Faces of poverty, faces of hope

85
United Nations Development Programme Bratislava, 2005

description

2005 - The purpose of this publication is to provide quantitative and comparable data on development problems and challenges of vulnerable groups in general, and Roma in particular, in Central and Southeastern Europe.

Transcript of Faces of poverty, faces of hope

Page 1: Faces of poverty, faces of hope

United Nations Development ProgrammeBratislava, 2005

Page 2: Faces of poverty, faces of hope
Page 3: Faces of poverty, faces of hope

Table of contents:

Introduction: Why these profiles? .................................................................... 5

Bulgaria ................................................................................................................... 11

Croatia ..................................................................................................................... 19

The Czech Republic ............................................................................................ 27

Hungary .................................................................................................................. 35

Macedonia ............................................................................................................. 43

Romania .................................................................................................................. 51

Serbia and Montenegro ................................................................................... 59

Serbia ......................................................................................................... 60

Montenegro ............................................................................................ 68

Kosovo (Serbia and Montenegro) ................................................................. 77

Glossary .................................................................................................................. 85

Page 4: Faces of poverty, faces of hope
Page 5: Faces of poverty, faces of hope

5 | Introduction

Introduction:

Why these profiles?

Alleviating poverty and overcoming exclusion is now a global challenge. All countries—both developing and devel-oped economies—face poverty, although in various forms. Poverty pockets and excluded, marginalized groups existthroughout Europe, depriving whole communities of equal participation in development.

The countries of Central and Southeastern Europe face similar problems. The rate of transition there varieswidely among different socio-economic groups, with some vulnerable populations, such as the Roma, in danger ofbeing left behind.

The Millennium Development Goals agenda

The occasion of the millennium prompted the United Nations Secretary General, as well as most of the world, toanalyze past human development trends and their future directions. To address the global challenge of poverty, UNmembers accepted a comprehensive agenda for human development, including eight selected goals, targets withdeadlines and quantitative indicators. The UN Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) originate from the MillenniumDeclaration signed by 189 countries, including 147 Heads of State, and adopted at the Millennium Summit at UNHeadquarters, New York in September 2000. These goals were selected in an effort to tackle the world’s most impor-tant development challenges.

The eight UN Millennium Development Goals are intended to help governments take action to improve thesituation of poor and marginalized social groups. They are as follows:

• Goal 1 calls for halving absolute poverty (defined as living below PPP$1/day; PPP$4/day fordeveloped countries such as those in Central Europe) by the year 2015.

• Goal 2 envisions 100 percent primary school completion by 2015.• Goal 3 supports gender equality, empowering women and eliminating gender disparities in

primary and secondary education.• Goal 4 calls for reducing child mortality by two thirds by 2015.• Goal 5 aims to reduce maternal mortality by 75 percent.• Goal 6 deals with combating HIV/AIDS, malaria, TB and other socially significant diseases.• Goal 7 addresses environmental causes of poverty.• Goal 8 calls for building global partnerships for development.

Each of these goals includes a number of specific and measurable targets (such as improving access to safe water,sanitation and increasing access to development opportunities for different groups).

Monitoring the Millennium Development Goals, targets and indicators is appropriate not just for developingcountries but for developed nations, too. While reaching the national targets is not a problem for developed coun-tries, poverty pockets and excluded communities can be hidden within the national averages. The real challenge ismeeting the respective MDG targets for marginalized groups.

Roma and the MDGs

Roma communities are an example of a group deprived of the benefits of transition. The depth and magnitude of prob-lems Roma face require concerted action through an inclusive approach involving government, civil society and otherpartners working together. UNDP has consistently called for MDG disaggregation, so that the concerns of those most in

Page 6: Faces of poverty, faces of hope

6 | Introduction

need are reflected. Avoiding the Dependency Trap, the 2002 award-winning regional report on the status of Roma in fiveCentral European countries, called for monitoring Roma MDGs as a necessary analytical tool for improving the situation ofthese groups. Two prerequisites were necessary, however: governments’ political commitment and relevant data.

Political Commitment

Political commitment came with the Decade of Roma Inclusion, which grew out of the June 2003 conference ‘Romain an Expanding Europe: Challenges for the Future,’ hosted by the Government of Hungary. The World Bank, OpenSociety Institute and the European Commission organized the conference, with support from UNDP, the Council ofEurope Development Bank and the governments of Finland and Sweden. At this high-level conference, five primeministers and high-level representatives from eight countries (Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Mac-edonia, Romania, Serbia and Montenegro and Slovakia) made a political commitment to close the gap in welfare andliving conditions between the Roma and the non-Roma and to break the vicious circle of poverty and exclusion. Thegovernments’ Action Plans elaborated and implemented during the Decade of Roma Inclusion correspond to the MDGs,i.e. poverty, employment, education, health and housing. At a practical level, the Decade is an opportunity for countriesto meet the MDG targets for Europe’s most vulnerable group—the Roma—providing another link between the Decadeimplementation and the long-term commitments of UNDP as an MDG campaign manager and scorekeeper.

The need for disaggregated data

Next was the data. Without a means to measure both the implementation of policies and monitoring, MDGs riskbecoming merely hollow slogans. Governments, donors and implementing partners require quantitative data tooutline priorities and measure progress. Disaggregated quantitative data is a precondition for relevant national poli-cies for sustainable inclusion of vulnerable groups, the Roma in particular.

Therefore, UNDP decided to conduct a comprehensive survey of Roma and other vulnerable groups in Centraland South-Eastern Europe. The survey was designed to map the Roma vulnerability levels compared to other groups.Its purpose was to provide both important analytical inputs and a baseline for the Decade implementation and itsprogress monitoring.

No less important were the capacity development aspects. The very process behind the survey was as impor-tant as the results. The survey was not conventional data collection because a set of crucial questions regardingdisaggregated data collection, MDG monitoring and reporting in Central and East European countries is still open:

• How to distinguish communities?• How to define vulnerable groups (in the case of the Roma, who are the Roma)?• What sources of data can and should be used?• How to obtain it?• How to deal with privacy, with multiple identities?

Another set of issues emerged related to the mechanics of monitoring and reporting MDG-related indicators at sub-national levels:

• Should international targets and benchmarks be used to measure progress?• What should be considered a country’s commitment? Meeting the targets at the national level

or for all distinct groups?• Can a country be considered meeting its MDG targets if certain marginalized groups (like the

Roma) fall well behind?These methodological challenges added new dimensions to the survey and turned it into a rather long-term process.UNDP established an Experts’ Group on data and measurements whose task was the elaboration of consistent andcomparable approaches to the issue of quantitative socio-economic data disaggregated for major vulnerable groups.The group’s purpose was to suggest specific (and feasible) ways of overcoming existing barriers in the area of ethni-cally disaggregated data collection so that in a few years the capacity for disaggregated data collection is in place atthe country level. By 2006–2007, the whole responsibility for data collection should be transferred to the relevantbodies in the individual countries.

Page 7: Faces of poverty, faces of hope

7 | Introduction

Outline of the survey methodology

The objective of the survey was to provide quantitative and comparable data on development problems and chal-lenges of vulnerable groups and Roma in particular in Central and Southeastern Europe. Given the launch of theDecade of Roma Inclusion in 2005, the survey was supposed to provide baseline data that will enable measuring theprogress in achieving MDG indicators for Roma. Of course, the survey is sample-based research and cannot be asrepresentative as a household budget survey would be. But it still provides quantitative data enabling the roughcalculation of poverty lines, poverty depth, employment/unemployment rates, educational levels, educational at-tainment and housing conditions. Based on this data, a set of indicators can be calculated that is consistent with theindividual-oriented indicators envisaged by the Millennium Development Goals monitoring.

The survey instrument and main assumptions

The survey questionnaire was designed accordingly to:• Reflect the logic of MDG goals and provide necessary data for computation at the individual

and household level• Monitor MDG indicators.

It followed the philosophy of an integrated household survey with separate components containing both household andindividual modules. Within the individual module, each household member’s profile was registered (demographic charac-teristics, economic status, education, health). The household module addressed issues related to the household in general(dwelling type, access to and type of use of basic infrastructure, household items and possessions, etc.). Questions relatedto incomes and expenditures were addressed in both modules making it possible to crosscheck the results.

The primary universe under study was the whole population of areas with present or over-represented propor-tion of Roma community. These were defined as administrative units/settlements where the share of the Roma popula-tion equals or is higher than the national share of Roma population in the given country as reflected in census data.

Of course, in most countries Roma are underreported in censuses. Officially registered figures on Roma popu-lation traditionally differ from the experts’ estimates. Hence the first assumption of the survey: Censuses understatethe absolute number of the Roma population, but provide a reasonably adequate picture of its structure and territo-rial distribution mainly for those who identify themselves as Roma. The second assumption was that major dispari-ties in socio-economic status of the populations are most obvious (and can be explored best) at the municipal level(or other relevant territorial units). Since at this level vulnerability factors exist that affect both Roma and the majoritypopulations, vulnerability profiles of the two groups (Roma and the majority) in the same territorial unit would makepossible the identification of those vulnerability factors that particularly affect Roma.

General principles of the sample design

The most difficult problem was ‘Who are the Roma?’ and determining how to identify the respondents. The primaryobjective of the survey was to map vulnerability of groups with common socio-economic, cultural and linguisticpatterns—not the exact way they refer to themselves.

Given the fact that Roma identity is often associated with underclass status and/or discrimination, avoidingself-identification as ‘Roma’ is a logical pattern. Simply asking, “Are you Roma?” does not work. Another challenge wasthe lack of clarity on identification criteria and the multiple identities people tend to have (particularly Roma). Aquestion “Are you Roma”? implicitly suggests its opposite wording (“You aren’t Bulgarian, Romanian, Macedonian,etc”). There can be much confusion regarding a person’s ethnicity, nationality and citizenship.

This is why relying solely on self-identification would not produce a representative sample. On the other hand,forcing people into certain categories, applying external identification only, is not acceptable either. Given theseconsiderations, a compromise between the two, self-identification and external identification, was reached withinthe ‘implicit endorsement of identification’.

Sample design took place in three stages. First, the universe was defined using an ‘average and above’ share of

Page 8: Faces of poverty, faces of hope

8 | Introduction

Roma in each administrative unit/settlement. Second, sampling clusters were determined taking into considerationestimations of Roma organizations (suggesting, for example, that in municipality ‘X’ Roma dominate, but for variousreasons tend to be reported or declare themselves as ‘Y’ or ‘Z’), the distribution of the settlements and populationsize. Third, respondents were identified using ‘random route’ selection.

At different stages, internal (self-identification) or external (outsider’s) identification prevailed: self-identifica-tion (reported during the census) at the first stage, external (assessment of local people, NGOs, experts) at the sec-ond. At the final, third stage (respondents’ selection), the two identification methods were confirmed or rejected by‘implicit endorsement of identification’. This means that having identified the sample clusters and the households tobe interviewed, the introductory sentence at the beginning of the interview was “Good morning/day, we are con-ducting a survey among the Roma population. Would you mind being interviewed?” In case of explicit denial (“I amnot Roma, why should you interview me?”) the interview was cancelled. Participation was interpreted as the house-hold member’s implicit endorsement of belonging to the universe under study.

In some cases (particularly in big cities and capitals) a numerically large group of Roma still constitutes a propor-tionally low share in the total. In such cases, the sample model followed the administrative subdivisions: Usually thecapital municipality is divided into smaller municipalities and/or lower levels of self-government. These smaller unitswere chosen as the sampling units. Such cases were also corrected typologically introducing additional sampling points.

Majority boosters

Apart from Roma respondents, majority booster samples were constructed using similar procedures (representa-tive for the majority population living in settlements with Roma population ‘average and above’, not for the totalmajority in a country). The idea was to have a sample for the majority living in close proximity to Roma populationsand facing similar socio-economic challenges often associated with regional disparities.

Applying majority boosters gave the survey a benchmark, allowing judgments as to the depth of poverty andvulnerability among Roma vs. non-Roma populations living in a similar socio-economic environment. This approach, de-spite all technical difficulties in sample design, enables distinguishing various vulnerability factors, in particular those thatare related to minority status (and hence can be attributed to various forms of discrimination) from those due to regionaldisparities or depressed local economies (i.e. due to the fact that populations studied live in less developed territories).

