CORRIGENDUM This document corrects document SWD(2017) 286 final of 30.8.2017. The values of some indicators are corrected (8.11.2017) on pages 4, 7 and 8. The text shall read as follows:

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

Roma integration indicators scoreboard (2011-2016)

Accompanying the document

Communication to the European Parliament and the Council

Midterm review of the EU framework for national Roma integration strategies



This scoreboard presents changes in the situation of Roma in nine EU Member States as recorded by two FRA surveys in 2011 and in 2016. In 2016, the Second European Union Minorities and Discrimination Survey (EU MIDIS II) collected information on the situation of Roma in Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czechia, Greece, Hungary, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia and Spain. The 2011 Roma survey covered the same countries, apart from Croatia. However, information on the situation in Croatia was collected in the UNDP/World Bank/EC 2011 Regional Roma survey .

The surveys were all carried out using a similar methodology, applying a multi-stage selection of respondents. To optimise the sampling approach, EU-MIDIS II refined the methodology applied in 2011. Despite the similar approaches, the surveys are subject to some limitations as to their direct comparability. In 2017, the FRA attempted to address the limitations as to the comparability of the surveys. Given the relative similarity of the unweighted samples of the 2011 and 2016 surveys for the nine Member States, the 2011 sample was weighted to reflect the differences between those two surveys as regards regional coverage and the urban nature of surveyed localities. For Croatia, the same approach was applied to the dataset from the UNDP/World Bank/EC survey.

The scoreboard presents 18 indicators in four main thematic areas (education, housing, employment and health) and the crosscutting area of poverty. It also presents average values for the Member States in question. For 2011, the average does not include Croatia, which at that time was not a Member State. The caveats that need to be considered when analysing values for 2011 and 2016 are provided alongside each indicator.

All sample surveys are affected by sampling error, as the interviews cover only a fraction of the total population. Therefore, all results presented are point estimates underlying statistical variation. Small differences of a few percentage points between groups of respondents are to be interpreted within the range of statistical variation and only more substantial divergence between population groups should be considered as evidence of actual differences. A difference of a few percentage points between the 2011 and 2016 values may be assessed as ‘no change’.

The trends between 2011 and 2016 are visualized graphically. The direction of the arrows in the tables visualises the increase or decrease of indicator’s value and the colour reflects the plausability of the change (whether an increase/decrease is desirable or not). For example, increasing the share of children enrolled in compulsory education is desirable (marked in green) whilst increase in the share of youth not in employment, education or training is undesirable (marked in red). Orange “wave” marks no change.

Results based on a small number of responses are statistically less reliable. Therefore, results based on less than 20 to 49 unweighted observations in a group total or based on cells with less than 20 unweighted observations are noted in parentheses. Results based on less than 20 unweighted observations in a group total are not published.

  - Improvement; ～ - no change;  - deterioration.

  - Improvement; ～ - no change;  - deterioration.