The Challenges of Roma Inclusion

Andrey Ivanov,
Senior Advisor, UNDP BRC
November 2012

THE CHALLENGES OF
ROMA INCLUSION –
FOCUSING ON RESULTS
WITH RELEVANT DATA

Acknowledgements
This presentation summarizes the result of the work of a
whole team involved in UNDP‟s Roma related work (in
alphabetic order): Christian Brüggemann, Niall O‟Higgins,
Balazs Horvath, Andrey Ivanov, Justin Kagan, Jaroslav Kling,
Angela Kocze, Dotcho Mihaylov, Daniel Skobla, Tatjana Peric,
and Ilona Tomova.
The data come primarily from
 The regional Roma survey 2011 supported by the
European Union (DG Regional Policy), implemented by
UNDP and the World Bank and administered by IPSOS,
Serbia and
 The regional Roma survey 2004, supported by UNDP and
administered by BBSS-Gallup, Bulgaria, TARKI, Hungary
and Focus, Czech Republic.
The data sets and the research papers based on the data
available from the UNDP website:
http://europeandcis.undp.org/ourwork/roma
Andrey Ivanov, UNDP: The challenges of Roma inclusion – focusing on results with relevant data. November 2012

Defining the target
 Who are the Roma? Apparently a simple question but the
answer differs depending on the approach you take
◦ Research (historical or ethnological)
◦ Pragmatic (policy-driven)
 Opinions vary but at the end, if you want clear results
planned, matched by resources and monitored. For that
you need
◦ Data on how many people you target
◦ The unit cost of “a result” in a specific area
◦ Data on externalities (positive and negative)
◦ Time-series and baselines to see the progress (if any)
 Unless you have all this,
◦ Mainstreaming Roma inclusion in national policies is a myth
◦ Results-oriented reporting becomes a poetry (a philological
task)


A few uncomfortable
questions…
 Why, after massive investment in Roma inclusion in
the last decade, so many Roma prefer to leave their
country of origin and move westwards?
 What has been the impact of the funds devoted to
Roma inclusion? Where has the money gone?
None of those questions has a decent answer because:
• The outcomes of inclusion are unclear and
unmeasurable – which makes them questionable
even if they are real
• Interventions are often just nominally devoted to
improving the situation of Roma
• The outputs of individual interventions and even the
inputs are vaguevaguedifficultthem potentially fake
Keeping the issues and makes to account for

Three myths about data on
Roma
1. There is no data, so we don‟t know
• The truth: there is a lot of data, we simply
don‟t know how to use it
2. There is no need of data because we
know how bad it is anyway
• The truth: it is important to know not just how
bad it is – but most of all, why?
3. We might need it but it can‟t be collected
because of legal constraints and because
of the vagueness of the „Roma universe‟
• The truth: indeed, it is difficult (if it were not, it
would have been done). But it is legally
possible to do and necessary for policy
formulation

Cracking the contradictions
 Explicitly define the policy purpose
◦ Monitoring of what determines monitoring
how
◦ Monitoring how determines what kind of
data
◦ What kind of data determines how to
The answers to
collect it those questions
are highly
 Clearly define who is the target relevant
policy
and thus –
◦ All Roma (whatever that means)?
politically
◦ Vulnerable Roma? loaded

◦ Vulnerable anyone?

Defining the target: Possible
options
 Self-identification (asking people, “Are you
Roma?”)
◦ Convenient and politically safe (nothing is
imposed on the respondent)…
◦ …but doesn‟t yield relevant data because of the
vagueness of the question triggering additional
ones in respondents‟ minds, like
 If yes, does it mean I am not Romanian, Bulgarian,
Slovak?
 Why do they ask – maybe to frame me?
 External („imposed‟) identification
◦ By non-Roma – verges on segregationist attitudes
◦ By Roma – “you may not know who we are – but we do”
 Combined (multi-stage approach) – used in the
surveys of UNDP (2004 and 2011) and of FRA

