Australian Bureau of Statistics

Rate the ABS website
ABS Home > Statistics > By Release Date
ABS @ Facebook ABS @ Twitter ABS RSS ABS Email notification service
3416.0 - Perspectives on Migrants, 2012  
Previous ISSUE Released at 11:30 AM (CANBERRA TIME) 27/09/2012   
   Page tools: Print Print Page Print all pages in this productPrint All RSS Feed RSS Bookmark and Share Search this Product

MIGRANT SOCIAL AND COMMUNITY CONNECTIONS

On this page:
Introduction
Background
How do the characteristics of earlier migrants differ from those who arrived more recently?
Social interactions: Informal and formal
Frequency of interactions and types
Network size and other forms of contact
Ability to confide in friends and how many
Crisis support
Characteristics of friends
Generalised trust and overall life satisfaction
Conclusion
End Notes


INTRODUCTION

This article examines different aspects of migrants’ connections to friends, family and their own community by using the data from the ABS 2010 General Social Survey (GSS). It aims to provide an indication of the types of social activities migrants engaged in and with whom, how frequently they engage and their general levels of life satisfaction and trust. The approach used in this article is based on the model used in April 2011 by Australian Survey Research (ASR) in a study commissioned by the Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC). This study, the Settlement Outcomes of New Arrivals (SoNA), explored the settlement outcomes of migrants who were newly arrived to Australia. The aim of SoNA was to gain a better understanding of how newly arrived migrants, particularly Humanitarian migrants, were faring in Australian society and what factors contributed to their successful settlement (e.g. access to education, level of education, interaction with government and services, employment, income, accommodation and English proficiency) (Endnote 1).

While the 2010 General Social Survey (GSS) does not collect exactly the same data as the SoNA, it does collect data about a similar range of topics including types of social activities participated in, frequency and intensity of interactions, characteristics of friends, and levels of generalised trust and overall life satisfaction. SoNA based its analysis on broad visa groups (i.e. Skilled, Family and Humanitarian), however, it was not possible to produce robust estimates by broad visa group using the GSS. Consequently, it was decided to look at the informal and formal social interactions and levels of overall life satisfaction and generalised trust, by period of arrival.

The purpose of this article is to examine differences between two groups of migrants: those who arrived in Australia more than 5 years before the 2010 GSS and those migrants that arrived in the five years prior to 2010 GSS. By examining different aspects of migrants’ connections to friends, family and their own community within the context of the 2010 GSS, it is possible to provide an indication of the types of social activities migrants engaged in and with whom, how frequently they engage and their general levels of life satisfaction and trust.


BACKGROUND

The SoNA report focussed on the settlement outcome of Humanitarian migrants, with Family and Skilled visa holders used as benchmark groups. One of the preliminary findings of the study highlighted differences in perspective between the new arrivals and the organisations responsible for them about what constitutes successful settlement. New arrivals (largely Humanitarian migrants) tended to think of successful settlement in terms of 'life outcomes' (personal happiness and community connectedness) whereas policy and decision makers tended to perceive settlement success in terms of 'systemic outcomes' (social participation, economic wellbeing, level of independence and personal wellbeing). The dimension of personal wellbeing was comprised of three sub-dimensions. These were levels of happiness, confidence and comfort.

The ‘systemic outcomes’ view was modelled in the SoNA as were its various dimensions to test its predictive value as an indicator of settlement outcome. The SoNA found that happiness (comprised of physical and mental health) in this model did have some predictive value, however, the rest of this model had little value and therefore could not be supported. Without a reliable and robust model, the ASR created an alternative model of ‘comfort’ which was comprised of four variables: how happy a person felt; confidence about making choices about their life in Australia; being treated well by the local community since arriving; and difficulty in finding a place to live. Two key dimensions of this model were found to have a high predictive value in indicating successful settlement outcomes. They were: happiness and connectedness. The ASR analysis found that a happy person is a connected person and a connected person is a well settled person. This was particularly true for Humanitarian entrants who, overall, were as well connected to their own communities as other migrants, and even more so in terms of religious, cultural and school connections.

Upon consideration of the findings from the SoNA, the next step was to see if similar results could be generated using the ABS 2010 General Social Survey (GSS).

The GSS has been conducted at four yearly intervals since 2002 and captures various aspects of social life in Australia. Respondents provide information about their country of birth and their year of arrival in Australia which allows for the analysis of migrants. More information can be found in ABS General Social Survey: Users Guide, Australia, 2010 (cat. no. 4159.0.55.002) (Endnote 2).


