing status The survey collected data in relation to household size and dwelling type and size.