ÍNDICE DE TABLAS
1.1.3 CAVIDAD ABDOMINO-PÉLVICA
Even if monitoring tools have been put in place, assessing the real impact the national strategies have had over the years is a complex exercise. This section shows statistical evidence on the situation of the Roma community in Europe and suggests a fairly negative view of the effects the policies had on the Roma and their socio-economic condition.
The European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) undertook three surveys in 2008 (EU-MIDIS I), 2011 (Roma survey) and 2016 (EU-MIDIS II), which collected anonymised data on the Roma community and analysed different areas including education, employment, living standards and health, housing, discrimination and participation, and demographics.105 These surveys focus on six EU Member States: Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Greece, Hungary, Romania and Slovakia. Portugal and Spain were added to the sample in the 2011 and 2016 surveys. Although they were carried out by the same institution, the FRA, the surveys differ in terms of questions and methodology. The three collected information on living discrimination and access and awareness to rights but only the 2011 and 2016 surveys touch upon topics such as poverty, education and housing.106 The following exercise of comparing the results therefore has to take in account the limited similarity between the raw results and understand that the three reports published as a result of the surveys were not initially aimed at drawing an evolution and comparative analysis through time.
The main findings show that many Roma continue living in conditions of severe poverty and social exclusion. The community also consistently faces discrimination; antigypsyism remains a major transversal issue. Some progress has been observed in terms of infrastructure, with increased access to electricity and housing. In 2017, the European Commission published a Staff Working Document on the Roma integration indicators, summarising the evolution of the situation between 2011 and 2016. The following graph shows a schematic view of the data as shown in table 4 below.107
103 The European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) (2018), “Working with Roma: Participation and empowerment of local communities”, November, https://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2018/empowering-roma
104 Ibid. p.9.
105 Reports available at: http://fra.europa.eu/en (accessed 4/12/2018).
106 See more information on the EU MIDIS II methodology of the surveys at: http://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2016/eumidis-ii-roma- selected-findings/mthodology-q-and-a (accessed 4/12/2018).
107 European Commission (2017) The Roma integration indicators scoreboard (2011-2016), Staff Working Document COM(2017) 458 final, accompanying the Midterm review of the EU framework for national Roma integration strategies.
Table 4: Summary of Roma integration indicators 2011-2016
Topic Overall evolution
Education Improvement
Employment No change
Health No change
Housing No change
Poverty Improvement
Source: Authors, 2018 based on the data from European Commission (2017) The Roma integration indicators scoreboard (2011-2016), Staff Working Document COM(2017) 458 final.
Despite the overall positive aggregated results of the European Commission’s document, the more specific the data are, the more mitigated the picture is. The following table shows the difference of situation between the Roma and the general population of the Member States with regard to the four objectives of the NRIS between 2011 and 2016:
Table 5: Progress of the NRIS objectives between 2011 and 2016
Objective 2011 2016
Access to education 86 % 90 %
Access to employment 44 points gap compared to general
population
46 points gap compared to general population
Access to health care 13 points gap compared to general population
0 point gap compared to general population
Access to housing 29 points gap compared to general
population
33 points gap compared to general population
Source: Authors, 2018 based on the European Commission (2018) Evaluation of the EU Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies up to 2020, Staff Working Document, , SWD(2018)480 final.
Greater focus on specific data shows that the overall data become more fragmented as different factors are taken into consideration when evaluating the results of the policies. The following section shows a summary of the main changes through time, focusing especially on the FRA 2011 and 2016 surveys for the four objectives of the NRIS and adding antigypsyism.
• Antigypsyism
The EU-MIDIS II results show that one out of three Roma surveyed had experienced some form of harassment and 4 % had experienced physical violence.108 The European Commission’s 2015 Eurobarometer on discrimination in Europe confirms these findings:
− 20 % of the respondents would feel uncomfortable if one of their colleagues at work were Roma;
− 45 % would be comfortable or indifferent if their son or daughter had a relationship with a Roma person;
− Only 18 % have friends or acquaintances who are Roma.109
108 FRA (2018), “A Persisting concern: Anti-Gypsyism as a barrier to Roma inclusion”, p.10, hereinafter: FRA (2018). 109 European Commission (2015), “Discrimination in the EU in 2015”, Special Eurobarometer 437, pp.7-11 and 21-24.