HOW DO THE CHARACTERISTICS OF EARLIER MIGRANTS DIFFER FROM THOSE WHO ARRIVED MORE RECENTLY?


Where do they come from?

Analysis of data relating to the countries of birth of migrants by year of arrival revealed that those migrants who arrived before 2006 came from North West Europe (29%), Southern and Eastern Europe (17%), South East Asia (13%) and Oceania and Antarctica (10%). Migrants who arrived between 2006 and 2010 mostly came from Southern and Central Asia (23%), North West Europe (21%), North East Asia (21%) and South East Asia (13%).

It could be surmised that the differences in numbers and proportions represent changes in migration policy as well as the impact of major events, such as conflicts, on a world stage over the years. Despite the prominence of European migration (largely from the United Kingdom) in recent times, there has been a considerable shift towards Asia (China and India). This trend, primarily driven by an increased tertiary student intake, was highlighted in several Perspectives on Migrants articles, namely 'Census 2006 - People born in China and India'(Endnote 3) and 'Characteristics of recent migrants' (Endnote 4).

Regions of Birth

Arrived before 2006
Arrived 2006 - 2010
'000
%
'000
%

North-West Europe
1 202.4
28.8
*202.0
21.1
Southern and Eastern Europe
720.6
17.3
*18.2
*1.9
South-East Asia
559.0
13.4
*122.0
*12.8
North-East Asia
332.1
8.0
204.0
21.4
Southern and Central Asia
370.0
8.9
222.5
23.3
North Africa and the Middle East
224.8
5.4
30.2
3.2
Sub-Saharan Africa
159.0
3.8
*43.0
*4.5
Americas
142.4
3.4
*36.1
*3.8
Oceania(a)
431.3
10.3
*77.1
*8.1
Inadequately described
**26.6
**0.6
-
-
Total
4 168.1
100.0
955.2
100.0

* estimate has a relative standard error of 25% to 50% and should be used with caution
** estimate has a relative standard error greater than 50% and is considered too unreliable for general use
- nil or rounded to zero (including null cells)
(a) Includes Antarctica.
Source: ABS 2010 General Social Survey. Data available upon request.

Age and sex

A greater proportion of migrants who arrived before 2006 were aged 45 years or older whereas migrants who arrived 2006 to 2010 had a larger proportion of people aged 18 years to 44 years of age.

As can be seen in the graph below, the age structures for males and females of the two migrant groups appear to be quite different. Two thirds (67%) of males who arrived in Australia before 2006 were aged 45 or older, whereas 67% of males who arrived between 2006 and 2010 were aged 18 to 34 years of age. For females who arrived in Australia before 2006, 82% were aged 35 years of age or older whereas 75% of females who arrived in Australia between 2006 and 2010 were aged between 18 to 34 years of age. One explanation of the difference in age structures of the two groups is that most newly arrived migrants are partly selected on the basis of their age, health and, for some, their relatively high socioeconomic status (Endnote 5). The earlier arrival group of migrants may also been selected on 'age based' criteria when they first arrived in Australia, however, given the length of time since their arrival, they are now older.


Age and Sex, By Year of Arrival


As would be expected, the number of migrants in the 'Arrived before 2006' group is larger than the 2006 to 2010 group as it constitutes a far longer period of time. This is illustrated in the table below. For this reason, the rest of the article refers to proportions rather than the numbers.

Persons By Age

Arrived before 2006
Arrived 2006 - 2010
Age
'000
%
'000
%

18 - 24
177.9
4.3
284.3
29.8
25 - 34
578.6
13.9
396.4
41.5
35 - 44
696.0
16.7
185.9
19.5
45 - 54
886.1
21.3
*55.9
*5.9
55 - 64
780.3
18.7
*15.3
*1.6
65+
1 049.3
25.2
**17.4
**1.8
Total
4 168.1
100.0
955.2
100.0

* estimate has a relative standard error of 25% to 50% and should be used with caution
** estimate has a relative standard error greater than 50% and is considered too unreliable for general use
Source: ABS General Social Survey 2010. Data available upon request.