Going beyond ethnic identity
 Be pragmatic - don‟t be obsessed by
unanswerable questions like “Who‟s Roma?”
◦ But don‟t dilute the task of Roma inclusion through
general “inclusive interventions” that nominally are
ethnically neutral but in reality are structurally exclusive
for certain groups
 Give priority to socio-economic status
◦ But still keep ethnic identity and specifics in sight –
explicit but not exclusive focus of interventions
 Stick to territorial characteristics driven approach
◦ Most of the vulnerable Roma live territorially in separate
(segregated) communities
◦ Territorial mapping of those communities is possible
◦ With a detailed map of Roma-dominated communities, one
can target the entire area – and thus reach
disproportionately the Roma
You will never reach all Roma – but it‟s sufficient to reach
most of those that need to be reached

The possible data sources
 Regular population censuses
 Sample based surveys (national household budget
surveys, labor force surveys, EU-SILC, LSMS, MICS,
sociological surveys, etc.)
 Administrative registries (incl. local administrations)
 Line ministries registries (in particular, Ministry of Education
and Ministry of Health) and special agencies registries
(Health insurance institute, National social insurance
institute)
 Anonymous surveys conducted on the spot by service
providers (labor offices, hospitals)
 Data collected at the community different information.
Each of those sources yields level
You should define what do you need the data for first

The purpose determines the
data
 Monitoring and evaluation of National Roma Integration
Strategies
◦ Need data on the aggregate progress  EU-wide comparable
national representative surveys can serve the need
◦ But defining “representative of what and who” – a matter of
political compromise
 Monitoring and evaluation of national and local Roma
Inclusion Action Plans
◦ Need quantifiable objectives and targets  territorially-focused
mapping is more appropriate
◦ The challenge as regards “representative of what and who” less
acute
 Monitoring and evaluation of individual interventions
◦ Need project outputs and outcome level data  data generation
should be integrated into the project cycle
◦ “What” purpose of using (addressed in the project formulation)
The triple and “who” is cleardata: to know the status, so that we
define and quantify the objectives and monitor progress vis-à-vis a
baseline

2. A glimpse of the overall
status

The UNDP/WB and FRA
regional surveys: the best
game in town
 Provide quantified and comparable picture of the
current situation of living conditions of Roma in
the EU and non-EU countries (what is the
status)
◦ Based on this, they send a message to policy-
makers,
 Illustrate the dynamics over time of some basic
indicators (what has changed since 2004)
◦ …to provide the ground for progress evaluation,
 Suggest possible correlations and causalities
(what drives the status)
◦ …to help answer the “why this status?” question
 Inform policymakers on possible priorities

What does the survey provide?
 An opportunity to observe fundamental
changes in the status (but not short-term
fluctuations)
 A tool for evaluating the National Roma
Integration Strategies (but not the local level
inclusion plans)
 Comparative perspective – the survey
contains a block of questions identical to the one
conducted in 2004 by UNDP that provides a
base-line for the Decade of Roma Inclusion
progress assessment
 Caveats:
◦ Still a sample survey
◦ Expensive, provides data on “Roma vulnerable to
Andrey Ivanov, UNDP: The challenges of Roma inclusion – focusing “Roma in general”
marginalization” – and not on on results with relevant data. November 2012

Pre-school attendance
determines future educational
progress

Notice the distance from the national
averages!

UNDP/ WB/EC regional Roma survey 2011


Lower secondary education:
most countries have made
progress

It‟s useful having a
baseline…

UNDP/ WB/EC regional Roma survey 2011; UNDP 2004 survey


Challenges in secondary
education are more acute than in
primary
Gross enrollment
rates of Roma
and their non-
Roma neighbors
in FYR
Macedonia in
compulsory
education (7-15)
differ
substantively
from those in
upper-secondary
education (16-
19)


Continuity of education is a
burning issue
Serbia illustrates
the common
pattern that
transition from
primary to
secondary level
of school is
critical

UNDP/ WB/EC regional
Roma survey 2011


Regardless “hard” or “soft” –
segregation is still segregation


The graph shows the share of Roma kids attending school in classes
where the majority of their classmates are Roma. Such classes exist both
in segregated (attended primarily by Roma) as well as “integrated”
schools (mixed schools with separate Roma classes)

Dropping out of school early
(or rather very, very early)

UNDP/ WB/EC regional Roma survey 2011; UNDP 2004 survey

Again, notice the distance from the national averages (where
available)!

