The 2002 NATSISS provides detailed information on household type, family type and social marital status. Information on all the people living in the household was collected from a responsible adult. The survey excluded visitors to the dwelling, and those who stayed in the dwelling the previous night were defined as visitors if they would be staying for less than one month. An important feature of many Indigenous households is that there is a significant amount of mobility through the household, resulting in very complex and dynamic household structures (Morphy 2004a; Smith 2000b). The 2002 NATSISS survey provides virtually no information about such dynamics surrounding household composition. It is difficult (and perhaps not feasible) to collect this information using a cross-sectional survey for households that have a high turnover of people.

The categories and terms used to describe kin relationships are those that apply to the standard Anglo-Celtic system. Although the standard Anglo-Celtic system will be clearly understood and relevant for much of the Indigenous population, many traditionally-oriented Aboriginal people have kinship systems which differ markedly in their structure to the Anglo-Celtic system. For many of these respondents, the 2002 NATSISS questions very likely resulted in incoherent and uninterpretable data (Morphy 2004b).

While the complex familial structures of Indigenous societies are most pronounced in ‘traditionally-oriented’ communities, Smith (2000b) has shown that they persist in ‘settled’ Australia. Martin et al. (2004) conclude that, when this household information is used to construct measures of family type, the resulting ‘family types’ do not coincide with those found in many Indigenous communities (Martin et al. 2004: 95). A further issue is that the 2002 NATSISS survey does not provide any information on linked households, yet linkages between households represent an important feature of Indigenous family and community life.

The main point to be taken from this discussion is that care needs to be taken when interpreting the household composition, family type and social marital status information from the 2002 NATSISS given that, for a proportion of the sample, this information will have little relationship to the family circumstances in which the respondent lives. A detailed discussion of these issues is provided by Martin et al. (2004).

Information on the relationships amongst people in the family or household is obtained by asking the reference person (the person providing information on all household members) the relationship of everybody else in the household to themselves. Although the reference person model works well for simpler household and family structures, it only provides a very partial and potentially misleading picture for more complex family arrangements (particularly multi-generational families) which are so common in Indigenous Australia.

One possible way of improving the quality of this information is through using a household grid to collect information on the relationships amongst members of a household or family (see Brandon 2004). Relationship grids, which obtain information on the relationship of every household member to every other household member (i.e. not just the household reference person), are used in the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) survey.

Although the household grid has many advantages, it can be quite time-consuming to collect for larger complex household structures. Its inclusion would therefore require the omission of other questions. Furthermore, the grid would involve the use of kin relationship concepts that, as noted above, appear to be inappropriate for some Indigenous people.

An important issue in studying Indigenous families concerns ‘mixed families’ and ‘mixed households’. These are families or households in which not all members are of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander origin. One strength of the 2002 NATSISS survey is that it allows mixed families to be identified and outcomes for Indigenous families without any non-Indigenous members to be compared to those of families comprised solely of Indigenous people.

Female respondents were asked to indicate how many children they had given birth to, how many were living with them, and how many were living elsewhere. These measures enable an estimate of the number of children who had not survived, although there will be some error in this derived variable (see Kinfu in this volume). While a direct question on child mortality can be extremely stressful for those who have experienced this event, it is noteworthy that HILDA introduced such a question in Wave 5.

Given that questions on removal from family could be highly stressful for respondents, interviewers first asked respondents whether it was ‘alright’ to ask questions on this issue. In total, 4 per cent of respondents indicated a preference to skip these questions (9% in remote areas and 3% in non-remote areas). All other respondents were asked, firstly, whether they had been taken away from their natural family by a mission, the government or welfare, and secondly, whether any of their relatives had had such an experience. Those who indicated that one or more relatives had been removed from their natural family were asked to indicate which relative(s) experienced this. Once again, the terms used to indicate kin relationships were those applicable to the standard Anglo-Celtic kinship system (e.g. parents, aunts, uncles, brothers or sisters, children). The resulting data must therefore be interpreted with caution.

Child care

Although there are some differences in child care questions between the non-remote and remote area questionnaires, the questions on child care use are broadly comparable. These questions were restricted to respondents who had the main caring responsibility for any child living in the household who was aged 12 years or less. In both remote and non-remote areas, access was measured in terms of experiences in the previous four weeks and included questions on the use of formal and informal child care, unmet desire for using any (or additional) formal care, the main reason for not having wanted any (or any additional) formal care, and the main reason for any unmet desire to use such care during the four-week period.

More specifically, respondents who were interviewed using the non-remote questionnaire were asked whether they had used formal child care in the previous four weeks and, if so, the different types of formal care they had used. ^[2] Respondents were also asked whether they needed any—or any additional—formal child care during this four-week period. Those who answered in the affirmative were asked to indicate the main reason for not having used such (additional) care. Finally, those who had not wanted to make any—or any more—use of formal child care in the previous four weeks were asked to indicate the main reason for not having wanted such (additional) care.

An important difference between the child care data collected using the remote and non-remote questionnaires is that, in remote areas, the respondent was asked whether there was a child care service in the community and, if there was not, whether they would use a service were it available. Those in remote areas which offered such a service were asked questions about their use of this service in their previous four weeks, aspirations regarding usage, and reasons for not having wanted to use the service or for having experienced unmet aspirations regarding service use. (These questions were essentially the same as those asked of respondents in non-remote areas about the use of formal child care.)