SOCIAL INTERACTIONS: INFORMAL AND FORMAL

The notion of being socially connected or attached is often used to describe the nature and strength of relationships that people have with each other, whether it be through informal interactions (with family and friends) or through formal interactions with individuals and organisations in the wider community (Endnote 6). Interacting with others in mutually enjoyed activities is a way of forming and maintaining relationships, promoting trust, cooperation and tolerance, thus contributing to social connectedness and a sense of belonging. More generally, social attachment refers to the way people bond and interact with others, organisations and institutions (Endnote 6). The interactions that take place with family, friends and the wider community are therefore important in understanding how well migrants are connecting with others in the community.

Informal social interactions

According to the SoNA report, migrants who are considered to be well connected actively participate and interact with family and friends as well as with ethnic and religious groups (Endnote 1). These interactions are often informal. In the GSS informal social activities generally refer to recreational activities undertaken with others which have not been organised by an organisation or group with a formal structure (Endnote 6).

The table below shows that migrants, irrespective of their year of arrival, reported being visited by or visiting their friends as the most common form of social activity participated in during the last three months. Migrants who arrived between 2006 and 2010 reported going out with or meeting up with groups of friends to participate in outdoor activities more than those who arrived before 2006 (78% compared with 66%). However, when it came to going out with or meeting up with groups of friends to engage in indoor activities, the difference in year of arrival appeared to be not significant.

In today's society, a major form of interaction is through internet social activity. The biggest observable difference between the two arrival groups was the reported participation in internet social activities during the three months prior to interview. Those migrants, who arrived between 2006 and 2010, had a significantly larger proportion of people who reported participation in internet social activities than migrants who had arrived before 2006 (56% and 35%).

Types of Social Activity in the Last 3 Months(a)

Arrived before 2006
Arrived 2006 - 2010
%
%

Visited or was visited by friends
90.9
91.0
Went out with or met group of friends - outdoor activities
66.2
78.2
Went out with or met group of friends - indoor activities
66.5
66.0
Spent time in Internet social activity
35.3
56.4
Other informal social activities
35.1
31.3
No informal social activities
5.3
**4.3
Total persons involved in social activity
94.7
95.7
No informal social activities
5.3
4.3
Total
100.0
100.0

** estimate has a relative standard error greater than 50% and is considered too unreliable for general use
(a) Components may not add to totals as some persons may have been involved in more than one social activity.
Source: ABS 2010 General Social Survey. Data available on request.
Formal social interactions

Membership or engagement in groups and organisations is a significant aspect of social participation. Formal social activities are referred to as recreational activities undertaken with others which have been organised by an organisation or group with a formal structure (Endnote 6). Social participation includes attendance (including alone) at any of a variety of cultural venues or events provided by governments, businesses and interest groups in order to bring people together. Public meeting spaces for activities, events or ongoing cultural or scientific displays provide important opportunities for people to meet and share in the social life of the wider community (Endnote 6).

The GSS collected information about involvement in formal groups, that is, involvement in social support groups, community groups and civil or government groups. When it came to social and support groups (e.g. sport and recreation, ethnic and multicultural clubs and religious and spiritual groups) migrants who arrived in Australia before 2006 were more likely to be actively involved (61%) than migrants who arrived between 2006 and 2010 (54%).

Significantly more migrants, irrespective of their year of arrival, reported that they were not actively involved in community support groups (e.g. services clubs, welfare organisations and education and training). Similarly for both groups of migrants the majority were not active in civil or government groups at 84% (arrived before 2006) and 91% (arrived between 2006 and 2010) respectively.

Active Involvement in a Formal Group in the Last 12 months

Arrived before 2006
Arrived 2006 - 2010
%
%

Active involvement in social and support groups in the last 12 months
61.1
54.2
No active involvement in social groups in last 12 months
38.9
45.8
Total
100.0
100.0
Active involvement in community support groups in last 12 months
29.4
28.9
No active involvement in community support groups in last 12 months
70.6
71.1
Total
100.0
100.0
Active involvement in civil or government groups in the last 12 months
15.6
8.6
No active involvement in civil or government groups in last 12 months
84.4
91.4
Total
100.0
100.0

Source: ABS 2010 General Social Survey. Data available on request.


A breakdown of the types of social and support groups that migrants were or were not involved in during the last 12 months can be seen in the table below. The most commonly reported social group that both migrant groups were actively involved in during the last 12 months were Religious or spiritual, ethnic and multicultural groups (29% and 28% respectively). The next highest participation was in sport or physical recreation groups (27% and 26%) and social clubs providing restaurants or bars (14% and 12%). However, these differences, between the arrival groups, were not found to be statistically significant. There was a significant difference between migrants who arrived before 2006 who were actively involved in adult education, other recreation or special interest groups compared with migrants who arrived between 2006 and 2010 (12% and 7% respectively).