Employment: a jobless generation
in the making (the case of
Hungary)



And Hungary is still doing
better than the other countries!


Roma face notoriously low
employment rates…



…with high gender disparities
in employment

Roma women
are worse off
both than non-
Roma women
living nearby and
Roma men in
their countries



Roma in Albania are sunk deeper in
poverty than their non-Roma
neighbors



…and in other countries as
well


Roma are surviving on less…


The equivalent expenditure of Roma households (expenditure
adjusted for household size to reflect relative advantages of living
under common roof) in all countries is lower than for their non-
Roma households

Poverty however is more than
just lack of money
 Data allows calculating multidimensional
poverty rates and index – an aggregate
measure of deprivation in 4 dimensions
◦ Health
◦ Education
◦ Housing and
◦ Standard of Living
 Based on 12 indicators, 3 for each
dimension
 A person is considered poor if s/he is
deprived in at least 6 of the 12 indicators
and severely poor if deprived in 9 out of 12

Improvement in monetary and
multidimensional poverty is
unequal
The two
poverty
measures
reveal
different
picture and in
some cases
changes
between
2044 and
2011 go in
opposite
directions


All this results in acute material
deprivation



…even in EU member States



Roma live in worse housing –
often in slums even in the EU

Amazingly, the share of Roma
living in slums is highest in some of the EU member states

Often facing the threat of
hunger!



…and not just in Romania


All this translates into higher health
risks



With negative employment
implications



…made worse by unhealthy life-
style



…and lower access to services



Health treatment could be
prohibitively expensive

Share of people living in households which in the past 12 months had instances when couldn't
not afford buying the prescribed medicines
UNDP/ WB/EC regional Roma survey 2011, UNDP regional Roma survye 2004


The “complex” relationship
between unemployment and
health


UNDP/ WB/EC regional Roma survey 2011, UNDP regional Roma survye 2004

Being registered as unemployed for many is the only way to access health
services

Vaccination: a time bomb
ticking



All this – despite numerous
projects and international
initiatives


Non-Roma are better aware of the Decade than the
Roma who should be its primary beneficiary!

The role of civil society?

CSOs are often
missing from the
Roma reality on
the ground – but
are prominently
exposed among
entities
implementing
Roma targeted
projects



Defining the target right
Roma identity is of multiple and fluid nature
 “Roma” is not just a meta-group, but a complex construct
 The meaning of the term differs depending on the
interpretative frameworks of the different sides involved
 Roma identity is to large extent situational and reflective
defined vis-à-vis the non-Roma (the Gadzo)
This pattern is not just the result of discrimination and
prejudice
 Discrimination and prejudice were augmented in
the process of modernization,
 The process intensified even further with the 19th and 20th
century nation-states consolidation…
 …and post-modern politics seems to be following a similar
pattern
Methodological difficulties in that regard shouldn‟t prevent us from
targeting Roma communities and decreasing their vulnerability and
monitoring the results of the interventions

Why modernization?
 Because the way of living of Roma was
increasingly in conflict with
◦ the emerging disciplining structures of the
sedentary societies and
◦ with the existing non-Roma hierarches, both
cleric and secular
 Similar pattern is visible today beyond
Roma
◦ Just think how contemporary institutions
perceive free file-sharing or unwillingness to be
That‟s what “framed”…
digitally takes the issue of Roma inclusion well
beyond the framework of one single (even the
largest) minority

Two major (post-modern)
contradictions of Roma
inclusion
1. Between the vague number of the targeted
population (“who‟s Roma?”) and the strict
allocation figures (million of EUR)
• If you can‟t precisely define the target, how would
you distribute the funding tsunami that is
coming?!?
2. Between the market-based individual-
centered approaches and the implicit
anticipation of “EU Leviathan” (someone to fix
the problems) resulting in
◦ Passivity
◦ Low aspirations
◦ Those issuesof the status quograsp through
Acceptance are difficult to
quantitative surveys but appear clearly in
qualitative research

