The Challenges of Roma Inclusion

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

Andrey Ivanov, Senior Advisor, UNDP BRCNovember 2012

Andrey Ivanov, UNDP: The challenges of Roma inclusion – focusing on results with relevant data. November 2012

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

http://europeandcis.undp.org/ourwork/roma

1. General considerations


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 vague and difficult to account for

Keeping the issues vague makes them potentially fake


Three myths about data on Roma1. 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 collect it

Clearly define who is the target◦All Roma (whatever that means)?◦Vulnerable Roma?◦Vulnerable anyone?

The answers to those questions are highly policy relevant and thus – politically loaded


Defining the target: Possible optionsSelf-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 (2011)


Going beyond ethnic identityBe 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 interventionsStick 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 levelEach of those sources yields different information. 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” and “who” is clear (addressed in the project formulation)The triple purpose of using data: 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◦ …to suggest “what can be done” to achieve change


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

marginalization” – and not on “Roma in general”


Pre-school attendance determines future educational progress

UNDP/ WB/EC regional Roma survey 2011

Notice the distance from the national averages!


Lower secondary education: most countries have made progress

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

It’s useful having a baseline…


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


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 moneyData 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 dimensionA 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 indicators


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

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

Share of people living in households which in the past 12 months had instances when couldn't not afford buying the prescribed medicines


The “complex” relationship between unemployment and health


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

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


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


3. The broader context


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 secularSimilar pattern is visible today beyond

Roma◦ Just think how contemporary institutions

perceive free file-sharing or unwillingness to be digitally “framed”…

That’s what takes the issue of Roma inclusion well beyond the framework of one single (even the largest) minority


Two major (post-modern) contradictions of Roma inclusion1. 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◦ Acceptance of the status quo

Those issues are difficult to grasp through quantitative surveys but appear clearly in qualitative research

A typical picture from a Roma ghetto…

…and another one


Low aspirations and resignationBoth an outcome and driving factor of

exclusionOne 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 community level

This complexity is often disregarded resulting in 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

immediate improvement falls through the cracks fueling the “project business” cycle

An outcome of resignation? A reason of resignation?

Or another “Roma targeted project” opportunity?


Dominating extremes in explaining the roots of Roma exclusionExclusion 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 opportunityWe 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 labor force?

4. Conclusions and the way forward


The overall message of the dataCertain 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 resultsThe EC cannot substitute for the national

governments and local communities


As regards specific interventions…Move away from narrow sector-specific towards an

integrated approachApply 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 valueFocus on the ultimate goals (improving people’s

lives) and not on the means (“delivery” or “absorption”)

Apply results-based monitoringUn-hybernate – and actually, liberate – the Roma


Want to learn more? Want to go deeper into the data? Visit us athttp://europeandcis.undp.org/povertyorfollow us on twitter @undp_europe_cisYou can also post directly your opinion on our Roma inclusion forum: http://europeandcis.undp.org/blog/2012/12/06/towards-a-data-driven-policy-for-roma-inclusion/**********************

http://europeandcis.undp.org/ourwork/poverty/show/2180B041-F203-1EE9-B598F2648BEACB5D

http://www.linkedin.com/groups?home=&gid=4118977&trk=anet_ug_hm

http://www.facebook.com/UNDPinEuropeandCIS

http://europeandcis.undp.org/

http://issuu.com/undp_in_europe_cis

https://twitter.com/intent/follow?original_referer=http://europeandcis.undp.org/&region=follow_link&screen_name=undp_europe_cis&source=followbutton&variant=2.0

http://www.youtube.com/undp

http://www.slideshare.net/undpeuropeandcis

http://feeds.feedburner.com/UndpEuropeAndCisPodcast

http://www.flickr.com/photos/undpeuropeandcis/

Date post:	07-May-2015
Category:	Self Improvement
Upload:	undp-in-europe-and-cis
View:	2,931 times
Download:	1 times

The Challenges of Roma Inclusion

Self Improvement