Social and Support Groups, By Type(a)

Arrived before 2006
Arrived 2006 - 2010
%
%

Sport or physical recreation group
26.7
26.4
Arts, heritage, craft and practical hobbies
11.6
*10.4
Adult education, other recreation or special interest group
11.6
7.3
Religious or spiritual, ethnic and multicultural groups
29.2
27.7
Social clubs providing restaurants or bars
14.4
11.5
Other social groups
1.7
**1.1
Total persons involved in a social and support group
61.1
54.2
No active involvement in social groups in last 12 months
38.9
45.8
Total
100.0
100.0

* estimate has a relative standard error of 25% to 50% and should be used with caution
** estimate has a relative standard error greater than 50% and is considered too unreliable for general use
(a) Components may not add to totals as some persons may have been involved in more than one social and support group.
Source: ABS 2010 General Social Survey. Data available on request.

FREQUENCY OF INTERACTIONS AND TYPES

It has been suggested that contact with others is important in providing individuals with identity, social roles and social support mechanisms (Endnote 7). One simple indicator of a person's social integration is whether or not they have had recent contact with family and friends. It might be expected that people who have not had recent contact, particularly if living alone, would have lower levels of social attachment and be more likely to experience loneliness and disadvantage in other aspects of their lives (Endnote 7). The frequency and types of interactions migrants have with their family and friends and the methods of interaction can therefore indicate the strength of the social networks (more frequent activity the greater chance of more social interactions) and their subsequent maintenance (Endnote 6).

The majority of migrants (96% and 98%), regardless of when they arrived in Australia, reported having contact with family and friends everyday or at least once a week.

Frequency of Contact with Family and Friends

Arrived before 2006
Arrived 2006 - 2010
%
%

Everyday or at least once a week
95.6
97.9
At least once a month
3.4
*1.9
Others(a)
*1.1
*0.2
Total
100.0
100.0

* estimate has a relative standard error of 25% to 50% and should be used with caution
(a) Includes at least once a month, no recent contact, no family and no friends.
Source: ABS 2010 General Social Survey. Data available on request.


Frequency of face-to-face contact

Of the two migrant groups, those who arrived before 2006 had a significantly higher proportion of at least once a week face-to-face contact than those who arrived during the 2006 to 2010 period (59% compared with 47%). Migrants who arrived between 2006 and 2010 reported having more at least once a month face-to-face contacts (25%) than everyday contacts (18%).

Frequency of Face-to-Face Contacts with Family and Friends

Arrived before 2006
Arrived 2006 - 2010
%
%

Everyday
16.3
18.2
At least once a week
58.5
47.1
At least once a month
17.2
25.0
At least once in three months
6.3
8.5
No recent contact
1.5
**1.1
No family and no friends
**0.2
**0.1
Total
100.0
100.0

** estimate has a relative standard error greater than 50% and is considered too unreliable for general use
Source: ABS 2010 General Social Survey. Data available on request.

NETWORK SIZE AND OTHER FORMS OF CONTACT

Networks link people together with family and friends in wider communities that are often characterised by shared interests, sympathies, values and living circumstances. Research appears to suggest that these social networks are an essential component of an individual's wellbeing (Endnote 7). To establish the size of a person's family network outside the immediate household, information is collected about whether there are any non-household family members that can be confided in and if so, how many. The GSS refers to this group of people as ex-household family members.

As indicated in the table below, the proportion of migrants in both arrival groups having ex-household members they can confide in was significantly higher (86%) than the proportion that did not have such ex-household family members (14%).

Both migrant groups had 1 to 2 family members that they felt could be confided in (43%). Interestingly, both migrant groups had about the same distribution in terms of their proportional breakdowns: 26% of both groups reported having 3 to 4 family members that could be confided in and 17% had 5 or more family members outside of their household that could also be confided in. For migrants who arrived before 2006, the differences between the ranges of family members that could be confided in were found to be statistically significant whereas for migrants who arrived between 2006 and 2010 there was no evidence to indicate that these differences were significant.