A typical picture from a Roma ghetto…

Low aspirations and
resignation
 Both an outcome and driving factor of
exclusion
 One of the outcomes of focusing on
“meeting basic needs” but not empowering
the Roma
◦ To take control and responsibility of their own
lives
◦ To have the tools to do that
◦ To have the resources to achieve that
Needs to be seen in the context of the
complex dynamics of interests involved at
This complexity is often disregarded resulting in
community level
over-simplified approaches matched by political
correctness

Another vicious circle in the
making?
 Roma waiting for a “pan-European change”
to address all the problems?
 Non-Roma waiting for Roma “to start doing
something for themselves” first?
 …and the possible Or another “Roma targeted project”
immediate opportunity?

improvement
falls through
the cracks fueling
the “project
business” cycle An outcome of
resignation? A
reason of

Dominating extremes in explaining
the roots of Roma exclusion
 Exclusion is cultural
◦ driven to extreme, it says „it‟s all about race‟
 Exclusion is about discrimination
◦ driven to extreme, it boils down to litigation
procedure (beloved by lawyers)
 Exclusion is about qualification and
educational deficits
◦ driven to extreme, it attributes everything to capacity
gaps

Sticking to each of the extremes is obviously
wrong – but is also safe because it‟s partially true

Few oversimplifications (often)
driving major policy decisions
 We can‟t have prosperous Europe with Roma
excluded
◦ Of course we can – keeping them in ghettoes
 Including Roma is profitable (and vice versa –
excluding Roma incurs economic losses)
◦ Yes, but if it were that simple, the business would
have taken on this opportunity
 We all speak the same human rights language
◦ Are we? And most of all, do we attribute the same
meaning to universal concepts?
 In a market economy it‟s private sector‟s job to
create jobs (in general and for Roma in
particular)
◦ Yes, but what about those who need support in
getting their employability closer to the average

4. Conclusions and the way
forward

The overall message of the
data
 Certain progress in regards Roma
inclusion has been made since the
launch of the Decade of Roma inclusion
◦ But unequal in all areas
◦ Unequal between countries
 Quantitative data is of paramount
importance for establishing reliable and
robust progress monitoring systems
◦ But quantitative data needs to be properly
contextualized through qualitative research

Who can do what?
 Different actors involved in Roma inclusion have
different comparative advantages (and
limitations) at different levels
 The EC has been instrumental in pushing the
governments in adopting clear commitments to
Roma inclusion (expanding the pattern
introduced by the Decade of Roma Inclusion)
but the strategies need to be
◦ Translated into implementation plans (central and
local)
◦ Matched with adequate funding
◦ With structures at the level of Roma communities
capable of delivering tangible results
 The EC cannot substitute for the national
governments and local communities

As regards specific
interventions…
 Move away from narrow sector-specific towards
an integrated approach
 Apply an area-based development focus to
reach the most in need in “explicit but not
exclusive” manner
 Learn from failures and don‟t expect results
fast…
 Be critical and don‟t take things on face value
 Focus on the ultimate goals (improving people‟s
lives) and not on the means (“delivery” or
“absorption”)
 Apply results-based monitoring
Andrey Ivanov, UNDP: The challenges ofand actually, liberate – data. November 2012
 Un-hybernate – Roma inclusion – focusing on results with relevant the

Want to learn more? Want to go deeper into the
data?
Visit us at
http://europeandcis.undp.org/poverty
or
follow us on twitter @undp_europe_cis
You can also post directly your opinion on our
Roma inclusion forum:
http://europeandcis.undp.org/blog/2012/12/06/to
wards-a-data-driven-policy-for-roma-inclusion/
**********************

The Challenges of Roma Inclusion

The Challenges of Roma Inclusion

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Similaire à The Challenges of Roma Inclusion

Similaire à The Challenges of Roma Inclusion (20)

Plus de UNDP Eurasia

Plus de UNDP Eurasia (20)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

The Challenges of Roma Inclusion