Quantitative data collection on the status of Roma in SEE and CEE: Methodology, Purpose, and Policy Application

1
Quantitative data collection on the status of
Roma in SEE and CEEMethodology, Purpose, and
Policy Application

• Susanne Milcher
• Specialist, Poverty and Economic Development
• UNDP Regional Centre
• Bratislava
• (17 September 2004)

2
Outline

• General problems with ethnic data
• The baseline survey methodology
• Policy application
• Future steps

3
Problems with relevant data

• Governments reluctant to collect
• Political considerations
• Constitutional constraints
• Constituencies reluctant to share
• Desire to avoid discrimination and stigmatization
• Desire to keep distance from the state
• As a result
• Opportunities to misuse and misinterpret data
  deficits
• But all aware that data is necessary

4
UNDP approach to the issue

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

5
How to get there? The survey

• Problems are of technical, methodological and
  legal nature and specific problems require
  specific approaches
• Clear division of roles between international and
  national actors necessary in the short, mid and
  long run (phase-out strategy)
• Link to MDGs monitoring (baseline)

6
How to get there?

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

7
Previous experience

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

8
Roma poverty profiles
9
Roma Deprivation indicators ( of people
lacking access to)
10
Roma Deprivation indicators ( of people
lacking access to)
11
Roma Unemployment (ILO definition)
12
The survey I

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

13
The survey II

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

14
The sampling model assumptions

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

15
Inevitable impediments

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

16
What shall the survey provide?

• 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
• All this - disaggregated by age, sex, income
  status of the household and sub-national level

17
Dose of realism (the inevitable constraints)

• Not all indicators are possible to be monitored
  or disaggregated
• Data (as any data perhaps) still approximation
  and should be used as complementary to other
  statistics
• Cross-country comparability will be limited (if
  necessary at all)

18
Time-frame

• Completed sampling methodology and questionnaire
• August/September translating, back translation
  and testing of the questionnaire sampling
• End of August identification of
  assistant-interviewers and first training (Sofia)
• October field-work
• November data available
• First quarter 2005 Vulnerability Assessment

19
Policy application

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

20
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

21
Links to other Roma-related initiatives

• Follow up to first regional report Avoiding the
  Dependency Trap
• Decade of Roma Inclusion baseline and monitoring
• Measuring the progress at national level (Czech
  Republic and Hungary)
• WB Living Standards assessment
• Roma Development Opportunities Web-site,
  http//roma.undp.sk

22
Thank you!

• Bratislava Regional Center
• 35 Grosslingova
• 81109 Bratislava, Slovak Republic
• 421 2 59337 111
• www.undp.sk
• http//roma.undp.sk
• http//mdgr.undp.sk