Europaudvalget 2017
KOM (2017) 0458
Offentligt
1784069_0001.png
EUROPEAN
COMMISSION
Brussels, 15.11.2017
SWD(2017) 286 final/2
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
{COM(2017) 458 final}
EN
EN
 kom (2017) 0458 - Ingen titel
1784069_0002.png
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
2
3
4
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).
http://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2016/eumidis-ii-roma-selected-findings
http://fra.europa.eu/en/survey/2012/roma-pilot-survey
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
 kom (2017) 0458 - Ingen titel
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.
3
 kom (2017) 0458 - Ingen titel
1784069_0004.png
Roma integration indicators scoreboard 2011-2016 - EDUCATION
BG
2011
change
CZ
2016 2011
change
EL
2016 2011
change
ES
2016 2011
change
HR
2016 2011
change
HU
2016 2011
change
PT
2016 2011
change
RO
2016 2011
change
SK
2016 2011
change
Average
2016 2011
change
Notes
2016
Age for s tarting compul s ory pri ma ry educa tion a s wel l a s
for compul s ory s chool i ng a ge va l i d for a gi ven country i n a
a nd 2015)).
Age i s ca l cul a ted on a nnua l ba s i s , hence the fi gures do
not cons i der ea rl i er or del a yed s tart i n pri ma ry educa tion
of a n i ndi vi dua l chi l d.
Share of children 4-age up to starting compulsory
primary education age who attend early childhood
education, household members (%)
43
66
29
�½�
34
8
28
77
95
13
32
81
91
54
42
46
38
23
34
47
53
gi ven yea r (Europea n Commi s s i on/EACEA/Eurydi ce (2011
Share of compulsory-schooling-age children
attending education, household members, 5-17
(depending on the country) (%)
88
�½�
91
93
98
56
69
95
�½�
99
84
94
94
�½�
98
81
90
81
�½�
78
93
�½�
94
86
90
Upda ted va l ue for RO i n 2016.
Early leavers from education and training,
household members, 18-24 (%)
82
67
72
57
96
�½�
92
95
70
71
68
78
68
97
90
91
77
80
58
87
68
or 2) a nd not bei ng i nvol ved i n further educa tion or
tra i ni ng.
Sha re of the popul a tion a ged 18-24 yea rs ha vi ng a tta i ned
a t mos t l ower s econda ry educa tion (ISCED 2011 l evel s 0, 1
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
�½�
6
33
19
31
20
11
�½�
15
17
22
16
�½�
15
13
�½�
13
15
10
16
�½�
16
17
�½�
14
Share of Roma children, 6-15 years old, attending
classes where all class ates are ‘o a as reported
by the respondents, household members 6-15 in
education (%)
16
29
6
�½�
6
8
�½�
13
3
�½�
4
n.a.
n.a.
22
7
�½�
10
3
11
10
�½�
10
20
25
10
15
i n formul a tion of ques tion.
Compa ra bi l i ty 2011 a nd 2016 i s l i mi ted due to di fference
 
- Improvement;
�½�
- no change;
 -
deterioration.
4
 kom (2017) 0458 - Ingen titel
1784069_0005.png
Roma integration indicators scoreboard 2011-2016 - EMPLOYMENT
BG
2011
Share of people who self-declared main activity
status paid work (i cludi g full-ti e, part-ti e, ad
hoc jobs, self-employment), household members,
16+ (%)
change
CZ
2016 2011
change
EL
2016 2011
change
ES
2016 2011
change
HR
2016 2011
change
HU
2016 2011
change
PT
2016 2011
change
RO
2016 2011
change
SK
2016 2011
change
Average
2016 2011
change
Notes
2016
Ma i a tivi ty i s a s ki g a l l hous ehol d e ers for thei r
current s tatus i n rega rd to empl oyment. It i s di s tinct from
the ILO concept of empl oyment a nd the one us ed i n the
La our For e Survey va ri a l e MAINSTAT . E pl oy e t
also
i ncl udes s ma l l a mounts of unpa i d work i n fa mi l y
bus i nes s es ,
a s thi s i s for the fa i l y s ga i .
29
23
32
�½�
29
40
�½�
43
21
16
14
8
25
36
14
34
28
�½�
28
20
�½�
20
26
�½�
25
Share of young persons, 16-24 years old with current
main activity neither in employment, education or
training, household members (%)
61
�½�
65
43
51
61
�½�
60
71
77
72
�½�
77
38
51
79
52
58
64
44
65
56
Ba s ed on the s el f-decl a red current ma i n a ctivi ty,
63
excl udi ng thos e who di d a ny work i n the previ ous four
weeks to ea rn s ome 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
21
71
61
67
�½�
63
35
�½�
34
37
50
49
33
58
76
33
�½�
34
49
�½�
53
50
40
Share of people who felt being discriminated
because of being Roma in the past 5 years, when at
work, respondents, 16+ (%)
15
�½�
11
36
17
30
38
18
23
29
17
17
11
15
40
10
19
9
18
19
�½�
17
 
