Susanne Milcher Specialist, Poverty and Economic Development UNDP Regional Centre Bratislava

1. Quantitative data collection on the status of Roma in SEE and CEE:Methodology, 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