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
Date: 2017-08-30
Institutions: Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers, European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, EU employment policy, Roma, education, ethnic discrimination, health policy, housing, poverty, social integration, social survey

EN 

   EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 30.8.2017  SWD(2017) 286 final   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  {COM(2017) 458 final}  
 
 
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 1 as 
recorded  by  two  FRA  surveys  in  2011  and  in  2016.  In  2016,  the  Second  European  Union 
Minorities and Discrimination Survey (EU-MIDIS II)2 collected information on the situation of 
Roma  in  Bulgaria,  Croatia,  the  Czechia,  Greece,  Hungary,  Portugal,  Romania,  Slovakia  and 
Spain.  The  2011  Roma  survey 3 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.4  

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 cross-cutting 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’. 

1   The distribution and density of Roma populations differ across Member States and a random sampling method 
as used in EU-MIDIS II is not always possible. Different data collection methods are needed for the countries 
not covered by the survey and these will be covered by the FRA’s Roma data collection exercise in 2018 (using 
specific quantitative or qualitative methods). 

2   http://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2016/eumidis-ii-roma-selected-findings  
3   http://fra.europa.eu/en/survey/2012/roma-pilot-survey  
4   http://www.eurasia.undp.org/content/rbec/en/home/ourwork/sustainable-development/development-planning-

and-inclusive-sustainable-growth/roma-in-central-and-southeast-europe/roma-data.html  

2 

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

The direction of the arrow depends on the type of indicator – ‘positive’ (e.g. share of children enrolled) or ‘negative’ (e.g. share of youth not in 
employment, education or training). 

3 

2011change20162011change20162011change20162011change20162011change20162011change20162011change20162011change20162011change20162011change2016Share of children 4-age up to starting compulsory primary education age who attend early childhood education, household members (%)436629～348287795133281915442463823344753Share of compulsory-schooling-age children attending education, household members, 5-17 (depending on the country) (%)88～919398566995～99849494～98819081～7793～948690Early leavers from education and training, household members, 18-24 (%)8267725796～929570716878689790917780588768Share of the population aged 18-24 years having attained at most lower secondary education (ISCED 2011 levels 0, 1 or 2) and not being involved in further education or training.Share of people who felt being discriminated because of being Roma in the past 5 years, when in contact with school (as parent or student), respondents, 16+ (%)9～63319312011～15172216～1513～13151016～1617～14Share of Roma children, 6-15 years old, attending classes where ‘all classmates are Roma’ as reported by the respondents, household members 6-15 in education (%) 16296～68～133～4n.a.n.a.227～1031110～1020251015Comparability 2011 and 2016 is limited due to difference in formulation of question.Roma integration indicators scoreboard 2011-2016 - EDUCATIONNotesAge for starting compulsory primary education as well as for compulsory schooling age valid for a given country in a given year (European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice (2011 and 2015)).Age is calculated on annual basis, hence the figures do not consider earlier or delayed start in primary education of an individual child.AverageBGCZELESHRHUPTSKRO 
 
 
 
  - Improvement; ～ - no change;  - deterioration.   

The direction of the arrow depends on the type of indicator – ‘positive’ (e.g. share of children enrolled) or ‘negative’ (e.g. share of youth not in 
employment, education or training). 

4 

2011change20162011change20162011change20162011change20162011change20162011change20162011change20162011change20162011change20162011change2016Share of people who self-declared main activity status ‘paid work’ (including full-time, part-time, ad hoc jobs, self-employment), household members, 16+ (%)292332～2940～4321161482536143428～2820～2026～25‘Main activity’ is asking all household members for theircurrent status in regard to employment. It is distinct fromthe ILO concept of employment and the one used in theLabour Force Survey (variable MAINSTAT). ‘Employment’ alsoincludes small amounts of unpaid work in family businesses,as this is for the family’s gain.Share of young persons, 16-24 years old with current main activity neither in employment, education or training, household members (%)61～65435161～60717772～7738517952586444655663Based on the self-declared current main activity,excluding those who did any work in the previous four weeks to earn some money.Share of people who felt being discriminated because of being Roma in the past 5 years, when looking for a job, respondents, 16+ (%)3921716167～6335～3437504933587633～3449～535040Share of people who felt being discriminated because of being Roma in the past 5 years, when at work, respondents, 16+ (%)15～11361730381823291717111540101991819～17Roma integration indicators scoreboard 2011-2016 - EMPLOYMENTNotesBGCZELESHRHUPTROSKAverage 
 
 
 
 
 
  - Improvement; ～ - no change;  - deterioration.   

The direction of the arrow depends on the type of indicator – ‘positive’ (e.g. share of children enrolled) or ‘negative’ (e.g. share of youth not in 
employment, education or training). 

5 

2011change20162011change20162011change20162011change20162011change20162011change20162011change20162011change20162011change20162011change2016Share of people assessing their health in general as 'Very good' or 'Good', respondents, 16+ (%)5370556267836273655949665270456960675568Share of people with medical insurance coverage, respondents, 16+ (%)43～459279467999～9884～82978698～9651～5492～9578～74Share of Roma, aged 16 years or over, who indicate that they are covered by national basic health insurance and/or additional insuranceRoma integration indicators scoreboard 2011-2016 - HEALTHNotesBGCZELESHRHUPTROSKAverage 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 - Improvement; ～ - no change;  - deterioration.   

The direction of the arrow depends on the type of indicator – ‘positive’ (e.g. share of children enrolled) or ‘negative’ (e.g. share of youth not in employment, education or training). 

6 

2011change20162011change20162011change20162011change20162011change20162011change20162011change20162011change20162011change20162011change2016Average number of rooms per person in the household (without kitchen)0.9～0.90.8～0.80.6～0.61.01.20.60.70.7～0.70.81.00.70.90.7～0.70.80.9Share of people living in households without tap water inside the dwelling, household members (%)38228215102～2443432～2913～177967352529～30Share of people living in households having neither toilet, nor shower, nor bathroom inside the dwelling, household members (%)604510429～301～145～4431～3320～208478392936～38Share of people living in households with electricity supply, household members (%)93～9894～9988～8899～9891～9296～9887～86879591～9492～96Share of people who felt being discriminated because of being Roma in the past 5 years, when looking for housing, respondents, 16+ (%)(14)…(14)5265(42)…443545(19)…5325～226775(29)…(13)443045～41… - Trends are not possible to provide in cases of small number of observations (flagged in brackets)Roma integration indicators scoreboard 2011-2016 - HOUSINGNotesBGAverageROSKCZELESHRHUPT 
 
 
 
 
 
  - Improvement; ～ - no change;  - deterioration.   

The direction of the arrow depends on the type of indicator – ‘positive’ (e.g. share of children enrolled) or ‘negative’ (e.g. share of youth not in 
employment, education or training). 

7 

2011change20162011change20162011change20162011change20162011change20162011change20162011change20162011change20162011change20162011change2016At-risk-of poverty rate (below 60% of median equivalised income after social transfers), household members (%)86～8680588396909891～93807596n.a.n.a.787091～878680At-risk-of-poverty are all persons with an equivalised current monthly disposable household income below the twelfth of the national at-risk-of-poverty threshold 2014 (published by Eurostat). The equivalised disposable income is the total income of a household, after tax and other deductions, divided by the number of household members converted into equalised adults; using the so-called modified OECD equivalence scale (1-0.5-0.3).Share of persons in households where at least one person had to go hungry to bed at least once in the last month, household members (%)40273120544814～1740～38362040n.a.n.a.613231～313827NotesRoma integration indicators scoreboard 2011-2016 - POVERTYAverageHRHUPTROSKBGCZELES