• Education
Between 2011 and 2016, the number of Roma pupils who left education at the level of secondary school on average decreased – from 87 % in 2011 to 68 % in 2016. In terms of experience of direct discrimination, the overall share of Roma who felt discriminated against when in contact with schools has not changed since 2011 – totalling 14 % in 2016. In respect to school segregation, the share of Roma attending classes where “all classmates are Roma” on average increased from 10 % in 2011 to 15 % in 2016 underlining the need for more decisive action in this area.110 Meanwhile, the proportion of Roma early school leavers compared to early school leavers in the general population across all countries surveyed remains unacceptably high, as shown in the graph below: Figure 5: Population that has completed most lower-secondary education and is not involved further
Source: FRA (2018), “A Persisting concern: Anti-Gypsyism as a barrier to Roma inclusion”, p.29.
• Poverty and housing
The majority of Roma, 80 % in the nine Member States, are at risk of poverty. On average for the Member States surveyed, 27 % of Roma live in houses where a minimum of one person went to bed hungry at least once in the previous month.111 In terms of housing, the situation is also very similar since 2011, with one third of the Roma living in housing with no tap water and 38 % with no toilet, shower or bathroom facilities inside their home.112
110 FRA (2018), op.cit., p.11. 111 Ibid, p.12.
Figure 6: Household members at risk of poverty
Source: FRA (2018), “A Persisting concern: Anti-Gypsyism as a barrier to Roma inclusion”, p.33.
• Employment
The unemployment rates for Roma remain higher than for the general population, with no change between 2011 and 2016. The results are particularly relevant for the youth and Roma women, with a very important gender gap. The report underlines the salient lack of impact the policies have had on the employability of the Roma community.113 The number of young Roma, especially women who are not enrolled in either education, employment or training is 63 %. Although this percentage has slightly declined since 2011, it remains very high compared to the general population. Additionally, discrimination in access to employment is still very important: 40 % of Roma respondents reported having felt discriminated against because of their ethnicity.114 The following graph shows the percentage of household members (over the age of 16) who declared their main activity status as being in ‘paid work’ compared to the general population, between 2011 and 2016:
113 Ibid, pp. 12-13.
114 See also: European Commission, EU High Level Group on combating racism, xenophobia and other forms of intolerance (2018), “Antigypsyism: increasing its recognition to better understand and address its manifestations”. Brussels.
Figure 7: Household members who declared their main activity status as being in paid work
Source: FRA (2018), “A Persisting concern: Anti-Gypsyism as a barrier to Roma inclusion”, p.35.
• Health
Health is the only indicator that significantly improved between the two surveys and is, in the 2016 survey, fairly similar to the general population of the nine Member States.115 Despite this increase in health condition, the insurance rate remains low, with 74 % of respondents reporting not to have health insurance coverage, compared to 78 % in 2011. This issue is directly related to the geographic segregation of the Roma community. The data vary greatly from one country to another and the Roma community still faces important challenges in terms of access to health and insurance, as shown in the graph below:116
Figure 8: Respondents with medical insurance coverage
Source: FRA (2018), “A Persisting concern: Anti-Gypsyism as a barrier to Roma inclusion”, p.41.
This chapter showed the significance of the level of discrimination faced by the Roma community and its persistence through time, despite the efforts put in place at EU and national levels. It also outlined the need to
115 Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Greece, Croatia, Hungary, Romania, Slovakia, Portugal and Spain. 116 FRA (2018) Op.cit.,p.13.
continue gathering anonymised statistics on the community to show the real impact of the policies put in place to tackle the discrimination, and to show their limits as well as promising practices.