In cases of municipalities with a high share of Roma not having substantive number of majority population fora majority booster (for example, in cases of isolated settlements or segregated neighbourhoods), the majority boosterwas based on the population from a typologically similar settlement in the same (or adjacent) district (administrativeunit), residing in the nearest proximity to the surveyed Roma target population. The criterion for choosing an admin-istrative unit/settlement was the closest one accessible by road connection.

It is important to bear in mind that the approach would not guarantee national representativeness for themajority population, and the surveyed universe of the majority in each country is actually composed of those wholive in closer proximity to Roma populations.

The resulting (realized) samples for the countries are shown in the table:

Realized samples

CountryMajority Roma Total

Households HH members Households HH members Households HH members

Bulgaria 500 1302 500 2176 1000 3478Croatia 254 715 252 1252 506 1967Czech Republic 311 762 760 2761 1071 3523Hungary 400 1194 605 2955 1005 4149Kosovo 354 2275 354 2223 708 4498Macedonia 377 1399 379 1836 756 3235Serbia & Montenegro (incl. Kosovo)

951 4245 952 4681 1903 8926

Montenegro 198 700 199 699 397 1399Romania 601 1771 601 2905 1202 4676Serbia 399 1270 399 1759 798 3029

Page 9: Faces of poverty, faces of hope

9 | Introduction

The advantages and impediments of the adopted approach

A sample based on municipalities with an average and above share of Roma is not fully representative of the wholeRoma population, but roughly covers about 85 percent of Roma in each country and provides a good basis for quan-titative socio-economic indicators for Roma (quality of life, life expectancy, access to services, income, etc.). The re-sulting sample is also representative not just for segregated Roma but also for the majority of Roma.

The data acquired will be acceptably consistent with census information, since the data is based on relativenumbers (structure and regional distribution) instead of absolute numbers of Roma population registered by thecensuses. The data provides comprehensive snapshots of the regions with concentrated Roma population based ona clear approach to the questions: ‘Which are these regions’? and ‘How concentrated is the Roma population there’?

The approach gives some standardized criterion for majority booster selection. The majority boosters are basedon populations in direct proximity to Roma (in the same municipality or region) despite all limitations of such adefinition.

The major impediment of the adopted sampling model relates to municipalities with the share of Roma popu-lation below the national average: They fall out of the scope of the sample. They could be either concentrated in minipoverty pockets or are dispersed (presumably integrated with the majority). However, both groups are representedin the sample:

• In the first case (concentrated mini poverty pockets), because most of the 85 percent coveredare living in similar poverty pockets (which were representatively sampled).

• In the second case (the dispersed and integrated group), because part of that 85 percent ofRoma is functionally integrated (employed, maintaining contacts with the majority and institu-tions etc.) and thus typologically similar to dispersed (presumably integrated) Roma from theremaining 15 percent.

Those of the 15 percent who are ‘dispersed and integrated’ and identify themselves as Roma are typologically close tothe integrated Roma from the 85 percent. Those who have been assimilated and do not identify themselves as Romafall out of the scope of the research either because they do not meet the criterion of ‘being Roma’, whatever thatmeans, or because they do not meet the vulnerability criterion.

Overall, the suggested approach is based on the assumption that existing demographic information on the sizeand structure of the Roma population can be analysed and compacted in a reliable enough picture: total and territorialdistribution. This is quite difficult to achieve, and will inevitably be partly based on estimates and experts’ assumptions,but is a prerequisite for any representative sampling procedure. All effort has to be made in this direction. An alternativeis very large national samples in each country, ensuring a statistical minimum of Roma sub-samples.

Levels of comparability

The combination of two samples (Roma and majority) with the format of the survey instrument following the phi-losophy of an integrated household survey provides the unique opportunity for three levels of comparability:

• Between Roma and the local majority living in depressed areas• Between Roma and the status of the average population of the country (reflected in national

household and labour force surveys)• Between majority populations living in depressed areas and the national averages.

In addition, applying common methodology in all countries covered by the survey allows for cross-country comparisons.Given the major constraint—uncertainty of the absolute number of the Roma population (due to the unclear

identification criteria)—the data (and all possible comparisons) have certain limitations. The survey does not providethe answer to questions like ‘How many Roma live in poverty’? or ‘How many Roma have completed secondaryeducation’? It gives the answers to questions like ‘What share of Roma is living in poverty’? and ‘What share of Romahas completed secondary education’? Such answers are comprehensive enough for policy purposes because theyoutline the distance between various groups and provide clues to the reasons why disparities exist. However, theymay be inadequate for resource allocation (usually based on headcount) until some national-level consensus is reachedon the number of people referred to as ‘Roma’. This issue goes beyond the scope of the current survey.

Page 10: Faces of poverty, faces of hope

10 | Introduction

Fieldwork and partnerships

As a specific and unique minority group, the Roma in some countries show distrust towards other ethnic groups. Inorder to overcome the possible distrust of pollsters, Roma interviewers were used for fieldwork where possible (incountries where sufficient numbers of trained Roma were available). In other cases, Roma intermediaries were used(following the pattern of ‘Roma assistant teachers’). These were either Roma ‘assistant interviewers’ (that is, a Romarepresentative accompanying the experienced pollster) or local social workers or Roma NGO representatives. In allcases, the intermediaries were trained (on the contents of the questionnaire, on general rules and procedures of aninterview etc.) before beginning the fieldwork The general rule, however, was to approach the communities carefully,with respect and avoiding any suspicion about the purpose of the data collection.

The Council of Europe – as a part of its ‘Roma under the Stability Pact’ joint project with the European Commis-sion – expressed a deep interest in contributing financially to this survey, in particular for costs related to ‘assistantinterviewers’ or other intermediaries, in view of updating with statistics its own study on Roma Access to Employ-ment in Southeastern Europe.

The survey was executed by the following agencies:• For countries of Southeastern Europe: by each GALLUP International affiliated agency, coordinated

by the GALLUP International regional office that managed the execution of the whole survey• For the Czech Republic: by FOCUS Agency• For Hungary: by TARKI.

After the fieldwork was completed, a field control was run on 10 to 15 percent of the sample, depending on thecountry. All completed questionnaires were subject to quality control for proper administration and, where it wasdeemed necessary, some interviews were discarded and the respective target sampling points were re-visited. Forcountries of Southeastern Europe, data entry was conducted locally by each GALLUP International affiliated agency.The GALLUP International regional office collected and assembled the final regional data set. For the Czech Republicand Hungary, data entry and control were conducted by FOCUS and TARKI respectively.

From the outset, all agencies involved worked in coordination under the methodological and conceptualguidance of the UNDP Bratislava Regional Centre. The methodology of the survey, sampling and fieldwork werebroadly discussed with colleagues from the World Bank and members of the Data Experts Group. Three consultants(Gabor Kezdy, Valerie Evans and Dragana Radevic) were particularly instrumental in the final design of the methodol-ogy and sampling models.

The nature and purpose of this publication

The data generated within the project are extremely rich and multidimensional. Their analyses and interpretation arestill forthcoming. The primary purpose of this publication is to give ‘food for thought’ by presenting the major socio-economic indicators of the Roma population in the Decade of Roma Inclusion countries. The data are presented ingraphs with the value of every indicator. The accompanying notes are intended to provide additional information onthe indicators and explain how they were calculated – but not to interprete the messages of the data. This is why theaccompanying notes are the same for all countries.

One final note on comparability. The values of the indicators for the Roma are presented in relation to the valuesfor the majorities living in close proximity to the Roma. These are not national averages. The ‘majorities in close proxim-ity’ tend to be in a disadvantaged position as well (for example, because they live in economically depressed areas). Thisis why the difference between Roma and national-level indicators may be higher than reflected in the graphs. Thisassumption can be checked by analyzing the data against the national averages of similar indicators reflected in inte-grated household surveys and/or labour force surveys—something that will be the subject of further analysis.

Andrey Ivanov, PhDProject coordinatorBratislava, January 2005

Page 11: Faces of poverty, faces of hope

11 | Bulgaria

BulgariaAccording to the 2001 census, Bulgaria has 370,908 Roma. Social scien-tists believe that some additional 350,000 people share social characteris-tics that are close to those of the Roma community, but do not identifythemselves as Roma. These people identify themselves as Turks, Bulgar-ians, and a small percent as Romanians. However, the ethnic communitieswith which they identify do not accept them as part of the same group.

Roma divide themselves into five big groups, and each group has anumber of sub-groups—there are more than 95 subgroups in Bulgaria.All of the cultural differences inherent in such a plethora of groups ham-per the ability of the Roma to unite and strengthen their political repre-sentation. Regarding religious affiliation, Roma belong to the OrthodoxChurch and some Evangelic churches, while some Roma are Muslim.

Almost half of the Roma live in villages. They do not own land nor dothey have jobs. Others live in town ghettoes, a great part of which are out-side town-development schemes. Over the past 15 years of transition todemocracy and a market economy, the Roma have reached the social bot-tom; there they have developed a tendency to concentrate and withdrawfrom society. Illiteracy among adult Roma has doubled (the average level isnow 20 percent). A great part of the community faces permanent unem-ployment (varying between 60 and 80 percent). The percentage of Romaalienated by society and rejected by their peers has increased three times.

Poverty and poor psychological and physical health erode the tra-ditional family structure. Currently, substantial numbers of unregisteredmarriages and divorces exist and children are the victims. Their rights, fol-lowing the standards of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, areviolated on a daily basis. Infant mortality is two times higher than the av-erage for children from birth to 12 months. Social scientists define theevents in the Roma community as the emergence of an underclass lead-ing to corresponding social tensions.

Positive trends: For ten years, Bulgarian national statistics have re-corded an 11.5 percent increase in the Roma population. This is not due tonatural growth but to Roma emancipation. Some of them have relin-quished their preferred identity and declared with new self-confidencethat they belong to the Roma culture. Although the general level of illit-eracy has increased, the number of young Roma (between 20 and 35 yearsold) who study or have already finished their secondary and higher edu-cation, who speak at least one European language and who have compu-ter literacy has also increased—thanks to NGO scholarships and programmesand to sponsors like George Soros. These educated people are the futureRoma elite, who have reached the average level of the young Bulgarian gen-eration and who are quite competitive on the labour market.

There is a strong network of Roma NGOs and Roma activists in Bul-garia, as well as national civil associations that support the Roma and the statepolicies for Roma integration. The good show of the Roma in local electionsmeans future opportunities for an adequate, equal participation in politicaland social life. There is an open and intensive social debate in Bulgaria on thenegative attitudes of all people towards the Roma, on tolerance and on Romainclusion. For the first time in centuries, Bulgarian society (the other minori-ties included) assumes that the Roma people are part of the nation, preparedto accept the coming policies that foster their integration.

Page 12: Faces of poverty, faces of hope

12 | Bulgaria

Bulgaria: theShare of populationliving on less than $4.30 (PPP) per day

0

20

50

30

10

40

60

Income-based poverty rates Expenditure-based poverty rates

%

11

51

10

49

Majority population in close proximity to Roma2

Roma

Bulgaria: Poverty gap

0

10

15

5

20

Income-based poverty line Expenditure-based poverty line

6

17

5

19

%

Majority population in close proximity to Roma Roma

The graph shows the depth ofpoverty: how poor are those belowthe poverty line? A lower poverty gapmeans that more people are closer tothe poverty line (with greater chancesof rising above it). A higher povertygap means that more people arecloser to the bottom with fewerchances to improve their condition(see the Glossary for more details).

1 For an explanation of PPP (purchasing power

parity) please see the Glossary.2 Majority does NOT refer to the majority

population representative for the whole

country but rather it is a sample of the

majority living in close proximity to Roma (see

sections “General principles of the sample

design” and “Majority boosters” in the

“Introduction” chapter)

Poverty

and unemployment

The graph outlines the share of thepopulation living below $4.30 (PPP)1

per day. ($4.30 is the poverty lineaccepted by the World Bank andUNDP for international comparisonsin developed economies). Per capitaincome is calculated using an OECDequivalence scale, which means thatper capita income and expendituresare not simply “totals divided by thenumber of household members”, butdivided by “an equalized number ofhousehold members” (for more detailssee the Glossary).

