1 / 33

Outline

At Risk: Roma and the Displaced in Southeast Europe Andrey Ivanov, Human Development Adviser, UNDP Lead author Launch of the UNDP Report “At Risk: Roma and the Displaced in Southeast Europe: Dimensions of Vulnerability” 26 th June 2006, Brussels. Outline. Why this report?

melangell-aerona
Download Presentation

Outline

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. At Risk: Roma and the Displaced in Southeast EuropeAndrey Ivanov, Human Development Adviser, UNDPLead authorLaunch of the UNDP Report “At Risk: Roma and the Displaced in Southeast Europe: Dimensions of Vulnerability”26th June 2006, Brussels

  2. Outline • Why this report? • The survey and spin-off effects • Determinants of vulnerability for Roma • Determinants of vulnerability for the displaced • Major recommendations

  3. Why this report? • Logical continuation of UNDP work on vulnerability and Roma in particular • To make MDGs appealing in most countries of the region, disaggregation at sub-national level is important • Relevant profiles of vulnerability in the region necessary for adequate programmatic responses

  4. The process • The overall philosophy • Going beyond national averages • Address acute issues within their specific context complementing international benchmarks with national poverty lines • The survey and the report as a new challenge • Methodological challenge • “Avoiding repetitions” challenge • Complementarity between regional and national level analysis • Partnerships with the World Bank, Decade of Roma Inclusion, national statistics

  5. The survey • Covers all countries in SEE and CEE with sizeable Roma minorities • Representative for Roma population with “close proximity” majority boosters • Follows the logic of HBS and LFS • Sample size – 500-600 households per country plus boosters (total for country between 800 and 1000 households) • “Status registration” and not “attitudes” survey • Where relevant, has IDPs and refugees samples

  6. The direct outcomes • Regional report on vulnerable groups providing overall analytical and data framework complementing the national sample analysis • Summary published as a separate brochure and translated into few national languages • A set of national vulnerability reports (Albania, Macedonia, Serbia, Slovakia) • Data base available on-line and on CD with all the data and additional resources

  7. Spin-off effects • Baseline profiles for the Decade of Roma Inclusion • Contribution to national-level work on ethnically sensitive data • Cross-border HDR for Hungary and Slovakia focusing on vulnerable groups in the new EU context • Expanding the approach to People living with HIV/AIDS (pilot in Estonia and Kaliningrad) • Roma survey in Moldova (the first in the country)

  8. Novelty of the report • Develops in-depth the concept of vulnerability detaching it from ethnic affiliation • Provides rich and in-depth analysis of determinants of vulnerability and their major correlates • Addresses two vulnerable groups in two parallel parts of the analysis

  9. Determinants of vulnerability for Roma

  10. Roma poverty • Status • Half of all Roma live in poverty with more than one in 5 live in extreme poverty • Roma poverty is four times higher than poverty among majority neighbors (44% vs. 11%) • Inequality among Roma is higher than for majority households (0.44 vs. 0.40) • Outstanding debts is vicious circle (outstanding household bills reaching 1230% of household monthly expenditures of poor Roma households) • In Roma 50% of children face nutrition risk more than twice monthly compared to 0nly 6% of children in non-Roma households. • Correlates of poverty • Education: Roma and majority heads with no formal education have respectively 40% and 69% chance of living out of poverty • Location: poverty lowest in capitals and highest in rural areas – but in rural areas the difference between Roma and majority declines • Employment: correlate between “being in skilled employment” and “living in non-poor household” is stronger for majority than for Roma • The predicted expenditures of hypothetical household with similar characteristics are 254 PPP$ for Roma and 431 PPP$ for majority.

  11. Poverty rates for Roma

  12. Debts

  13. Nutrition vulnerability

  14. Roma education • Status • 2 out of 3 Roma do not complete primary education compared to 1 in 7 of non-Roma • 2 out of 5 do not attend primary school compared to 1 in 20 of majority • Declining enrolments among Roma begin in elementary and primary school (43% among 15 year-olds) • Literacy rates among Roma are far below those of majority (73% versus 96%) • Correlates of education • Gender: Roma women are particularly vulnerable with three quarters of Roma women do not complete primary education compared with 1 in 5 women from majority communities and almost a third are illiterate • Positive role models: Strong correlation between the education status of the household head and other members of the household • Segregation: high presence of ‘Roma-only’ and substandard ‘mixed’ schools reinforces low education status and limits the quality of education

  15. Enrolment gap

  16. Gender gap in education

  17. Enrolment and age

  18. Roma employment • Status • Unemployment rates more than twice as high as similarly placed colleagues from majority communities in Bulgaria and Croatia • Low-skilled work predominates dominated by manual labor • Roma involvement in informal sector is on average four times more common than for majority • Correlates of employment • Gender: Employment rates of Roma women in some countries are as low as 20% (60% for majority women) • Age: differences between youth and adult unemployment rates are much smaller for Roma than for majority • Location: unemployment in urban is higher for both Roma women and men (opposite for majority); unemployment rates lower in mixed, well-integrated neighborhoods • Education: Returns on education lower for Roma than majority – and particularly lower for Roma women

  19. Unemployment rates

  20. Informal sector involvement

  21. Returns to education

  22. Determinants of vulnerability for the displaced

  23. Poverty of the displaced • Status • Poverty rates higher than majority but gap smaller than in the case of Roma • Poverty rates almost double in capital areas • 27% of displaced children live in households facing nutrition risk (compared to 7% of majority children) • Correlates of poverty • Skills: poverty rates for displaced household with skilled head is 5% compared to 21 with non-skilled head (for majority respectively 2 and 7%) • Location: poverty highest in capitals – unlike the majority pattern • Education: displaced and majority heads with no formal education have respectively 40% and 19% chance of living in poverty • The predicted expenditures of hypothetical household with similar characteristics are 134% higher for the majority than a household with similar characteristics from the displaced sample

  24. Poverty rates for the displaced

  25. Poverty and skills

  26. Nutrition vulnerability

  27. Education and employment of the displaced • Status • Clear impact of conflicts on education • Increasing gap in secondary and tertiary levels between displaced and majority • Unemployment rates higher for the displaced with differences in subjective unemployment rates particularly pronounced • Overrepresented in sectors dominated by manual labor and unskilled work; underrepresented in public sector employment • Correlates of education • Gender: Displaced women are much less likely to continue education after secondary school (51% vs. 70% of the majority women) • Location: unemployment rates marginally higher in rural areas for both majority and displaced • Education: the impact of education on employment is only felt for workers with secondary and tertiary education

  28. Conflict and education

  29. Unemployment rates for displaced

  30. Returns to education

  31. The major messages • The Decade of Roma Inclusion needs “area based development focus” • An initiative similar to the Decade of Roma Inclusion is necessary for the Displaced to focus governments efforts in an international framework • Area-based development should be promoted as the desirable framework for vulnerability intervention in diverse and mixed environment as SEE • This framework makes possible recognition of joint interest, which is a necessary precondition for majorities’ endorsement • Reliable local level partners from the vulnerable communities are necessary for that purpose

  32. The major messages – cont. • Development opportunities for vulnerable groups should have clear welfare-to-work focus • Major reform of social assistance and labor offices in countries of the region is necessary – and should be supported by donors • Self-employment and micro-business are important – but still underutilized - instruments for poverty alleviation • Microfinance initiatives can dramatically increase the scope and impact of self-employment

  33. Thank you! Bratislava Regional Center 35 Grosslingova 81109 Bratislava, Slovak Republic http://www.undp.org/europeandcis/vulnerability

More Related