- Improvement;
�½�
- no change;
 -
deterioration.
5
 kom (2017) 0458 - Ingen titel
1784069_0006.png
Roma integration indicators scoreboard 2011-2016 - HEALTH
BG
2011
Share of people assessing their health in general as
'Very good' or 'Good', respondents, 16+ (%)
change
CZ
2016 2011
change
EL
2016 2011
change
ES
2016 2011
change
HR
2016 2011
change
HU
2016 2011
change
PT
2016 2011
change
RO
2016 2011
change
SK
2016 2011
change
Average
2016 2011
change
Notes
2016
53
70
55
62
67
83
62
73
65
59
49
66
52
70
45
69
60
67
55
68
Share of people with medical insurance coverage,
respondents, 16+ (%)
43
�½�
45
92
79
46
79
99
�½�
98
84
�½�
82
97
86
98
�½�
96
51
�½�
54
92
�½�
95
78
�½�
74
Sha re of Roma , a ged 16 yea rs or over, who i ndi ca te tha t
they a re covered by na tiona l ba s i c hea l th i ns ura nce
a nd/or a ddi tiona l i ns ura nce
 
- Improvement;
�½�
- no change;
 -
deterioration.
6
 kom (2017) 0458 - Ingen titel
1784069_0007.png
Roma integration indicators scoreboard 2011-2016 - HOUSING
BG
2011
Average number of rooms per person in the
household (without kitchen)
Share of people living in households without tap
water inside the dwelling, household members (%)
Share of people living in households having neither
toilet, nor shower, nor bathroom inside the
dwelling, household members (%)
0.7
change
CZ
2016 2011
0.7
0.6
change
EL
2016 2011
0.7
0.5
change
ES
2016 2011
0.5
0.8
change
HR
2016 2011
0.9
0.5
change
HU
2016 2011
0.5
0.6
change
PT
2016 2011
0.6
0.7
change
RO
2016 2011
0.8
0.5
change
SK
2016 2011
0.7
0.5
change
Average
2016 2011
0.5
0.6
change
2016
0.7
Notes
Upda ted va l ues for 2011 a nd 2016 for a l l countri es a nd
Avera ge
Upda ted va l ues a ffect trend for HR , PT a nd Avera ge
Upda ted va l ues for 2016 for BG, EL, HU, PT, RO a nd SK
�½�
�½�
�½�
�½�
�½�
�½�
�½�
�½�
�½�
�½�
�½�
�½�
�½�
�½�
�½�
�½�
38
23
8
2
15
9
2
�½�
�½�
�½�
2
42
34
32
33
13
14
79
68
35
27
29
30
Upda ted va l ue for 2011 for HR
60
44
10
4
29
�½�
�½�
…
29
1
1
42
�½�
�½�
…
41
31
38
20
17
84
79
39
Upda ted va l ues for 2016 for BG, EL, HR, HU, PT a nd RO
29
36
38
Upda ted va l ue for 2011 for HR
Upda ted va l ues a ffect trend for HU
Share of people living in households with electricity
supply, household members (%)
93
�½�
…
98
94
�½�
98
88
89
99
98
92
93
96
�½�
�½�
97
87
88
87
95
91
�½�
94
92
96
Upda ted va l ue for 2011 for HR
Upda ted va l ues for 2016 for CZ, EL, HR, HU, a nd PT
Share 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)
44
35
45
(19)
53
25
22
67
75
(29)
…
(13)
44
30
45
41
number of obs erva tions (fl a gged i n bra ckets )
… - Tre ds a re ot pos s i l e to provi de i
a s es of s a l l
 
- Improvement;
�½�
- no change;
 -
deterioration.
7
 kom (2017) 0458 - Ingen titel
1784069_0008.png
Roma integration indicators scoreboard 2011-2016 - POVERTY
BG
2011
change
CZ
2016 2011
change
EL
2016 2011
change
ES
2016 2011
change
HR
2016 2011
change
HU
2016 2011
change
PT
2016 2011
change
RO
2016 2011
change
SK
2016 2011
change
Average
2016 2011
change
Notes
2016
At-ri s k-of-poverty a re a l l pers ons wi th a n equi va l i s ed
current monthl y di s pos a bl e hous ehol d i ncome bel ow the
twel fth of the na tiona l a t-ri s k-of-poverty thres hol d 2014
(publ i s hed by Euros tat).
The equi va l i s ed di s pos a bl e i ncome i s the total i ncome of
a hous ehol d, a fter tax a nd other deductions , di vi ded by
the number of hous ehol d members converted i nto
equa l i s ed a dul ts ; us i ng the s o-ca l l ed modi fi ed OECD
equi va l ence s ca l e (1-0.5-0.3).
Upda ted va l ue for 2011 for HR
At-risk-of poverty rate (below 60% of median
equivalised income after social transfers),
household members (%)
86
�½�
86
80
58
83
96
90
98
92
�½�
93
80
75
96
n.a.
n.a.
78
70
91
�½�
87
86
80
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
27
31
20
54
48
14
�½�
17
38
�½�
38
36
20
40
n.a.
n.a.
61
32
31
�½�
31
38
27
Upda ted va l ue for 2011 for HR
 
- Improvement;
�½�
- no change;
 -
deterioration.
8