Page 13: Faces of poverty, faces of hope

13 | Bulgaria

Bulgaria: ratemen and women

Unemploymentby major age groups ( )

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

15 24– 25 54– 55>

32

56

41

34

12

19

%

Majority population in close proximity to Roma Roma

Bulgaria: womenUnemployment by major age groups ( )rate

0

10

20

30

40

50

70

60

15 24– 25 54– 55>

29

55

67

38

12

26

%

Majority population in close proximity to Roma Roma

Unemployment

The graphs in this section illustratethe unemployed as a share of thelabour force. Following the definitionapplied in Labour Force Surveys“Labour force” is defined as theworking-age population (aged 15 andabove) excluding people who areretired, in school and/or involved withhousekeeping.

Bulgaria: menUnemployment by major age groups ( )rate

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

15 24– 25 54– 55>

35

57

26

31

1114

%

Majority population in close proximity to Roma Roma

Page 14: Faces of poverty, faces of hope

14 | Bulgaria

Education

The graph shows children by age whoattend school as a share of those whoshould attend based on their age.The values are determined from theshare of “yes” answers to the question“Does the household member stillattend school or training?” when theperson concerned is of primary schoolage (7–15).

Bulgaria: Enrollment in primary education

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15age

%

100

83 87

66

82

73

91

70

81

59

83

0

20

40

60

80

100

Majority population in close proximity to Roma Roma

Bulgaria: Share of pupils starting Grade 1 who reach Grade 5

0

20

40

60

80

100

Share of people aged 12 or above with at leastincomplete secondary education

Share of people aged 12 and abovewho spent more than 4 years in school

%

72

10

96

63

Majority population in close proximity to Roma Roma

Bulgaria: Literacy rates by age groups

0

20

40

60

80

100

15–24 25–34 35–44 ≥45age

%

8287 88

71

100 100 100 99

Majority population in close proximity to Roma Roma

The first dataset in the graph showsthe people who completed grade 5 asa share of those aged 12 (i.e. of thosewho should have completed it). Thesecond dataset shows the people whocompleted grade 5 as a share of allaged 12 and above. The differencebetween the two data sets indicatesthe incidence of repeaters (pupilsrepeating a school year).

The graph shows those who areliterate as a share of the populationaged 15 and above. The values arebased on the share of those who canread and write, broken into four agegroups: 15–24, 25–34, 35–44, 45 andabove. The survey question was “Canthe household member read andwrite”?

Page 15: Faces of poverty, faces of hope

15 | Bulgaria

Bulgaria: Ratios of to by education levelgirls boys

0,00

0,50

1,00

1,50

primary (7–15) secondary (16–19) tertiary (20>)

0,980,91

0,46

0,950,98

1,32

Majority population in close proximity to Roma Roma

Bulgaria: Ratios of literate females to males by age groups

0,00

0,50

1,00

1,50

15–24 25–34 35–44 ≥45age

1,00 1,00 1,00 0,99

1,24

0,930,99

0,80

Majority population in close proximity to Roma Roma

The graph outlines the “yes” answersto the question “Can the householdmember read and write?” brokendown by sex and major age group.

Gender equality

and empowerment of women

The graph shows the distribution of“yes” answers to the question“Does the household member stillattend school or training?” brokendown by sex and age for the three“school-age groups”: primary (7–15years old), secondary (16–19) andtertiary (above 20).

Page 16: Faces of poverty, faces of hope

16 | Bulgaria

Housing and living conditions

The two graphs show how muchliving space Roma and non-Romahousehold members use. The firstgraph is based on data derived fromthe question “How many rooms doesyour household have in the dwellingyou currently occupy?” The secondone is based on “How many squaremeters is your current dwelling?” Dataper capita in both are calculated usingthe total number of householdmembers.

Bulgaria: Rooms per household member

1,61,20,2 0,6 1,0 1,40,80,40,0

0,76

1,58

Majority population in close proximity to Roma Roma

Bulgaria: Square meters per household member

35305 15 2520100

15

34

Majority population in close proximity to Roma Roma

Bulgaria: Shares of the population not having access to:

90800 50 70602010 4030

Essential drugs

Secure housing

Improvedsanitation

Improvedwater source

%

75

33

81

10

32

4

26

0,2

Majority population in close proximity to Roma Roma

The “Essential drugs” section of the graphshows the share of households respond-ing “Yes” to the question “Were thereany periods in the past 12 monthswhen your household could not affordto purchase medicines prescribed to/needed by a member of your house-hold?” “Secure housing” shows theshare of those living in “ruined houses”or “slums”. “Improved sanitation” showsthe share of households not having atoilet or bathroom inside the house.“Improved water source” shows theshare of the population living in house-holds not having piped water insidethe dwelling or in the garden/yard.

Page 17: Faces of poverty, faces of hope

17 | Bulgaria

Bulgaria: Outstanding paymentsas a share of monthly household expenditures

3002500 100 20015050

water

electricity

housing

%

264

108

104

42

188

95

Majority population in close proximity to Roma Roma

Bulgaria:income

Outstanding paymentsas a share of monthly household

3002500 100 20015050

water

electricity

housing

%

270

102

122

42

181

101

Majority population in close proximity to Roma Roma

The graph shows the outstandingmonthly payments for water,electricity and housing as a share ofmonthly household income.

The graph shows the outstandingmonthly payments for water,electricity and housing as a share ofmonthly household expenditures.

Page 18: Faces of poverty, faces of hope

18 | Bulgaria

Bulgaria: Access to modern communication

0

20

40

60

80

100

Personal computers in HH

Majority population in close proximity to Roma Roma

Internet access in HHTelephone lines orcellular subscribers in HH

%

86

22

1 15

9

The first dataset in the graph showstelephone lines or cellular subscribersper 100 people. The values are basedon the number of “yes” answers to thequestion “Do you have in yourhousehold a telephone or a mobilephone in functioning order?” andrecalculated for a sample of 100people. Households having both atelephone and a mobile phone werecounted once. The second and thirdparts of the graph show the numberof personal computers in use per 100population and internet users per 100people. The values are based on thenumber of “yes” answers to thequestion “Do you have here in yourhousehold a computer/internetconnection in functioning order?” andrecalculated for a sample of 100people.

Page 19: Faces of poverty, faces of hope

19 | Croatia

CroatiaThe Roma in Croatia are recognized as a national minority, which, accord-ing to the 2001 census, makes up 0.21 percent of the population; theynumber 9,463. However, according to estimates, between 30,000 and40,000, a significantly larger number of Roma, actually live in the Republicof Croatia. The difference between the determined and the estimatednumber of Roma is, to a large degree, the consequence of the decision bythe Roma themselves to declare themselves during the census as mem-bers of some other nationality, and not as Roma.

The majority of Roma live in the County of and in theCity of Zagreb. According to the results of research from 1988, 51 percentof the Roma in Croatia are indigenous, 17 percent have moved withinCroatia, while others are newcomers. Immigration by the Roma from otherparts of the former Yugoslavia, especially from Bosnia and Herzegovina,Serbia and Kosovo, has been very intensive during the last ten years.

Research shows that in Croatia, the majority of Roma families speakthe Romany language (78.9 percent) or dialects of the Romany language(42.4 percent speak romani chiba and 36.5 percent speak ljimba d ).Eleven percent speaks Albanian, while only six percent of Roma familiesspeak the Croatian language. Four percent said the language of their eve-ryday communication is Romanian.

The Roma identify themselves with different religions. Accordingto the results of the survey, 45.5 percent of Roma in Croatia declared them-selves Muslims, 31.1 percent Catholics, 16.9 percent Orthodox, and withinthe “Other” category several Jehovah’s Witnesses were registered.

There are about 50 registered Roma associations and three Romaumbrella associations. At the last elections for councils for national mi-norities, 22 Roma councils and four Roma representatives were elected incounties, cities and municipalities where Roma live. One Roma is a mem-ber of the Council for National Minorities at the state level.

Equality is guaranteed to members of all national minorities in theRepublic of Croatia, and freedom, equal rights, national equality and gen-der equality, social justice and respect for human rights are among thehighest values of the constitutional order (Articles 3 and 15 of the Consti-tution of the Republic of Croatia, hereinafter “The Constitution”). Article14 of the Constitution prescribes that ‘Everyone in the Republic of Croatiashall enjoy rights and freedoms, regardless of race, colour, gender, lan-guage, religion, political or other belief, national or social origin, property,birth, education, social status or other characteristics. All shall be equalbefore the law’. The Constitutional Act on the Rights of National Minoritiesand the system of legislation in the Republic of Croatia, which protectshuman rights and rights of national minorities, are based on these consti-tutional guidelines.

In an attempt to undertake certain measures to improve the livingconditions of the Roma national minority and to include them in the so-cial and public life, in parallel with the implementation of the NationalProgramme for Roma that was adopted in 2003, the Republic of Croatiadeclared that it was prepared to join several other European countries andparticipate in the Decade of Roma Inclusion.

Page 20: Faces of poverty, faces of hope

20 | Croatia

Croatia: Share of populationtheliving on less than $4.30 (PPP) per day

0

4

10

6

2

8

12

14

Income-based poverty rates Expenditure-based poverty rates

%

5

13

2

12

Majority population in close proximity to Roma2

Roma

Croatia: Poverty gap

0

2

7

5

3

1

4

6

8

Income-based poverty line Expenditure-based poverty line

4

6

2

4

%

Majority population in close proximity to Roma Roma

The graph shows the depth ofpoverty: how poor are those belowthe poverty line? A lower poverty gapmeans that more people are closer tothe poverty line (with greater chancesof rising above it). A higher povertygap means that more people arecloser to the bottom with fewerchances to improve their condition(see the Glossary for more details).

Poverty

and unemployment

The graph outlines the share of thepopulation living below $4.30 (PPP)1

per day. ($4.30 is the poverty lineaccepted by the World Bank andUNDP for international comparisonsin developed economies). Per capitaincome is calculated using an OECDequivalence scale, which means thatper capita income and expendituresare not simply “totals divided by thenumber of household members”, butdivided by “an equalized number ofhousehold members” (for more detailssee the Glossary).

1 For an explanation of PPP (purchasing power

parity) please see the Glossary.2 Majority does NOT refer to the majority

population representative for the whole

country but rather it is a sample of the

majority living in close proximity to Roma (see

sections “General principles of the sample

design” and “Majority boosters” in the

“Introduction” chapter)

Page 21: Faces of poverty, faces of hope

21 | Croatia

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

15 24– 25 54– 55>

24

52 52

35

1215

Croatia: ratemen and women

Unemploymentby major age groups ( )

%

Majority population in close proximity to Roma Roma

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Croatia: rate womenUnemployment by major age groups ( )

15 24– 25 54– 55>

26

58

4344

1815

%

Majority population in close proximity to Roma Roma

Unemployment

The graphs in this section illustratethe unemployed as a share of thelabour force. Following the definitionapplied in Labour Force Surveys“Labour force” is defined as theworking-age population (aged 15 andabove) excluding people who areretired, in school and/or involved withhousekeeping.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Croatia: rate menUnemployment by major age groups ( )

15 24– 25 54– 55>

21

48

57

30

7

15

%

Majority population in close proximity to Roma Roma

Page 22: Faces of poverty, faces of hope

22 | Croatia

Education

The graph shows children by age whoattend school as a share of those whoshould attend based on their age.The values are determined from theshare of “yes” answers to the question“Does the household member stillattend school or training?” when theperson concerned is of primary schoolage (7–15).

Croatia: Enrollment in primary education

0

20

40

60

80

100

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15age

%

86

100

67

9793 92

87

98

70

100

Majority population in close proximity to Roma Roma

Croatia: Share of pupils starting Grade 1 who reach Grade 5

0

20

40

60

80

100

Share of people aged 12 or above with at leastincomplete secondary education

Share of people aged 12 and abovewho spent more than 4 years in school

%

74

17

92

70

Majority population in close proximity to Roma Roma

Croatia: Literacy rates by age groups

0

20

40

60

80

100

%

15–24 25–34 35–44 ≥45age

9188

86

69

98 99 100 98

Majority population in close proximity to Roma Roma

The first dataset in the graph showsthe people who completed grade 5 asa share of those aged 12 (i.e. of thosewho should have completed it). Thesecond dataset shows the people whocompleted grade 5 as a share of allaged 12 and above. The differencebetween the two data sets indicatesthe incidence of repeaters (pupilsrepeating a school year).