Has Ex-household Family Members Feels Close to and can Confide in

Arrived before 2006
Arrived 2006 - 2010
%
%

Has ex-household family member can confide in
85.6
86.1
Has no ex-household family member can confide in(a)
14.4
13.9
Total
100.0
100.0
Number of ex-household family members that can be confided in
1-2 family members
42.7
42.6
3-4 family members
26.0
26.1
5 or more family members
16.9
17.4
No ex-household family can confide in
14.4
13.9
Total
100.0
100.0

(a) Includes Not applicable.
Source: ABS 2010 General Social Survey. Data available on request.

ABILITY TO CONFIDE IN FRIENDS AND HOW MANY

Most migrants reported having friends that they could confide in. However, a significantly higher proportion of migrants who arrived between 2006 and 2010 reported having friends that they felt close enough to confide in (86%) than those migrants who arrived before 2006 (80%).

The distributional proportion of number of friends was very similar with 38% of both migrant groups reporting that they had 1 to 2 friends that they can confide in. Interestingly, migrants who arrived in Australia before 2006 reported a significantly higher proportion of not having friends that they felt close enough to confide in (20%) than migrants who arrived between 2006 and 2010 (14%).

Has Friends Feels Close to and can Confide in

Arrived before 2006
Arrived 2006 - 2010
%
%

Has friend(s) can confide in
79.8
85.8
Has no friend(s) can confide in(a)
20.2
14.2
Total
100.0
100.0
Number of friends can confide in
1-2 friends can confide in
37.8
37.9
3-4 friends can confide in
26.2
28.6
5 or more friends can confide in
15.8
19.3
No friends can confide in
20.2
14.2
Total
100.0
100.0

(a) Includes not applicable.
Source: ABS 2010 General Social Survey. Data available on request.


Other forms of contact

Interestingly, migrants who arrived between 2006 and 2010 were more likely to use Internet and mobile telecommunications to keep in contact with family and friends. For example, they were more likely to make phone calls online e.g. VoIP and Skype (54% compared with 31% of migrants who arrived before 2006), use their mobile for calls (91% compared with 74%), SMS (72% and 52%) and the internet such as emails and/or chat rooms (79% compared with 54%). The least utilised form of contact used by migrants to keep in contact with friends and family was mail or fax. However, migrants who arrived before 2006 had a significantly higher proportion of people who reported using fixed line telephones (78% compared with 55%).

Other Forms of Contact Used With Family and Friends(a)

Arrived before 2006
Arrived 2006 - 2010
%
%

Phone calls made online (e.g. VoIP or Skype)
30.8
53.6
Fixed telephone
77.6
54.9
Mobile phone for calls
74.4
91.3
Mobile phone for SMS
51.9
71.8
Internet such as email or chat rooms
54.0
78.9
Mail (inc cards) or fax
21.8
29.1
Other form of contact used
**0.2
-
Total persons contacting family and friends
97.9
99.8
No contact
*2.1
*0.2
Total
100.0
100.0

* estimate has a relative standard error of 25% to 50% and should be used with caution
** estimate has a relative standard error greater than 50% and is considered too unreliable for general use
- nil or rounded to zero (including null cells)
(a) Components may not add to totals as some persons may have used more than one method of contact.
Source: ABS 2010 General Social Survey. Data available on request.

CRISIS SUPPORT

Support may be provided directly to others, in the form of gifts or loans, helping with different kinds of activities, or emotional support. Where reciprocity is the norm, people are more likely to be able to ask others for small favours and support during a crisis, in the knowledge that they would be prepared to do the same in return (Endnote 8). This section examines the interactions between people who simultaneously invest in and maintain relationships while also sharing and drawing resources from them such as knowledge and support.

Ability to get support in times of crisis

A significant proportion of migrants, from both groups, reported that they could get support in times of crisis from people living outside of their household. However, the sources of support that migrants would likely seek in times of crisis differed. Migrants who arrived before 2006 reported that their most likely source of support was a family member outside of the household (73% compared with 45%). Those who arrived between 2006 and 2010 were more likely to seek support from a friend (72%) in contrast to only 57% of migrants who arrived before 2006. Migrants who arrived before 2006 were more likely to seek support from a neighbour (25% compared with 10%), and a community charity or religious organisation (11% compared with 6%), than those migrants who arrived 2006 and 2010.

