Estudiantes con Necesidades Educativas Especiales de tipo sensorial visual

I selected and surveyed 543 Roma families that were participating in IRIS hous- ing program. I chose this sample from the total universe of families, which was 2,007 families at the time the survey started. I proceeded as follows: First, I eliminated from the initial list of families those that were in the process of being expelled from IRIS program because of high levels of indebtednesses to IRIS, as was requested by IRIS23

This cut the total number of families from 2,207 to 2,116. I then limited the sampling frame to families that had been rehoused by the program between 2001 and 2011 and that had at least one child aged 1 to 18 at the time of resettlement24_{. I imposed these}

two constraints to ensure the families were more homogeneous and to collect data on 23_{These families were in court or in the process of being taken to court. The only information I had of}

them was that they had accumulated a large amount of debt for a considerable number of months.

24_{In order to restrict the sampling frame to families with children of school age, IRIS and I partnered}

with the Department of Education of the Region of Madrid, because IRIS did not have accurate records of this information for a significant subgroup of families, so relying on their records would have biased my sample. The Data Protection Agency of the Region of Madrid imposed some restrictions on this data sharing, so we proceeded as follows: We gave to the Department of Education a list with the National Identity Numbers (DNI or Documento Nacional de Identidad) of the head of household and partner of each household in IRIS Program, and they returned to us our list indicating which of the DNIs provided by IRIS were also in their dataset; i.e., corresponded to parents or tutors of children enrolled in school in the last 3 years. (In some cases the children’s tutors were not their parents but their grandparents, step-parents, aunt, or an external tutor, but we were not able to detect this at this stage). I then checked this data against IRIS records on children, to ensure that no household registered in IRIS Administrative data as “with children” was out of the list of families selected by the Department of Education. All these limitations explain why some of the households in the sample do not have children of school age (those families were tutors of some child instead of her parents). When this happened (not often), most of the interviewers conducted the survey (the choice of conducting the survey or not was made by the interviewers). Those who decided to not do the survey to that family received a replacement family, which was a family with similar characteristics (same resettlement year and similar flat location) but with children of school age.

children, who were a primary objective in my research25_.

I chose a random sample from this sampling frame stratifying by the year in which the families had been resettled. For each of the years 2001 to 2006, I randomly selected 60% of the families that had been resettled on that year; for each of the years 2007 to 2010, I randomly chose 90% of the families that had been rehoused in each of those years; for 2011, I chose 40 families (all other families that had been rehoused that year were non-Roma). In total, I selected 671 families to be interviewed. Then, IRIS staff screened out those families that were non-Roma (42 families)26. Table 4.4 presents this data in detail.

The total number of families we finally interviewed was 543 families (144 inter- views were not conducted). The main reasons for eliminating a family in the preliminary screening were: The family was not Roma (42 families), the children were not at school age (15 interviews27_{), or the family was not reached after up to 3 attempts (17 families).}

A total of 17 families were not reached after 3 attempts, and only 3 refused to answer the survey. Still, and additional 61 families were not interviewed and the motive was not reported by the interviewer. Replacements were selected for the families that could not be reached but only 16 new additional surveys were conducted in the end. Table 4.5 shows details on the interview status of each of the 671 families in our sample.

25_{My final sampling frame included some families that did not fulfil one or both of these requirements.}

The reason for this is that IRIS Administrative data included records of the resettlement date and origin of the families, but these records were not always valid for my purposes.This happened in the case of families that had been rehoused twice: The first time, they had been resettled from a slum to a public housing by IRIS predecessor; the second time, they were rehoused by IRIS from that public housing to another public housing. IRIS records did not provide complete information on the original resettlement date and slum in these cases. In order to obtain this information, I collected information from paper registration sources that IRIS had collected separately for each household. I checked all discrepancies observed in both sources of information and completed the information available as best as possible. Despite these efforts, in some cases none of the two sources provided the correct information (we only learned this while conducting the surveys). This explains why the sample contains families that had been rehoused before 2001, despite my intention of screening them out.

26_{These checks were conducted by phone interviews to the families. The phone interviews had two}

purposes: Verify if the families were Roma and agree with the families on a suitable date to conduct the survey.

27_{In some cases, the interviewer proceeded even if there were no children of school age in the house-}

Table 4.4: Selection of the Sample

Number of families Family Sampling Selected

Resettlement Year Population1 _{Frame Sample Sample}2

1987 19 1988 18 1989 27 1990 6 1991 14 1 1992 23 2 1993 9 1994 9 1995 78 2 1996 100 1 1997 139 3 1998 129 1 1999 235 4 2000 260 8 2001 188 177 106 88 2002 134 103 62 49 2003 88 78 47 39 2004 23 18 11 7 2005 115 112 67 53 2006 155 155 96 85 2007 123 113 102 86 2008 39 39 37 30 2009 45 45 40 35 2010 78 70 63 26 2011 62 60 40 23 Total 2116 971 671 543 Notes: Data from IRIS Administrative records, retrieved on 8th January 2011.

1_{Includes all families that were benefiting from IRIS housing pro-}

gram at the time the survey started, January 2012, with the excep- tion of families that were in the process of being expelled from the program.

2_{Differences in family records and the year of resettlement re-}

ported by the families explain why 22 families in my sample were resettled before 2001.

Table 4.5: Interview status

Families Interview status Total Percentage Sample selected 671 100 A. Eliminated in preliminary screening

Motive: Children are older than 18 years 15 2.24 Motive: Not wanting to disturb (family member had just died) 1 0.15 Motive: To be expelled 2 0.30 Motive: Family on bad terms with IRIS 3 0.45 Motive: Non-Roma 42 6.26

Total eliminated in preliminary screening 63 9.39

B. Refused or not reached

Refused 3 0.45

Unavailable/not reached 17 2.53

Total refused or not reached 20 2.98

C. No motive reported

Interview not conducted 61 9.09

Total no motive reported 61 9.09

D. Total interviews not conducted (A+B+C) 144 21.46 E. Total replacements conducted 16 2.38 Total interviewed (Sample selected-D+E) 543 80.92 Notes: This table presents the interview status of the 671 families selected for our sam- ple. All these families were participating in IRIS housing program as of January 2012 and had been chosen randomly from a sampling frame of 971 families –see Table 4.4.