The graph shows those who areliterate as a share of the populationaged 15 and above. The values arebased on the share of those who canread and write, broken into four agegroups: 15–24, 25–34, 35–44, 45 andabove. The survey question was “Canthe household member read andwrite”?

Page 23: Faces of poverty, faces of hope

23 | Croatia

Croatia: Ratios of girls to boys by education level

0,00

0,50

1,00

1,50

primary (7–15) secondary (16–19) tertiary (20>)

1 00,0,94

1 03,

0,82

0,95

0 80,

Majority population in close proximity to Roma Roma

Croatia: Ratios of literate females to males by age groups

0,00

0,50

1,00

1,50

15–24 25–34 35–44 ≥45age

1,00 1,02 1,00 0,981,01

0,92 0,93

0,54

Majority population in close proximity to Roma Roma

The graph outlines the “yes” answersto the question “Can the householdmember read and write?” brokendown by sex and major age group.

Gender equality

and empowerment of women

The graph shows the distribution of“yes” answers to the question“Does the household member stillattend school or training?” brokendown by sex and age for the three“school-age groups”: primary (7–15years old), secondary (16–19) andtertiary (above 20).

Page 24: Faces of poverty, faces of hope

24 | Croatia

Housing and living conditions

The two graphs show how muchliving space Roma and non-Romahousehold members use. The firstgraph is based on data derived fromthe question “How many rooms doesyour household have in the dwellingyou currently occupy?” The secondone is based on “How many squaremeters is your current dwelling?” Dataper capita in both are calculated usingthe total number of householdmembers.

Croatia: Rooms per household member

1,61,20,2 0,6 1,0 1,40,80,40,0

0, 66

1,25

Majority population in close proximity to Roma Roma

Croatia: Square meters per household member

35305 15 2520100

14

33

Majority population in close proximity to Roma Roma

Croatia the: Shares of population not having access to:

90800 50 70602010 4030

Essential drugs

Secure housing

Improvedsanitation

Improvedwater source

%

50

10

60

29

13

2

4

1

Majority population in close proximity to Roma Roma

The “Essential drugs” section of the graphshows the share of households respond-ing “Yes” to the question “Were thereany periods in the past 12 monthswhen your household could not affordto purchase medicines prescribed to/needed by a member of your house-hold?” “Secure housing” shows theshare of those living in “ruined houses”or “slums”. “Improved sanitation” showsthe share of households not having atoilet or bathroom inside the house.“Improved water source” shows theshare of the population living in house-holds not having piped water insidethe dwelling or in the garden/yard.

Page 25: Faces of poverty, faces of hope

25 | Croatia

Croatia: Outstanding paymentsas a share of monthly household expenditures

1000 40 806020

water

electricity

housing

%

26

14

13

9

81

61

Majority population in close proximity to Roma Roma

1000 40 806020

water

electricity

housing

Croatia:income

aymentsas a share of monthly household

Outstanding p

%

66

12

12

12

64

54

Majority population in close proximity to Roma Roma

The graph shows the outstandingmonthly payments for water,electricity and housing as a share ofmonthly household income.

The graph shows the outstandingmonthly payments for water,electricity and housing as a share ofmonthly household expenditures.

Page 26: Faces of poverty, faces of hope

26 | Croatia

Croatia: Access to modern communication

0

20

40

60

80

100

Personal computers in HH Internet access in HHTelephone lines orcellular subscribers in HH

%

90

59

35

1

20

29

Majority population in close proximity to Roma Roma

The first dataset in the graph showstelephone lines or cellular subscribersper 100 people. The values are basedon the number of “yes” answers to thequestion “Do you have in yourhousehold a telephone or a mobilephone in functioning order?” andrecalculated for a sample of 100people. Households having both atelephone and a mobile phone werecounted once. The second and thirdparts of the graph show the numberof personal computers in use per 100population and internet users per 100people. The values are based on thenumber of “yes” answers to thequestion “Do you have here in yourhousehold a computer/internetconnection in functioning order?” andrecalculated for a sample of 100people.

Page 27: Faces of poverty, faces of hope

27 | The Czech Republic

The Czech RepublicAccording to official statistics (the 2001 census), Roma in the Czech Re-public number 11,746 people or 0.1 percent of the population. Officialstatistics reported an abrupt drop in the size of the Roma population overthe 10 years prior to 2001. During the 1991 census 32,903 people declaredthemselves as Roma. The real picture may be quite different, however.Experts on Roma issues estimate that the real number of Roma in the CzechRepublic may be as high as 200,000 people, the majority of whom preferto declare a different identity. The drop recorded by national statistics prob-ably has two explanations. First, many Roma conceal their identity due tothe negative stereotypes of the Roma and the social discomfort in whichthey live. Second, some Roma have emigrated from the Czech Republic (bothto the West, and in the second half of the 1990s to Germany, Great Britain,Canada, and to Slovakia where some Czech Roma have extended families).

Roma in the Czech Republic belong to different groups: a great partof them are Slovak Roma (who came to the Czech Republic from Slovakiaduring the 1950s) and Hungarian Roma (who settled there a long timeago and continue to speak Hungarian). Ten percent are Walachia Roma,who were nomads until the middle of the 20th century but now have set-tled in the big cities. Actually, only a small number of households haveremained from the real Czech, Moravian and Sinti Roma, because thesepeople were killed during the Nazi genocide.

The Roma in the Czech Republic are richer than other Roma in Cen-tral and Eastern Europe. As a result they have a better social and healthstatus. This is due partially to a rather comprehensive system of social ben-efits. However, it is also related to the general economic context: unem-ployment rates among Roma in the Czech Republic are the lowest (40–45percent), and the percentage employed under legal labour contracts isthe highest. The percentage of early marriages is the lowest here, and thepriority problems of the Roma community are different from those in othercountries: reducing family ties, restrictions in free mobility and limitedaccess to social services.

While reporting these better indicators as compared with othercountries, the Czech Republic remains the country with the lowest shareof Roma with secondary and higher education, as well as with a high per-centage of people with lower than primary education. It is not exactly clear,though, to what extent this reflects the overall status of the Roma in theCzech Republic—and to what extent this reflects the status only of thoseself-identifying as “Roma” (who generally face higher degrees ofmarginalization and hence score worse on education and other socio-eco-nomic parameters).

This vicious circle (marginalized status, leading to reduced educa-tional opportunities, leading to deeper marginalization) has forced manyRoma children in the Czech Republic into special schools more often thanin other countries. However, this is more likely due to insufficient knowl-edge of the Czech language among Roma children entering the first classand to easier curricula in these schools than to poverty.

In terms of political participation, the Roma in the Czech Republicare the least active, and it is difficult to pull them together to take part inelections. Regarding social mediators, unlike the Roma in other countries,they trust NGOs more than Roma or national parties.

Page 28: Faces of poverty, faces of hope

28 | The Czech Republic

Czech Republic:11 US

Share of populationtheliving on less than $ ( ) per day

0

10

45

35

25

15

5

20

30

40

50

Income-based poverty rates Expenditure-based poverty rates

%

9

25

18

45

Majority population in close proximity to Roma1

Roma

Czech Republic: Poverty gap ratio

0

4

8

10

6

2

12

Income-based poverty line Expenditure-based poverty line

23

6

10

%

Majority population in close proximity to Roma Roma

The graph shows the depth ofpoverty: how poor are those belowthe poverty line? A lower poverty gapmeans that more people are closer tothe poverty line (with greater chancesof rising above it). A higher povertygap means that more people arecloser to the bottom with fewerchances to improve their condition(see the Glossary for more details).

Poverty

and unemployment

The graph outlines the share of thepopulation living below $11 (US) perday. Per capita income is calculatedusing an OECD equivalence scale,which means that per capita incomeand expenditures are not simply“totals divided by the number ofhousehold members”, but divided by“an equalized number of householdmembers” (for more details see theGlossary).

1 Majority does NOT refer to the majority

population representative for the whole

country but rather it is a sample of the

majority living in close proximity to Roma (see

sections “General principles of the sample

design” and “Majority boosters” in the

“Introduction” chapter)

Page 29: Faces of poverty, faces of hope

29 | The Czech Republic

0

10

20

30

40

50

15 24– 25 54– 55>

12

40

2727

4 4

Czech Republic: ratemen and women

Unemploymentby major age groups ( )

%

Majority population in close proximity to Roma Roma

Czech Republic: rate womenUnemployment by major age groups ( )

0

10

20

30

40

50

70

60

15 24– 25 54– 55>

7

44

60

30

6

0

%

Majority population in close proximity to Roma Roma

Unemployment

The graphs in this section illustratethe unemployed as a share of thelabour force. Following the definitionapplied in Labour Force Surveys“Labour force” is defined as theworking-age population (aged 15 andabove) excluding people who areretired, in school and/or involved withhousekeeping.

Czech Republic: rate menUnemployment by major age groups ( )

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

15 24– 25 54– 55>

16

38

16

25

2

7

%

Majority population in close proximity to Roma Roma

Page 30: Faces of poverty, faces of hope

30 | The Czech Republic

Education

The graph shows children by age whoattend school as a share of those whoshould attend based on their age.The values are determined from theshare of “yes” answers to the question“Does the household member stillattend school or training?” when theperson concerned is of primary schoolage (7–15).

0

20

40

60

80

100

Czech Republic: Enrollment in primary education

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15age

%100

95 93 95100

97 96 9598

868690

92

Majority population in close proximity to Roma Roma

Czech Republic: Share of pupilsstarting Grade 1 who reach Grade 5

0

20

40

60

80

100

Share of people aged 12 or above with at leastincomplete secondary education

Share of people aged 12 and abovewho spent more than 4 years in school

%

73

25

99 98

Majority population in close proximity to Roma Roma

Czech Republic: Literacy rates by age groups

0,00

20,00

40,00

60,00

80,00

100,00

%

15–24 25–34 35–44 ≥45age

97 98 97

90

99 99 100 100

Majority population in close proximity to Roma Roma

The first dataset in the graph showsthe people who completed grade 5 asa share of those aged 12 (i.e. of thosewho should have completed it). Thesecond dataset shows the people whocompleted grade 5 as a share of allaged 12 and above. The differencebetween the two data sets indicatesthe incidence of repeaters (pupilsrepeating a school year).

The graph shows those who areliterate as a share of the populationaged 15 and above. The values arebased on the share of those who canread and write, broken into four agegroups: 15–24, 25–34, 35–44, 45 andabove. The survey question was “Canthe household member read andwrite”?

Page 31: Faces of poverty, faces of hope

31 | The Czech Republic

Czech Republic: Ratios of girls to boys by education level

0,00

0,50

2,00

1,00

1, 05

2,50

primary (7–15) secondary (16–19) tertiary (20>)

0,71

1 02,

1 38,

2 07,

0,66

1,29

Majority population in close proximity to Roma Roma

0,00

0,50

2,00

1,00

1, 05

2,50

Czech Republic:Ratios of literate females to males by age groups

15–24 25–34 35–44 ≥45age

1, 01

0,93

1,79

1 05,

1,38

1 05,0,96

0,82

Majority population in close proximity to Roma Roma

The graph outlines the “yes” answersto the question “Can the householdmember read and write?” brokendown by sex and major age group.

Gender equality

and empowerment of women

The graph shows the distribution of“yes” answers to the question“Does the household member stillattend school or training?” brokendown by sex and age for the three“school-age groups”: primary (7–15years old), secondary (16–19) andtertiary (above 20).

Page 32: Faces of poverty, faces of hope

32 | The Czech Republic

Housing and living conditions

The two graphs show how muchliving space Roma and non-Romahousehold members use. The firstgraph is based on data derived fromthe question “How many rooms doesyour household have in the dwellingyou currently occupy?” The secondone is based on “How many squaremeters is your current dwelling?” Dataper capita in both are calculated usingthe total number of householdmembers.

