Quantitative data collection on the status of Roma in SEE and CEE: Methodology, Purpose, and Policy Application Susanne Milcher Specialist, Poverty and Economic Development Specialist, Poverty and Economic Development UNDP Regional Centre Bratislava (17 September 2004)

Europe and CIS Outline n General problems with ethnic data n The baseline survey methodology n Policy application n Future steps

Europe and CIS Problems with relevant data n Governments reluctant to collect –Political considerations –Constitutional constraints n Constituencies reluctant to share –Desire to avoid discrimination and stigmatization –Desire to keep distance from the state As a result: n Opportunities to misuse and misinterpret data deficits n But all aware that data is necessary

Europe and CIS UNDP approach to the issue Reliable quality quantitative data is a necessary precondition for relevant policies. It means data, which is: n Relevant, adequately reflecting reality n Comparable – both between countries and with majority populations (control group) in individual countries – over time n Respecting privacy – making sure will not be misused, individual is protected against discrimination

Europe and CIS How to get there? The survey n Problems are of technical, methodological and legal nature and specific problems require specific approaches n Clear division of roles between international and national actors necessary in the short, mid and long run (phase-out strategy) n Link to MDGs monitoring (baseline)

Europe and CIS How to get there? n Relevancy – related primarily to communities involvement in data collection (Roma interviewers where possible, assistant interviewers in other cases) n Comparability – applying consistent methodologies in different countries following the format HBS and LFS n Include majority boosters n Respecting privacy – not using registry data

Europe and CIS Previous experience n Regional UNDP/ILO large scale survey on Roma in five Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries conducted in 2001 n Situation of Roma from a ‘human development’ perspective n “How much” worse and specific characteristics of their status n Answering these specific and concrete questions in quantitative figures is a necessary precondition both for understanding the underlying causes and addressing them adequately

Europe and CIS Roma: poverty profiles

Europe and CIS Roma: Deprivation indicators (% of people lacking access to)

Europe and CIS Roma: Deprivation indicators (% of people lacking access to)

Europe and CIS Roma: Unemployment (ILO definition)

Europe and CIS The survey I n Supposed to provide base-line data for the “Decade” progress monitoring and for NTL policy purposes n Covers all countries in SEE and CEE with sizeable Roma minorities (“Decade +”) n Where relevant, has IDPs and refugees boosters n Will be the basis of a “regional vulnerability report” n Could be used as a pilot for similar data collection exercises in the region

Europe and CIS The survey II n The unit of analysis – household n Main interviewee – head of the household n Universe studied – households in Roma settlements n Roma settlements – municipalities or neighborhoods with high concentration of Roma n Territorial unit – municipalities with share of Roma population equal or above the NTL average as registered by the census

Europe and CIS The sampling model assumptions n Census understate absolute numbers but reflect the structure and distribution (“where those people are?”) n The major disparities visible at the level of municipalities n Comparability with the “majority in proximity” more important than with national average n Majority boosters – a “benchmark” sample for comparisons with non-Roma in similar socioeconomic environment

Europe and CIS Inevitable impediments n Sample may be under-representing integrated Roma n Majority population in proximity may not be sufficient for constructing a booster n Concentrated Roma neighborhood may still constitute a share lower than the NTL average n Data not representative for sub-grouping

Europe and CIS What shall the survey provide? n Household representative information, “census-type” allowing approximations for –Poverty rates and depth –Levels and sources of income –Educational attainment, completion rates, enrollment rate and functional literacy –General picture of health status and access to health services –Dwellings characteristics (water, sanitation) for deprivation indicators n All this - disaggregated by age, sex, income status of the household and sub-national level

Europe and CIS Dose of realism (the inevitable constraints) n Not all indicators are possible to be monitored or disaggregated n Data (as any data perhaps) – still approximation and should be used as complementary to other statistics n Cross-country comparability will be limited (if necessary at all)

Europe and CIS Time-frame n Completed sampling methodology and questionnaire n August/September – translating, back translation and testing of the questionnaire; sampling n End of August: identification of assistant- interviewers and first training (Sofia) n October: field-work n November: data available n First quarter 2005 “Vulnerability Assessment”

Europe and CIS Policy application n Only based on quantitative data can the actors involved (governments, donors, implementing partners) outline priorities and measure progress n Disaggregated quantitative data is a precondition for relevant national-level policies for sustainable inclusion of vulnerable groups and Roma in particular n Monitoring and evaluation of national-level policies, what impact has been achieved?

Europe and CIS Future steps and possible cooperation  Improve methodologies for vulnerability analysis to establish disaggregated data collection capacities at the country level in 2-3 years  Work with National Statistical Offices on practical projects on data disaggregation  Elaborate possible approaches to overcome legal barriers  Encourage and coordinate advocacy campaign for new approach to “group-related” data, incl. ethnic groups

Europe and CIS Links to other Roma-related initiatives n Follow up to first regional report “Avoiding the Dependency Trap” n Decade of Roma Inclusion baseline and monitoring n Measuring the progress at national level (Czech Republic and Hungary) n WB “Living Standards” assessment n Roma Development Opportunities Web-site,

Europe and CIS Thank you! Bratislava Regional Center 35 Grosslingova Bratislava, Slovak Republic