The data includes transcripts (in .rtf format) of 9 qualitative interviews with representatives of US-based asylum advocacy organisations, and accompanying descriptive readme files (in .txt format). This research compares the approaches of different pro-asylum organisations in Britain and America using questionnaires and interviews. It aims to: (1) facilitate dialogue between different types of asylum activist organisations in order to promote best practice and the mitigation of risks; (2) provide a means by which asylum advocacy organisations can share their concerns and their proposed solutions about the challenges they face; (3) examine the different dilemmas that different asylum advocacy organisations, including advisory/legal, religious-affiliated, health-focused activist groups and campaign/awareness raising groups face either side of the Atlantic. This research brings together an international and interdisciplinary team of scholars and aims to have a high impact not only within academia but also among the asylum activist community.

Interviews were conducted with 35 representatives of asylum advocacy organisations in the United States and the United Kingdom. A representative selection of organisations was invited to take part in interviews either in person or via telephone/Skype. The interviews placed an emphasis on gathering ideas about how to respond to key challenges facing the asylum support sector. Interview questions invited respondents to reflect upon their successes in order to generate a set of suggestions and recommendations that can strengthen the sector as a whole. The interviews were conducted with an understanding of anonymity so that individuals cannot be identified and, wherever possible, organisations will not be identified in the results. Each interviewee was sent the interview schedule in advance of the interview. They were invited to complete an informed consent form prior to the interview, giving their permission for the interview to be recorded and the resultant data to be analysed and used in project outputs, subject to anonymisation; consent was again sought and confirmed verbally during the interview.