Czech Republic: Rooms per household member

1,61,20,2 0,6 1,0 1,40,80,40,0

0,98

1,10

Majority population in close proximity to Roma Roma

Czech Republic: Square meters per household member

35305 15 2520100

21

29

Majority population in close proximity to Roma Roma

Czech Republic the: Shares of population not having access to:

400 25 3530105 2015

Essential drugs

Secure housing

Improvedsanitation

Improvedwater source

%

27

17

10

8

8

4

6

5

Majority population in close proximity to Roma Roma

The “Essential drugs” section of the graphshows the share of households respond-ing “Yes” to the question “Were thereany periods in the past 12 monthswhen your household could not affordto purchase medicines prescribed to/needed by a member of your house-hold?” “Secure housing” shows theshare of those living in “ruined houses”or “slums”. “Improved sanitation” showsthe share of households not having atoilet or bathroom inside the house.“Improved water source” shows theshare of the population living in house-holds not having piped water insidethe dwelling or in the garden/yard.

Page 33: Faces of poverty, faces of hope

33 | The Czech Republic

Czech Republic: aymentsas a share of monthly household expenditures

Outstanding p

3530250 10 20155

water

electricity

housing

%

21

8

15

11

20

32

Majority population in close proximity to Roma Roma

3530250 10 20155

water

electricity

housing

Czech Republic:income

aymentsas a share of monthly household

Outstanding p

%

18

8

12

9

18

22

Majority population in close proximity to Roma Roma

The graph shows the outstandingmonthly payments for water,electricity and housing as a share ofmonthly household income.

The graph shows the outstandingmonthly payments for water,electricity and housing as a share ofmonthly household expenditures.

Page 34: Faces of poverty, faces of hope

34 | The Czech Republic

Czech Republic: Access to modern communication

0

20

40

60

80

100

Personal computers in HH Internet access in HHTelephone lines orcellular subscribers in HH

%

86

66

93

27

44

Majority population in close proximity to Roma Roma

The first dataset in the graph showstelephone lines or cellular subscribersper 100 people. The values are basedon the number of “yes” answers to thequestion “Do you have in yourhousehold a telephone or a mobilephone in functioning order?” andrecalculated for a sample of 100people. Households having both atelephone and a mobile phone werecounted once. The second and thirdparts of the graph show the numberof personal computers in use per 100population and internet users per 100people. The values are based on thenumber of “yes” answers to thequestion “Do you have here in yourhousehold a computer/internetconnection in functioning order?” andrecalculated for a sample of 100people.

Page 35: Faces of poverty, faces of hope

35 | Hungary

HungaryAccording to the latest census (2001) the Roma in Hungary number 189,984. As in theother European countries, national statistics count people based on how they identify them-selves. Many Roma report that they are part of another social group. That is why expertsclaim that the actual number of Roma includes an additional 500,000 people.

Hungarian Roma are divided into three basic subgroups. The largest group is theso-called Hungarian Roma (Rumungro, 70 percent), most of whom are assimilated andHungarian-speaking. (A small part of this group speaks a Carpathian Romany dialect. Theylive in separate colonies on the outskirts of villages and practise agriculture, but giventheir small numbers it is difficult to generalize about their living conditions and life-style.)The second group is the Walachia Roma (20 percent), who moved from what is now Roma-nia to Hungary in the 19th century. Until the middle of the 20th century, they were no-mads practising different crafts, as well as music. The Walachia Roma maintain their ownunique culture of ballads, songs and accompanying dances. The third group is the Beashwho speak a mixture of Romany and an archaic version of Romanian. They were no-mads, but more recently are just peripatetic, making a living through crafts related towood. Mostly settled and currently practicing agriculture, they have assimilated withtheir rural neighbours.

Until the middle of the 1990s, Hungary experienced problems with Roma rejectionand acts of racism manifested by some extreme rightist nationalistic organizations. Thereason is not some unexpected emergence of prejudice. Simply, racism towards the Romawas suppressed during socialism; with the transition it became open. Some public opin-ion surveys as recent as 1997 show that one third of Hungarians support the idea of repat-riating Roma to India, and three fourths of respondents claim the maximum high level ofnegative attitudes towards the Roma. But by the second half of the decade, many institu-tional mechanisms were already in place to offset such attitudes.

In Hungary, to some degree, the Romany language and traditional crafts (exceptfor musicians) have been preserved. This can be attributed to the long history of assimila-tion launched during the Austro-Hungarian Empire over two centuries ago. Loss of tradi-tional occupations however does not automatically mean increased employment oppor-tunities: unemployment rates among the Roma are about 50–55 percent, and over 22 per-cent of Roma are dependent on the social assistance systems. Further, few Roma havesecondary and higher education. Most have only primary and lower-than-primary educa-tion (slightly under 80 percent).

Nevertheless, the level of self-organization of Hungarian Roma is higher than in theother surveyed countries. Many Roma political parties participate in the local and parlia-mentary elections but (largely due to diversities among Roma groups) without a majorRoma party. A very strong Act on the Rights of National and Ethnic Minorities is in force inHungary, which could be considered as an example of positive discrimination (Roma arethe only ethnic group which falls under the act on nationalities). To a large degree it givesRoma people in Hungary the same rights as other ethnic groups in Hungary. HungarianRoma, as well as the other national groups, have equal rights in local elections accordingto the Act on Local Self-Government, and they have their representatives in the local au-thorities. The crucial issues here are not even equal rights (nominally guaranteed by theconstitution in every country) but the possibility of establishing their own minority self-governments. Currently, there are some 1,000 Roma minority self-governments in Hun-gary (as a comparison, the total number of localities is 3,600, of which Roma live in 2,000).Moreover, there are hundreds of NGOs in Hungary that raise funds and implement pro-grammes for Roma integration. The head-offices of several international organizations andinitiatives are located in Hungary where they develop and monitor Roma programmesnot only for Hungary but also for other Central and Eastern European countries.

Page 36: Faces of poverty, faces of hope

36 | Hungary

Hungary: Share of populationtheliving on less than $4.30 (PPP) per day

0

2

9

7

5

3

1

4

6

8

10

Income-based poverty rates Expenditure-based poverty rates

%

5

8 8

9

Majority population in close proximity to Roma2

Roma

Hungary: Poverty gap

0

4

6

2

8

10

Income-based poverty line Expenditure-based poverty line

2

33.5

4.3

%

Majority population in close proximity to Roma Roma

The graph shows the depth ofpoverty: how poor are those belowthe poverty line? A lower poverty gapmeans that more people are closer tothe poverty line (with greater chancesof rising above it). A higher povertygap means that more people arecloser to the bottom with fewerchances to improve their condition(see the Glossary for more details).

Poverty

and unemployment

The graph outlines the share of thepopulation living below $4.30 (PPP)1

per day. ($4.30 is the poverty lineaccepted by the World Bank andUNDP for international comparisonsin developed economies). Per capitaincome is calculated using an OECDequivalence scale, which means thatper capita income and expendituresare not simply “totals divided by thenumber of household members”, butdivided by “an equalized number ofhousehold members” (for more detailssee the Glossary).

1 For an explanation of PPP (purchasing power

parity) please see the Glossary.2 Majority does NOT refer to the majority

population representative for the whole

country but rather it is a sample of the

majority living in close proximity to Roma (see

sections “General principles of the sample

design” and “Majority boosters” in the

“Introduction” chapter)

Page 37: Faces of poverty, faces of hope

37 | Hungary

0

10

20

30

40

50

15 24– 25 54– 55>

36 37

7

108

0

Hungary: ratemen and women

Unemploymentby major age groups ( )

%

Majority population in close proximity to Roma Roma

Hungary: rate womenUnemployment by major age groups ( )

0

10

20

30

40

50

15 24– 25 54– 55>

47

40

0

78

0

%

Majority population in close proximity to Roma Roma

Unemployment

The graphs in this section illustratethe unemployed as a share of thelabour force. Following the definitionapplied in Labour Force Surveys“Labour force” is defined as theworking-age population (aged 15 andabove) excluding people who areretired, in school and/or involved withhousekeeping.

Hungary: rate menUnemployment by major age groups ( )

0

10

20

30

40

15 24– 25 54– 55>

32

36

1311

9

0

%

Majority population in close proximity to Roma Roma

Page 38: Faces of poverty, faces of hope

38 | Hungary

Education

The graph shows children by age whoattend school as a share of those whoshould attend based on their age.The values are determined from theshare of “yes” answers to the question“Does the household member stillattend school or training?” when theperson concerned is of primary schoolage (7–15).

Hungary: Enrollment in primary education

0

20

40

60

80

100

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15age

%100

81

91 929694 96 97

94

81

83 91

Majority population in close proximity to Roma Roma

Hungary: Share of pupils starting Grade 1 who reach Grade 5

0

20

40

60

80

100

Share of people aged 12 or above with at leastincomplete secondary education

Share of people aged 12 and abovewho spent more than 4 years in school

%

28

10

97

90

Majority population in close proximity to Roma Roma

Hungary: Literacy rates by age groups

0

20

40

60

80

100

%

15–24 25–34 35–44 ≥45age

96 9690

77

99 98 99 97

Majority population in close proximity to Roma Roma

The first dataset in the graph showsthe people who completed grade 5 asa share of those aged 12 (i.e. of thosewho should have completed it). Thesecond dataset shows the people whocompleted grade 5 as a share of allaged 12 and above. The differencebetween the two data sets indicatesthe incidence of repeaters (pupilsrepeating a school year).

The graph shows those who areliterate as a share of the populationaged 15 and above. The values arebased on the share of those who canread and write, broken into four agegroups: 15–24, 25–34, 35–44, 45 andabove. The survey question was “Canthe household member read andwrite”?

Page 39: Faces of poverty, faces of hope

39 | Hungary

Hungary: Ratios of to by education levelgirls boys

0,00

0,50

1,00

2 0, 0

1,50

primary (7–15) secondary (16–19) tertiary (20>)

1,28

0,99

0,800,80

1,38

1,89

Majority population in close proximity to Roma Roma

0,00

0,50

1,00

2 0, 0

1,50

Hungary: Ratios of literate females to males by age groups

15–24 25–34 35–44 ≥45age

1,02

1,19

1,01

1,40

0,95

1,18

0,870,98

Majority population in close proximity to Roma Roma

The graph outlines the “yes” answersto the question “Can the householdmember read and write?” brokendown by sex and major age group.

Gender equality

and empowerment of women

The graph shows the distribution of“yes” answers to the question“Does the household member stillattend school or training?” brokendown by sex and age for the three“school-age groups”: primary (7–15years old), secondary (16–19) andtertiary (above 20).

Page 40: Faces of poverty, faces of hope

40 | Hungary

Housing and living conditions

The two graphs show how muchliving space Roma and non-Romahousehold members use. The firstgraph is based on data derived fromthe question “How many rooms doesyour household have in the dwellingyou currently occupy?” The secondone is based on “How many squaremeters is your current dwelling?” Dataper capita in both are calculated usingthe total number of householdmembers.

Hungary: Rooms per household member

1,20,2 0,6 1,00,80,40,0

0,49

0,95

Majority population in close proximity to Roma Roma

Hungary: Square meters per household member

35305 15 2520100

16

31

Majority population in close proximity to Roma Roma

Hungary the: Shares of population not having access to:

90800 50 70602010 4030

Essential drugs

Secure housing

Improvedsanitation

Improvedwater source

%

74

36

46

34

50

19

24

9

Majority population in close proximity to Roma Roma

The “Essential drugs” section of the graphshows the share of households respond-ing “Yes” to the question “Were thereany periods in the past 12 monthswhen your household could not affordto purchase medicines prescribed to/needed by a member of your house-hold?” “Secure housing” shows theshare of those living in “ruined houses”or “slums”. “Improved sanitation” showsthe share of households not having atoilet or bathroom inside the house.“Improved water source” shows theshare of the population living in house-holds not having piped water insidethe dwelling or in the garden/yard.

Page 41: Faces of poverty, faces of hope

41 | Hungary

Hungary: Outstanding paymentsas a share of monthly household expenditures

140120100800 40 6020

water

electricity

housing

%

129

87

60

63

41

60

Majority population in close proximity to Roma Roma

140120100800 40 6020

water

electricity

housing

Hungary:income

aymentsas a share of monthly household

Outstanding p

%

130

85

64

60

46

59

Majority population in close proximity to Roma Roma

The graph shows the outstandingmonthly payments for water,electricity and housing as a share ofmonthly household income.