A key difference between the data collected in the 2002 NATSISS on child care and many other surveys is that the 2002 NATSISS questions are based on the person primarily responsible for the child(ren) in the household (i.e. an adult) whereas as other surveys provide information on the use of child care for each child (or the study child). Other relevant studies are the ABS Child Care Surveys and the HILDA survey. Thus, caution needs to be exercised in comparing the information on child care from NATSISS with estimates from other sources which are often child-based.

Further discussion of some of these issues appears later in this chapter.

This question tapped the respondents’ perceptions of their ability to ask for support from people outside their household in times of crisis and the sources of any such support. The sources included individual acquaintances (e.g. friend, neighbour, family member, work colleague), as well as organisations, professionals and local council or other government services. ^[3]

It is important to note that, while some potential sources of support are more ‘approachable’ than others, some people are more confident than others in requesting assistance. Furthermore, some people may be prepared to approach family members and friends, but consider professionals or organisations as ‘out of bounds’, while the opposite may apply to other people. In other words, reports on support should not be treated as objective measures of the social environment, but rather as perceptions that are likely to be shaped not only by the existence and characteristics of potential sources of support but also by characteristics of the respondents themselves. Nevertheless, a sense of social support is an important aspect of personal wellbeing, and has obvious flow-on effects for the family and community.

Respondents were asked about whether they, or a close family member or friend, had experienced various stressful events over the previous 12 months. For respondents in non-remote areas, the events were subdivided into three groups:

The nature and ordering of some items differed slightly for those in remote and non-remote areas. The main question – whether the issues have been a problem for the respondents, or for their family or close friends – does not fit well with some of the actual problems listed for those in remote areas (for example, ‘member of your family sent to jail or in jail’) (emphasis added). In non-remote areas, respondents were asked about ‘member of family sent to jail/currently in jail’. In other words, such respondents could include such events in the lives of their close friends’ families. This adds to the difficulty of comparing the experiences of respondents in remote and non-remote areas.

It is also important to point out that, given that ‘one person’s cup is another’s poison’, the population of stressful events is huge, and any sample from this population is likely to be an inadequate representation of potential stressors in a person’s life. Furthermore, non-events can be extremely stressful but there is no attempt to measure these (e.g. failure to obtain the expected promotion, failure to see one’s child achieve some strong ambition, failure to establish an intimate relationship with a much admired potential suitor, and so on).

Another difficulty with this measure is that it relates not only to personal experience of events that are typically seen as stressful, but also to the exposure of family or friends to such experiences. While difficulties faced by other people can be personally stressful, it would have been useful to be able to identify whether the experience applied to the respondent, a close family member or friend). It would also have been useful to identify the stressfulness of such events for the respondents. For instance, it appears that, compared with men, women tend to be more emotionally involved in the lives of those around them, more reactive to the moods and experiences of other family members and close friends, and more prone to mention interpersonal difficulties, including family-related concerns, in response to questions about the problems in their lives (see Cross & Madson 1997; Larson & Richards 1994; Thoits 1995). Under these circumstances, the questions about disruptive events experienced by close family and friends may tend to have a greater impact on women than men. It may also have a greater impact on some cultures than others.

It would have been extremely useful to compare the experiences of Indigenous respondents regarding the events listed with those of the non-Indigenous population. As is discussed in chapter 4 of this volume, the GSS is designed to be comparable to parts of the 2002 NATSISS. Unfortunately, while the GSS asks about stressors, the questions in the latter survey focus on stressors experienced by respondents or ‘anyone else’ close to him or her rather than ‘close family member or friend’ as is asked in the 2002 NATSISS. This difference may contribute to any systematic variation in reporting that may appear. Nevertheless, it will be possible to compare differences in reports within the Indigenous population—for example, men versus women, those with lower versus higher educational attainment, and, where the stressful events described are identical in the two questionnaires, those in remote versus non-remote areas.

Respondents were asked about the existence of a series of neighbourhood problems, mainly covering property theft or damage, assault/violence, and neighbourhood conflict. ^[4] These measures refer to respondents’ perceptions and should not be interpreted as objective measures of problems in the neighbourhood. They are relevant to a personal sense of safety and security and views about the safety of family members and others living in the locality—issues that are clearly important aspects of individual, family and community wellbeing.

It would be also useful to include perceptions of neighbourhood wellbeing (as well as ill-being), for example, beliefs about the extent to which people in the neighbourhood are trustworthy, vigilant about each other’s wellbeing and property, and generally willing to help each other out.

Voluntary work represents an important indicator of engagement with society as well as a contribution to community life. It is worth noting, however, that the question focuses on work with organisations and does not capture more informal activities, such as helping an elderly neighbour or friend.

The question taps the type of organisations and number of different organisations to which respondents contribute on a voluntary basis. It should be noted that some respondents may contribute a great deal of time to one organisation or to several organisations of the same type (e.g. welfare/community), while others may contribute time to several organisations. Caution needs to be taken that those who work voluntarily for several organisations are not seen as spending more time in voluntary activities than those whose activities target one or more organisations of the same type.

These two issues outlined above point to the fact that the breadth and amount of voluntary community work are not tapped in this questionnaire.