Ability To Get Support in Times of Crisis from Persons Living Outside the Household(a)

Arrived before 2006
Arrived 2006 - 2010
%
%

Able to get support in times of crisis from persons living outside the household
91.5
87.3
Not able to get support in times of crisis from persons living outside the household
8.5
12.7
Total
100.0
100.0
Sources of support in times of crisis
Friend
57.2
71.5
Neighbour
24.5
10.0
Family member
72.7
45.1
Work colleague
14.2
16.0
Community, charity or religious organisation
10.7
*6.3
Local council or other government services
3.9
**1.5
Health, legal or financial professional
6.3
**1.7
Other
*0.3
**0.4
Total people who could draw support
91.5
87.3
No support
8.5
12.7
Total
100.0
100.0

* estimate has a relative standard error of 25% to 50% and should be used with caution
** estimate has a relative standard error greater than 50% and is considered too unreliable for general use
(a) Components may not add to totals as some persons may have used more than one source of support.
Source: ABS 2010 General Social Survey. Data available on request.

CHARACTERISTICS OF FRIENDS

Friends comprise an important component of an individual’s social network. Without friends, people are generally less connected to social networks (formal or informal) and at greater risk of isolation and social exclusion (Endnote 6). The characteristics of a migrant's friends, that is whether or not their friends are of similar age, level of education or ethnic and cultural background can also provide an indication of whether migrant relationships are either bonding (with similar kinds of people) in nature or bridging (connections with dissimilar people).

As can be seen in the table below, the majority of both migrant groups reported that all or most of their friends were of a similar age. Just over 20% of migrants who arrived during the 2006 to 2010 period reported that about half of their friends were of a similar age while 18% of migrants who arrived before 2006 reported that about half of their friends were of a similar age. This difference was not found to be statistically significant nor was the apparent difference between the two migrant groups who reported having few or no friends.

Over half of migrants, regardless of their year of arrival to Australia, reported that all or most of their friends possessed roughly the same level of education as they did (51% and 57%). Significantly, a greater proportion of migrants who arrived before 2006 reported having few or no friends with the same level of education (21%) than the recently arrived group (13%).

Migrants who arrived between 2006 and 2010 reported having a significantly larger proportion (74%) of friends with the same cultural or ethnic background than migrants who had arrived before 2006 (59%). Also of significance was that those migrants who arrived before 2006 reported having a larger proportion of few or no friends of the same cultural or ethnic background (24%) than migrants who had arrived more recently (11%).

Characteristics of Friends

Arrived before 2006
Arrived 2006 - 2010
%
%

Proportion of friends of similar age
All or most
62.8
65.6
About half
17.5
20.5
Few or none
17.1
13.5
Don't Know
*0.5
**0.2
Not applicable(a)
**2.0
**0.2
Total
100.0
100.0
Proportion of friends of same level of education
All or most
51.1
56.8
About half
17.7
24.4
Few or none
21.0
12.6
Not applicable(b)
10.1
*6.1
Total
100.0
100.0
Proportion of friends of same cultural or ethnic background
All or most
58.7
73.8
About half
14.9
15.1
Few or none
24.0
10.9
Not applicable(c)
2.4
*0.2
Total
100.0
100.0

* estimate has a relative standard error of 25% to 50% and should be used with caution
** estimate has a relative standard error greater than 50% and is considered too unreliable for general use
(a) Includes no friends.
(b) Includes don't know.
(c) Includes don't know.
Source: ABS 2010 General Social Survey. Data available on request.

GENERALISED TRUST AND OVERALL LIFE SATISFACTION

Overall life satisfaction is a summary indicator of subjective wellbeing which has been found in numerous studies to have an impact upon family and social relationships (Endnote 6).

Overall life satisfaction

Overall life satisfaction may be influenced by a number of circumstances or determinants such as health, education, employment, income, personality, family and social connections, civil and human rights, levels of trust and altruism and opportunities for democratic participation (Endnote 2). Studies that have looked at overall life satisfaction and subjective wellbeing have consistently found that these determinants all have an impact on social inclusion.

A significantly greater proportion of more recently arrived migrants reported being delighted, pleased or mostly satisfied with their lives than migrants who arrived before 2006 (81% compared with 74%).

Overall Life Satisfaction

Arrived before 2006
Arrived 2006 - 2010
%
%

Delight, pleased, mostly satisfied
74.4
81.4
Mixed
18.7
16.9
Mostly dissatisfied, unhappy, terrible
6.6
*1.6
Total(a)
100.0
100.0

* estimate has a relative standard error of 25% to 50% and should be used with caution
(a) Includes don't know.
Source: ABS 2010 General Social Survey. Data available on request.