The graph shows the outstandingmonthly payments for water,electricity and housing as a share ofmonthly household expenditures.

Page 42: Faces of poverty, faces of hope

42 | Hungary

72

49

402

10

Hungary: Access to modern communication

0

20

40

60

80

100

Personal computers in HH Internet access in HHTelephone lines orcellular subscribers in HH

%

Majority population in close proximity to Roma Roma

The first dataset in the graph showstelephone lines or cellular subscribersper 100 people. The values are basedon the number of “yes” answers to thequestion “Do you have in yourhousehold a telephone or a mobilephone in functioning order?” andrecalculated for a sample of 100people. Households having both atelephone and a mobile phone werecounted once. The second and thirdparts of the graph show the numberof personal computers in use per 100population and internet users per 100people. The values are based on thenumber of “yes” answers to thequestion “Do you have here in yourhousehold a computer/internetconnection in functioning order?” andrecalculated for a sample of 100people.

Page 43: Faces of poverty, faces of hope

77 | Kosovo

Kosovo (Serbia and Montenegro)The Roma fled Kosovo before, during and after the NATO air raids of June1999. As a result, it has been difficult for the local authorities and interna-tional organizations to include the Roma in their statistics.

The latest census (1991) registered 42,806 people in Kosovo whodeclared themselves to be Roma. Different expert sources claim that thosewho associated themselves with another ethnic group but who have closeRoma characteristics number between 100,000 and 150,000 people. Thesefigures have been confirmed by international institutions, which tried tocount the refugees and the internally displaced persons and agreed, withsome reservations, that 62,000 Roma and about 21,000 Egyptians leftKosovo after the air raids. These data are relatively accurate, because thedifference is accounted for by a third group that has been living in Kosovofor centuries, and has identified itself as Аshkali. The Egyptians and theAshkali are close to each other because they both speak Albanian.

Roma, Ashkali and Egyptians were expelled from many towns andvillages, and their houses were destroyed or set on fire. This happened toentire Roma neighbourhoods in Mitrovica, Pristina and Gnjilane. The pre-dominant part of these refugees relocated to Serbia, Montenegro and Mac-edonia, while others found refuge in Western Europe (in autumn 1999,12,000 Roma from Kosovo were registered in Italy alone). According tointernational organizations, about 30,000 Roma and Egyptians are livingnow as IDPs in the former Yugoslav Republic, but according to independ-ent experts that number actually exceeds 80,000 people.

Currently, some 30,000 to 35,000 Roma, Ashkali and Egyptians areliving in Kosovo. About 90 percent of the Kosovo Roma lives in extremepoverty: they have €1/day while the poverty line in Kosovo is €60/month.As a result, the mortality rate is high and access to health services is mini-mal for the members of Roma community. According to data from theWorld Bank, in 2000 only one third of the Roma children in Kosovo go toschool, and barely 2 percent are in a position to continue their educationafter primary school.

The Albanian majority in Kosovo is still intolerant towards otherethnic groups. Thus, Roma, Ashkali and Egyptians live in permanent eth-nic tension while crude forms of nepotism pervade. During the March 2004clashes, not only Serbs were attacked but also the Roma; more than 700houses were set alight.

Roma, Ashkali and Egyptians are represented in 16 municipal coun-cils. Nevertheless, the return of the refugees and the IDPs to Kosovo is ofparamount importance: after the conflict and the related emigration fromKosovo, the community was significantly drained by the loss of its profes-sional and intellectual elite.

Page 44: Faces of poverty, faces of hope

78 | Kosovo

Kosovo: Share of populationtheliving on less than $4.30 (PPP) per day

0

20

90

70

50

30

10

40

60

80

100

Income-based poverty rates Expenditure-based poverty rates

%

42

79

25

59

Majority population in close proximity to Roma2

Roma

Kosovo: Poverty gap

0

10

35

25

15

5

20

30

40

Income-based poverty line Expenditure-based poverty line

17

39

7

21

%

Majority population in close proximity to Roma Roma

The graph shows the depth ofpoverty: how poor are those belowthe poverty line? A lower poverty gapmeans that more people are closer tothe poverty line (with greater chancesof rising above it). A higher povertygap means that more people arecloser to the bottom with fewerchances to improve their condition(see the Glossary for more details).

Poverty

and unemployment

The graph outlines the share of thepopulation living below $4.30 (PPP)1

per day. ($4.30 is the poverty lineaccepted by the World Bank andUNDP for international comparisonsin developed economies). Per capitaincome is calculated using an OECDequivalence scale, which means thatper capita income and expendituresare not simply “totals divided by thenumber of household members”, butdivided by “an equalized number ofhousehold members” (for more detailssee the Glossary).

1 For an explanation of PPP (purchasing power

parity) please see the Glossary.2 Majority does NOT refer to the majority

population representative for the whole

country but rather it is a sample of the

majority living in close proximity to Roma (see

sections “General principles of the sample

design” and “Majority boosters” in the

“Introduction” chapter)

Page 45: Faces of poverty, faces of hope

79 | Kosovo

0

10

20

30

40

80

50

60

70

90

100

15 24– 25 54– 55>

72

84

67

55

37

47

Kosovo: ratemen and women

Unemploymentby major age groups ( )

%

Majority population in close proximity to Roma Roma

0

10

20

30

40

80

50

60

70

90

100

Kosovo: rate womenUnemployment by major age groups ( )

15 24– 25 54– 55>

81

99

7173

6055

%

Majority population in close proximity to Roma Roma

Unemployment

The graphs in this section illustratethe unemployed as a share of thelabour force. Following the definitionapplied in Labour Force Surveys“Labour force” is defined as theworking-age population (aged 15 andabove) excluding people who areretired, in school and/or involved withhousekeeping.

0

10

20

30

40

80

50

60

70

90

100

Kosovo: rate menUnemployment by major age groups ( )

15 24– 25 54– 55>

66

77

66

51

29

46

%

Majority population in close proximity to Roma Roma

Page 46: Faces of poverty, faces of hope

80 | Kosovo

Education

The graph shows children by age whoattend school as a share of those whoshould attend based on their age.The values are determined from theshare of “yes” answers to the question“Does the household member stillattend school or training?” when theperson concerned is of primary schoolage (7–15).

Kosovo: Enrollment in primary education

0

20

40

60

80

100

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15age

%98 10098100

70

76

54

64

75 74

60

53

36

9893

98100

88

Majority population in close proximity to Roma Roma

Kosovo: Share of pupils starting Grade 1 who reach Grade 5

0

20

40

60

80

100

Share of people aged 12 or above with at leastincomplete secondary education

Share of people aged 12 and abovewho spent more than 4 years in school

%

47

7

90

52

Majority population in close proximity to Roma Roma

Kosovo: Literacy rates by age groups

0

20

40

60

80

100

%

15–24 25–34 35–44 ≥45age

65

7672

53

98 9895

76

Majority population in close proximity to Roma Roma

The first dataset in the graph showsthe people who completed grade 5 asa share of those aged 12 (i.e. of thosewho should have completed it). Thesecond dataset shows the people whocompleted grade 5 as a share of allaged 12 and above. The differencebetween the two data sets indicatesthe incidence of repeaters (pupilsrepeating a school year).

The graph shows those who areliterate as a share of the populationaged 15 and above. The values arebased on the share of those who canread and write, broken into four agegroups: 15–24, 25–34, 35–44, 45 andabove. The survey question was “Canthe household member read andwrite”?

Page 47: Faces of poverty, faces of hope

81 | Kosovo

Kosovo: Ratios of girls to boys by education level

0,00

0,50

1,00

1,50

primary (7–15) secondary (16–19) tertiary (20>)

0,97

0,82

0,73

0,27

0,88

0,54

Majority population in close proximity to Roma Roma

Kosovo: Ratios of literate females to males by age groups

0,00

0,50

1,00

1,50

15–24 25–34 35–44 ≥45age

0,99 0,990,92

0,690,74

0,83

0,67

0,55

Majority population in close proximity to Roma Roma

The graph outlines the “yes” answersto the question “Can the householdmember read and write?” brokendown by sex and major age group.

Gender equality

and empowerment of women

The graph shows the distribution of“yes” answers to the question“Does the household member stillattend school or training?” brokendown by sex and age for the three“school-age groups”: primary (7–15years old), secondary (16–19) andtertiary (above 20).

Page 48: Faces of poverty, faces of hope

82 | Kosovo

Housing and living conditions

The two graphs show how muchliving space Roma and non-Romahousehold members use. The firstgraph is based on data derived fromthe question “How many rooms doesyour household have in the dwellingyou currently occupy?” The secondone is based on “How many squaremeters is your current dwelling?” Dataper capita in both are calculated usingthe total number of householdmembers.

Kosovo: Rooms per household member

1,00,2 0,6 0,80,40,0

0,49

0,72

Majority population in close proximity to Roma Roma

Kosovo: Square meters per household member

35305 15 2520100

14

21

Majority population in close proximity to Roma Roma

Kosovo the: Shares of population not having access to:

90800 50 70602010 4030

Essential drugs

Improvedsanitation

%

86

72

47

45

Majority population in close proximity to Roma Roma

The “Essential drugs” section of thegraph shows the share of householdsresponding “Yes” to the question“Were there any periods in the past 12months when your household couldnot afford to purchase medicinesprescribed to/needed by a member ofyour household?” “Improvedsanitation” shows the share ofhouseholds not having a toilet orbathroom inside the house.

Page 49: Faces of poverty, faces of hope

83 | Kosovo

Kosovo: Outstanding paymentsas a share of monthly household expenditures

5000 200 400300100

water

electricity

housing

%

61

64

229

59

291

102

Majority population in close proximity to Roma Roma

5000 200 400300100

water

electricity

housing

Kosovo:income

aymentsas a share of monthly household

Outstanding p

%

117

107

401

100

472

162

Majority population in close proximity to Roma Roma

The graph shows the outstandingmonthly payments for water,electricity and housing as a share ofmonthly household income.

The graph shows the outstandingmonthly payments for water,electricity and housing as a share ofmonthly household expenditures.

Page 50: Faces of poverty, faces of hope

84 | Kosovo

Kosovo: Access to modern communication

0

20

40

60

80

100

Personal computers in HH Internet access in HHTelephone lines orcellular subscribers in HH

%

83

63

1 0,33

15

Majority population in close proximity to Roma Roma

The first dataset in the graph showstelephone lines or cellular subscribersper 100 people. The values are basedon the number of “yes” answers to thequestion “Do you have in yourhousehold a telephone or a mobilephone in functioning order?” andrecalculated for a sample of 100people. Households having both atelephone and a mobile phone werecounted once. The second and thirdparts of the graph show the numberof personal computers in use per 100population and internet users per 100people. The values are based on thenumber of “yes” answers to thequestion “Do you have here in yourhousehold a computer/internetconnection in functioning order?” andrecalculated for a sample of 100people.

Page 51: Faces of poverty, faces of hope

43 | Macedonia

MacedoniaIn 2002, according to the last census, 2.66 percent or 53,879 of the 2,022,547citizens of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia were Roma. Butunofficial figures put the Macedonian Roma population at 135,490.

The Roma live in almost all regions of Macedonia. Most reside inthe central and peripheral parts of cities, and a very small number of Romalive in villages. For many reasons, the Roma tend to accept the identity ofother nations such as Turkey, Albania or Egypt. This phenomenon is re-gional (Balkan) in nature and is largely due to stereotypes and prejudicestowards the Roma.

Under the Constitution of the former Yugoslavia, the Roma werecategorized as ‘other minority’. After the Ohrid Agreement in 2001, theRoma received the status of ‘constitutive people’ in the Republic of Mac-edonia. Because of the complex multiethnic nature of Macedonia, thereare provisions in the country’s Constitution that list and guarantee rightsto the nation’s minorities. The Roma, too, are acknowledged as a nationalminority with all proceeding rights, freedoms, and protection from racialand religious discrimination (art. 8, art. 9, art. 20, art. 48, etc.).

In Macedonia, the Roma are not a homogenous group but a com-plex mixture of many groups. The most important are Arlie, Dzambazi andKovac. Most Roma are Muslims, a small number are Christians andJehovah’s Witnesses. Some of Macedonia’s Roma speak the Romany lan-guage as their first language. But in West Macedonia the Roma speak Al-banian, Turkish and Macedonian. In East Macedonia there are groups whospeak only Turkish and declare themselves Turkish.

Roma in Macedonia have their own political parties: the UnitedParty for Emancipation of Roma, the Party of the Union of Roma in Mac-edonia and the Democratic Progressive Party of Roma. These participatedin local elections with a varying success. There is one Roma representativein Parliament. In some places where the Roma are predominant, such asthe Shuto Orizari municipality, they have had positive experiences in localgovernment. Shuto Orizari, built after the 1963 earthquake, is the onlyRoma municipality in Europe, and the Roma there have participated inbuilding their own houses. Since 1990, Roma in Macedonia have had theirown television and radio programmes on national and private stations, aswell as their own print media.

Traditionally, Roma have worked as unskilled labourers: cleaning,black market sales, playing music. Due to economic crises in Macedoniaand transition-related factors (such as the restructuring and closure ofloss-making enterprises), more people are relying on social benefits.However, Roma are overrepresented among these recipients, reflectingthe fact that they are on the lowest end of the socio-economic develop-ment hierarchy.

In Macedonia there are cases of discrimination in the employmentprocess, in education, by the police, in access to basic infrastructures, andin terms of social advances. But the Republic of Macedonia is not a drasticexample in this regard, and the situation for the Roma, particularly regard-ing discrimination, is better than in many other countries in Central, East-ern and Southeastern Europe.

Page 52: Faces of poverty, faces of hope

44 | Macedonia

Macedonia: Share of populationtheliving on less than $4.30 (PPP) per day

0

20

50

30

10

40

60

Income-based poverty rates Expenditure-based poverty rates

%

14

52

10

33

Majority population in close proximity to Roma2

Roma

Macedonia: Poverty gap

0

10

25

15

05

20

30

Income-based poverty line Expenditure-based poverty line

7

23

5

11

%

Majority population in close proximity to Roma Roma

The graph shows the depth ofpoverty: how poor are those belowthe poverty line? A lower poverty gapmeans that more people are closer tothe poverty line (with greater chancesof rising above it). A higher povertygap means that more people arecloser to the bottom with fewerchances to improve their condition(see the Glossary for more details).

Poverty

and unemployment

The graph outlines the share of thepopulation living below $4.30 (PPP)1

per day. ($4.30 is the poverty lineaccepted by the World Bank andUNDP for international comparisonsin developed economies). Per capitaincome is calculated using an OECDequivalence scale, which means thatper capita income and expendituresare not simply “totals divided by thenumber of household members”, butdivided by “an equalized number ofhousehold members” (for more detailssee the Glossary).

1 For an explanation of PPP (purchasing power

parity) please see the Glossary.2 Majority does NOT refer to the majority

population representative for the whole

country but rather it is a sample of the

majority living in close proximity to Roma (see

sections “General principles of the sample

design” and “Majority boosters” in the

“Introduction” chapter)

Page 53: Faces of poverty, faces of hope

45 | Macedonia

0

10

20

30

40

50

100

60

70

90

80

15 24– 25 54– 55>

78 79

5153

3228

Macedonia: ratemen and women

Unemploymentby major age groups ( )

%

Majority population in close proximity to Roma Roma

0

10

20

30

40

50

100

60

70

90

80

Macedonia: rate womenUnemployment by major age groups ( )

15 24– 25 54– 55>

83

93

7370

41

35

%

Majority population in close proximity to Roma Roma

Unemployment

The graphs in this section illustratethe unemployed as a share of thelabour force. Following the definitionapplied in Labour Force Surveys“Labour force” is defined as theworking-age population (aged 15 andabove) excluding people who areretired, in school and/or involved withhousekeeping.

Macedonia: Literacy rates by age groups

0

20

40

60

80

100

%

15–24 25–34 35–44 ≥45age

9087

8378

100 100 10095

Majority population in close proximity to Roma Roma

Page 54: Faces of poverty, faces of hope

46 | Macedonia

Education

The graph shows children by age whoattend school as a share of those whoshould attend based on their age.The values are determined from theshare of “yes” answers to the question“Does the household member stillattend school or training?” when theperson concerned is of primary schoolage (7–15).

Macedonia: Enrollment in primary education

0

20

40

60

80

100

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15age

%100

8387

66

82

73

91

70

81

59

9295

100

Majority population in close proximity to Roma Roma

Macedonia: Share of pupils starting Grade 1 who reach Grade 5

0

20

40

60

80

100

Share of people aged 12 or above with at leastincomplete secondary education

Share of people aged 12 and abovewho spent more than 4 years in school

%

60

13

92

72

Majority population in close proximity to Roma Roma

Macedonia: Literacy rates by age groups

0

20

40

60

80

100

%

15–24 25–34 35–44 ≥45age

9087

8378

100 100 10095

Majority population in close proximity to Roma Roma

The first dataset in the graph showsthe people who completed grade 5 asa share of those aged 12 (i.e. of thosewho should have completed it). Thesecond dataset shows the people whocompleted grade 5 as a share of allaged 12 and above. The differencebetween the two data sets indicatesthe incidence of repeaters (pupilsrepeating a school year).

The graph shows those who areliterate as a share of the populationaged 15 and above. The values arebased on the share of those who canread and write, broken into four agegroups: 15–24, 25–34, 35–44, 45 andabove. The survey question was “Canthe household member read andwrite”?

Page 55: Faces of poverty, faces of hope

47 | Macedonia

Macedonia: Ratios of girls to boys by education level

0,00

0,50

1,00

1,50

primary (7–15) secondary (16–19) tertiary (20>)

1,01

0,87

0,13

0,51

1,011,08

Majority population in close proximity to Roma Roma

Macedonia: Ratios of literate females to males by age groups

0,00

0,50

1,00

1,50

15–24 25–34 35–44 ≥45age

1,00 1,00 0,990,930,94

0,79 0,79

0,69

Majority population in close proximity to Roma Roma

The graph outlines the “yes” answersto the question “Can the householdmember read and write?” brokendown by sex and major age group.

Gender equality

and empowerment of women

The graph shows the distribution of“yes” answers to the question“Does the household member stillattend school or training?” brokendown by sex and age for the three“school-age groups”: primary (7–15years old), secondary (16–19) andtertiary (above 20).

Page 56: Faces of poverty, faces of hope

48 | Macedonia

Housing and living conditions

The two graphs show how muchliving space Roma and non-Romahousehold members use. The firstgraph is based on data derived fromthe question “How many rooms doesyour household have in the dwellingyou currently occupy?” The secondone is based on “How many squaremeters is your current dwelling?” Dataper capita in both are calculated usingthe total number of householdmembers.

Macedonia: Rooms per household member

1,20,2 0,6 1,00,80,40,0

0,66

1,16

Majority population in close proximity to Roma Roma

Macedonia: Square meters per household member

35305 15 2520100

12

26

Majority population in close proximity to Roma Roma

Macedonia the: Shares of population not having access to:

90800 50 70602010 4030

Essential drugs

Secure housing

Improvedsanitation

Improvedwater source

%

79

36

59

1

42

5

12

0

Majority population in close proximity to Roma Roma

The “Essential drugs” section of the graphshows the share of households respond-ing “Yes” to the question “Were thereany periods in the past 12 monthswhen your household could not affordto purchase medicines prescribed to/needed by a member of your house-hold?” “Secure housing” shows theshare of those living in “ruined houses”or “slums”. “Improved sanitation” showsthe share of households not having atoilet or bathroom inside the house.“Improved water source” shows theshare of the population living in house-holds not having piped water insidethe dwelling or in the garden/yard.

Page 57: Faces of poverty, faces of hope

49 | Macedonia

Macedonia: Outstanding paymentsas a share of monthly household expenditures

3500300025 000 1000 200015 005 00

water

electricity

housing

%

484

197

1214

917

2016

3420

Majority population in close proximity to Roma Roma

800600 7005000 200 400300100

water

electricity

housing

Macedonia:income

aymentsas a share of monthly household

Outstanding p

%

142

66

141

161

767

440

Majority population in close proximity to Roma Roma

The graph shows the outstandingmonthly payments for water,electricity and housing as a share ofmonthly household income.

The graph shows the outstandingmonthly payments for water,electricity and housing as a share ofmonthly household expenditures.

Page 58: Faces of poverty, faces of hope

50 | Macedonia

Macedonia: Access to modern communication

0

20

40

60

80

100

Personal computers in HH Internet access in HHTelephone lines orcellular subscribers in HH

%

83

63

1 0,33

15

Majority population in close proximity to Roma Roma

The first dataset in the graph showstelephone lines or cellular subscribersper 100 people. The values are basedon the number of “yes” answers to thequestion “Do you have in yourhousehold a telephone or a mobilephone in functioning order?” andrecalculated for a sample of 100people. Households having both atelephone and a mobile phone werecounted once. The second and thirdparts of the graph show the numberof personal computers in use per 100population and internet users per 100people. The values are based on thenumber of “yes” answers to thequestion “Do you have here in yourhousehold a computer/internetconnection in functioning order?” andrecalculated for a sample of 100people.

Page 59: Faces of poverty, faces of hope

68 | Montenegro

Montenegro

Montenegro conducted its most recent census in November 2003. At thattime there were 2,875 Roma in Montenegro, a slight decrease comparedto the 1991 census when 3,282 people declared their identity as Roma.These official estimates, however, vastly underestimate the number ofRoma. According to experts’ estimates, the real number of Roma inMontenegro is some 20,000 people, which makes them the fourth largestminority in the Republic after Serbs, Muslims/Bosniaks and Albanians. Themajority (68.7 percent) of Roma live in Central Montenegro, 24.8 percenthave settled along the coast and 6.5 percent live in the north of the Re-public. Most live in towns (88.6 percent); only 11.4 percent reside in villages.Twelve percent of Roma belong to the Orthodox religion, and 82 percentare Muslim. Over 71 percent of the Roma in Montenegro are under 30.

During the Kosovo crisis, about 43,000 Roma refugees and inter-nally displaced persons came to Montenegro, and in 2000, 7,000 Romasettled there permanently. Only 7 percent consider a possible return totheir native Kosovo, 42 percent have decided to remain in Montenegro,and 51 percent intend to pursue their future, legally or illegally, in otherEuropean countries. This Roma exodus is the most significant one, because,for example, about 1,000 Roma went from Bosnia to Montenegro whilenot more than 15 households moved from Croatia.

The basic Roma rights in Montenegro are laid out in the Republic’s1992 Constitution. About 66 percent of Roma declare themselves Roma,24 percent declare themselves Egyptians and some smaller numbers asMuslims, Montenegrins, Croats, Albanians and nationals of the former Yu-goslav Republic. However, significant numbers of Roma declare themselvesMontenegrins, and this is why the shares of the internal divisions withinthe Roma community may be different.

There are no regular broadcasts in the Roma language either onradio or TV, nor do they have print media. Sixty-three percent have noeducation, and 21 percent have not completed primary education. NGOsclaim that half of the 20,000 Roma living in Montenegro do not have anyidentity documents (although most of them have medical documents).This complicates the attempts of the internally displaced Roma to inte-grate into Montenegrin society or to find a permanent job. Language bar-riers additionally complicate the issue (proper education (most of IDPs fromKosovo speak Albanian). Most Roma households rely on assistance fromhumanitarian organizations or on temporary employment without anycontract, usually in the grey economy.

Page 60: Faces of poverty, faces of hope

69 | Montenegro

Montenegro: Share of populationtheliving on less than $4.30 (PPP) per day

0

20

30

10

40

50

Income-based poverty rates Expenditure-based poverty rates

%

6

40

25

40

Majority population in close proximity to Roma2

Roma

Montenegro: Poverty gap

0

10

25

15

5

20

30

Income-based poverty line Expenditure-based poverty line

4

25

22

25

%

Majority population in close proximity to Roma Roma

The graph shows the depth ofpoverty: how poor are those belowthe poverty line? A lower poverty gapmeans that more people are closer tothe poverty line (with greater chancesof rising above it). A higher povertygap means that more people arecloser to the bottom with fewerchances to improve their condition(see the Glossary for more details).