Levels of generalised trust

Having trust in others to behave according to accepted social values and norms is a fundamental aspect of a well-functioning community and data which seeks to measure levels of trust in others are recognised as being important to monitoring levels of social cohesion (Endnote 6).

In regard to level of generalised trust, significantly higher proportions of both earlier and the more recent migrant groups reported they strongly or somewhat agree that they can go about their daily lives confidently, expecting that others will generally deal fairly with them and act in ways normally expected in society (52% and 56% respectively).

Level of Generalised Trust

Arrived before 2006
Arrived 2006 - 2010
%
%

Strongly or somewhat agree
52.0
56.1
Neither agree nor disagree
20.2
19.9
Somewhat or strongly disagree
27.8
24.0
Total
100.0
100.0

Source: ABS 2010 General Social Survey. Data available on request.

CONCLUSION

The premise of this article was to see if analysis of the ABS 2010 General Social Survey (GSS) produced findings that were similar to those resulting from the Settlement Outcomes of Newly Arrived migrants survey (SoNA) conducted for the Department of Immigration and Citizenship.

While there are differences between the two surveys in terms of their methodologies, samples, data collection methods and topics of discussion, the GSS analysis did find that, regardless of the year of arrival, the majority of migrants reported having high levels of overall life satisfaction. Additionally it also found that the majority of both migrant groups reported being well connected to their family and friends. The GSS was able to provide more specific information about the characteristics of the migrant group's friends than was possible through SoNA. This additional information covered the types of social activities migrants engage in, where they drew support from in times of need, whether or not they had people they could confide in, their methods of communicating and maintaining social networks and the frequency of contact with family and friends.

The two key dimensions of the ASR model found to have a high predictive value in indicating successful settlement outcomes were happiness and connectedness. While the GSS does not ask a happiness question it does ask respondents to rate their overall life satisfaction which provides a summary measure of a person's subjective wellbeing. The overall life satisfaction concept in the GSS does have overlap with the ASR model's concept of happiness in that both measures aim to capture an indication of an individual's wellbeing. The GSS analysis found that most migrants, regardless of when they arrived, reported being satisfied with their lives overall.

In terms of connectedness, the GSS analysis found that most people in both migrant groups (i.e. those who arrived before 2006 and those who arrived between 2006 and 2010) reported having someone (mostly family members or friends) to turn to if needed. What was different between these groups is who they would turn to in time of need. The analysis also found that migrants from both groups were more likely to be actively involved (within the last 12 months) with social and support groups. Of these groups, the most frequently reported answers given were religious or spiritual, ethnic and multicultural groups closely followed by sport or physical recreation groups although the differences between the responses were not found to be statistically significant.
END NOTES

1. Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC), 2011, Settlement Outcomes of New Arrivals - Report of Findings.

2. Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), 2011, 2010 General Social Survey: User Guide, cat. no. 4159.0.55.002, ABS, Canberra.

3. Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), 2011, Perspectives on Migrants 2011, Characteristics of Recent Migrants, cat. no. 3416.0, ABS, Canberra.

4. Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), 2008, Perspectives on Migrants 2011, Census 2006 People Born in China and India, cat. no. 3416.0, ABS, Canberra.

5. Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC), 2011, A Significant Contribution: The Economic, Social and Civic Contributions of First and Second Generation Humanitarian Entrants, Summary of Findings.

6. Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), 2004, Measuring Social Capital: An Australian Framework and Indicators, Information Paper 2004, cat. no. 1378.0, ABS Canberra

7. Bhugra. D, 2004, Migration, distress and cultural identity, British Medical Bulletin, Vol. 69: 129 - 141, Oxford University Press, London.

8. Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), 2006, Aspects of Social Capital, Australia, 2006 (Reissue), cat. no. 4911.0, ABS, Canberra.


INQUIRIES

For further information about these and related statistics, contact the National Information and Referral Service on 1300 135 070.

For further information regarding migrant specific data in the ABS 2010 General Social Survey, please follow the link to the Migrant Data Matrices ABS 2010 General Social Survey Data cube.

Bookmark and Share. Opens in a new window

Commonwealth of Australia 2014

Unless otherwise noted, content on this website is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 Australia Licence together with any terms, conditions and exclusions as set out in the website Copyright notice. For permission to do anything beyond the scope of this licence and copyright terms contact us.