Poverty

and unemployment

The graph outlines the share of thepopulation living below $4.30 (PPP)1

per day. ($4.30 is the poverty lineaccepted by the World Bank andUNDP for international comparisonsin developed economies). Per capitaincome is calculated using an OECDequivalence scale, which means thatper capita income and expendituresare not simply “totals divided by thenumber of household members”, butdivided by “an equalized number ofhousehold members” (for more detailssee the Glossary).

1 For an explanation of PPP (purchasing power

parity) please see the Glossary.2 Majority does NOT refer to the majority

population representative for the whole

country but rather it is a sample of the

majority living in close proximity to Roma (see

sections “General principles of the sample

design” and “Majority boosters” in the

“Introduction” chapter)

Page 61: Faces of poverty, faces of hope

70 | Montenegro

0

10

20

30

40

50

70

60

15 24– 25 54– 55>

53

67

59

41

18

5

Montenegro: ratemen and women

Unemploymentby major age groups ( )

%

Majority population in close proximity to Roma Roma

Montenegro: rate womenUnemployment by major age groups ( )

0

10

20

30

40

50

90

80

60

70

15 24– 25 54– 55>

52

81

6061

22

14

%

Majority population in close proximity to Roma Roma

Unemployment

The graphs in this section illustratethe unemployed as a share of thelabour force. Following the definitionapplied in Labour Force Surveys“Labour force” is defined as theworking-age population (aged 15 andabove) excluding people who areretired, in school and/or involved withhousekeeping.

Montenegro: rate menUnemployment by major age groups ( )

0

10

20

30

40

50

70

60

15 24– 25 54– 55>

54

59 58

36

15

0

%

Majority population in close proximity to Roma Roma

Page 62: Faces of poverty, faces of hope

71 | Montenegro

Education

The graph shows children by age whoattend school as a share of those whoshould attend based on their age.The values are determined from theshare of “yes” answers to the question“Does the household member stillattend school or training?” when theperson concerned is of primary schoolage (7–15).

Montenegro: Enrollment in primary education

0

20

40

60

80

100

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15age

%

56

3944

20

6060

50

40

29

8

83

90

67

83

100

90

100 100

83

Majority population in close proximity to Roma Roma

Montenegro: Share of pupils starting Grade 1 who reach Grade 5

0

20

40

60

80

100

Share of people aged 12 or above with at leastincomplete secondary education

Share of people aged 12 and abovewho spent more than 4 years in school

%

83

7

98

34

Majority population in close proximity to Roma Roma

Montenegro: Literacy rates by age groups

0,00

20,00

40,00

60,00

80,00

100,00

%

15–24 25–34 35–44 ≥45age

73

61

52

45

99

Majority population in close proximity to Roma Roma

The first dataset in the graph showsthe people who completed grade 5 asa share of those aged 12 (i.e. of thosewho should have completed it). Thesecond dataset shows the people whocompleted grade 5 as a share of allaged 12 and above. The differencebetween the two data sets indicatesthe incidence of repeaters (pupilsrepeating a school year).

The graph shows those who areliterate as a share of the populationaged 15 and above. The values arebased on the share of those who canread and write, broken into four agegroups: 15–24, 25–34, 35–44, 45 andabove. The survey question was “Canthe household member read andwrite”?

Page 63: Faces of poverty, faces of hope

72 | Montenegro

Montenegro: Ratios of girls to boys by education level

0,00

1,00

2,00

7,00

3,00

4,00

5,00

6,00

primary (7–15) secondary (16–19) tertiary (20>)

0,90 0,950,68

6,78

0,950,70

Majority population in close proximity to Roma Roma

Montenegro: Ratios of literate females to males by age groups

0,00

0,50

1,00

1,50

15–24 25–34 35–44 ≥45age

1,01 1,020,98 0,98

1,13

0,83

0,59 0,56

Majority population in close proximity to Roma Roma

The graph outlines the “yes” answersto the question “Can the householdmember read and write?” brokendown by sex and major age group.

Gender equality

and empowerment of women

The graph shows the distribution of“yes” answers to the question“Does the household member stillattend school or training?” brokendown by sex and age for the three“school-age groups”: primary (7–15years old), secondary (16–19) andtertiary (above 20).

Page 64: Faces of poverty, faces of hope

73 | Montenegro

Housing and living conditions

The two graphs show how muchliving space Roma and non-Romahousehold members use. The firstgraph is based on data derived fromthe question “How many rooms doesyour household have in the dwellingyou currently occupy?” The secondone is based on “How many squaremeters is your current dwelling?” Dataper capita in both are calculated usingthe total number of householdmembers.

Montenegro: Rooms per household member

1,20,2 0,6 1,00,80,40,0

0,84

1,04

Majority population in close proximity to Roma Roma

Montenegro: Square meters per household member

35305 15 2520100

14

26

Majority population in close proximity to Roma Roma

Montenegro the: Shares of population not having access to:

90800 50 70602010 4030

Essential drugs

Secure housing

Improvedsanitation

Improvedwater source

%

64

11

68

18

9

2

2

0

Majority population in close proximity to Roma Roma

The “Essential drugs” section of the graphshows the share of households respond-ing “Yes” to the question “Were thereany periods in the past 12 monthswhen your household could not affordto purchase medicines prescribed to/needed by a member of your house-hold?” “Secure housing” shows theshare of those living in “ruined houses”or “slums”. “Improved sanitation” showsthe share of households not having atoilet or bathroom inside the house.“Improved water source” shows theshare of the population living in house-holds not having piped water insidethe dwelling or in the garden/yard.

Page 65: Faces of poverty, faces of hope

74 | Montenegro

Montenegro: Outstanding paymentsas a share of monthly household expenditures

3503002500 100 20015050

water

electricity

housing

%

60

23

37

13

213

85

Majority population in close proximity to Roma Roma

3503002500 100 20015050

water

electricity

housing

Montenegro:income

aymentsas a share of monthly household

Outstanding p

%

73

23

52

19

306

150

Majority population in close proximity to Roma Roma

The graph shows the outstandingmonthly payments for water,electricity and housing as a share ofmonthly household income.

The graph shows the outstandingmonthly payments for water,electricity and housing as a share ofmonthly household expenditures.

Page 66: Faces of poverty, faces of hope

75 | Montenegro

64

3 2

3335

Montenegro: Access to modern communication

0

20

40

60

80

100

Personal computers in HH Internet access in HHTelephone lines orcellular subscribers in HH

%

96

Majority population in close proximity to Roma Roma

The first dataset in the graph showstelephone lines or cellular subscribersper 100 people. The values are basedon the number of “yes” answers to thequestion “Do you have in yourhousehold a telephone or a mobilephone in functioning order?” andrecalculated for a sample of 100people. Households having both atelephone and a mobile phone werecounted once. The second and thirdparts of the graph show the numberof personal computers in use per 100population and internet users per 100people. The values are based on thenumber of “yes” answers to thequestion “Do you have here in yourhousehold a computer/internetconnection in functioning order?” andrecalculated for a sample of 100people.

Page 67: Faces of poverty, faces of hope

51 | Romania

RomaniaAccording to the 2002 census, in Romania there are 535,140 Roma,amounting to 2.5 percent of the total population. Experts presume thereis an extremely high number of Roma who officially associate themselveswith other ethnic groups. Therefore they estimate the real Roma popula-tion to number between 1.8 and 2.2 million. This means Romania has thelargest Roma minority in Europe. About 45 percent of the Romanian Romalive in villages, the rest inhabit urban areas, often residing in dilapidatedsegregated neighborhoods.

Researchers estimate that the Roma’s social, health and educationalstatus in Romania is the most complicated and even alarming in someaspects: If at the end of the 1990s about 30 percent of the Romanian popu-lation was living under the poverty line, about 68 percent of the Roma areliving below $4.30 (PPP) per day. The infant mortality coefficient amongchildren aged 0 to 4 is four times higher than the average for the countryand almost twice the death rate among Roma children of the same ageliving in countries like the Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Macedonia, Hungary,etc. The percentage of Roma who have no running water and sewerage intheir houses is the highest (about 68 percent). The number of Roma house-holds that do not have a separate bed for each family member nor a re-frigerator, washing machine, cooker, TV, etc., is from two to four timeshigher as compared to the other countries in the survey. The number ofschool dropouts is the highest in this country due to poverty or the labourcommitments of households. Taking the average values, we can say thatthe portion of functionally illiterate youths exceeds 32 percent by the timethey enter the labour market.

One of the biggest problems in Romania is that a great number ofRoma lack personal and identity documents. They do not have birth cer-tificates, identity cards or marriage certificates. This has prevented themfrom receiving social, municipal and health services. The lack of addressregistration and identity documents excludes, in fact, the Roma from Ro-manian social and health services.

Since April 2001, the Romanian Government has been implement-ing a ‘Strategy for improving the situation of the Roma’. The strategy (bothits development and implementation) is a promising example of inclusiveapproaches that have received NGO and Roma support.

Page 68: Faces of poverty, faces of hope

52 | Romania

Romania: Share of populationtheliving on less than $4.30 (PPP) per day

0

20

70

50

30

10

40

60

80

Income-based poverty rates Expenditure-based poverty rates

%

22

69

26

67

Majority population in close proximity to Roma2

Roma

Romania: Poverty gap

0

10

35

25

15

5

20

30

40

Income-based poverty line Expenditure-based poverty line

7

28

7

24

%

Majority population in close proximity to Roma Roma

The graph shows the depth ofpoverty: how poor are those belowthe poverty line? A lower poverty gapmeans that more people are closer tothe poverty line (with greater chancesof rising above it). A higher povertygap means that more people arecloser to the bottom with fewerchances to improve their condition(see the Glossary for more details).

Poverty

and unemployment

The graph outlines the share of thepopulation living below $4.30 (PPP)1

per day. ($4.30 is the poverty lineaccepted by the World Bank andUNDP for international comparisonsin developed economies). Per capitaincome is calculated using an OECDequivalence scale, which means thatper capita income and expendituresare not simply “totals divided by thenumber of household members”, butdivided by “an equalized number ofhousehold members” (for more detailssee the Glossary).

1 For an explanation of PPP (purchasing power

parity) please see the Glossary.2 Majority does NOT refer to the majority

population representative for the whole

country but rather it is a sample of the

majority living in close proximity to Roma (see

sections “General principles of the sample

design” and “Majority boosters” in the

“Introduction” chapter)

Page 69: Faces of poverty, faces of hope

53 | Romania

0

10

20

30

40

50

15 24– 25 54– 55>

33

46

34

25

8

12

Romania: ratemen and women

Unemploymentby major age groups ( )

%

Majority population in close proximity to Roma Roma

Romania: rate womenUnemployment by major age groups ( )

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

15 24– 25 54– 55>

29

5053

35

9

33

%

Majority population in close proximity to Roma Roma

Unemployment

The graphs in this section illustratethe unemployed as a share of thelabour force. Following the definitionapplied in Labour Force Surveys“Labour force” is defined as theworking-age population (aged 15 andabove) excluding people who areretired, in school and/or involved withhousekeeping.

Romania: rate menUnemployment by major age groups ( )

0

10

20

30

40

50

15 24– 25 54– 55>

34

42

2020

8

3

%

Majority population in close proximity to Roma Roma

Page 70: Faces of poverty, faces of hope

54 | Romania

Education

The graph shows children by age whoattend school as a share of those whoshould attend based on their age.The values are determined from theshare of “yes” answers to the question“Does the household member stillattend school or training?” when theperson concerned is of primary schoolage (7–15).

Romania: Enrollment in primary education

0

20

40

60

80

100

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15age

%

95

83

93

59

8185

95

6672

55

92

10096

100

88

9691

88

Majority population in close proximity to Roma Roma

Romania: Share of pupils starting Grade 1 who reach Grade 5

0

20

40

60

80

100

Share of people aged 12 or above with at leastincomplete secondary education

Share of people aged 12 and abovewho spent more than 4 years in school

%

63

13

83

46

Majority population in close proximity to Roma Roma

Romania: Literacy rates by age groups

0

20

40

60

80

100

%

15–24 25–34 35–44 ≥45age

72 7075

63

95 97 97 95

Majority population in close proximity to Roma Roma

The first dataset in the graph showsthe people who completed grade 5 asa share of those aged 12 (i.e. of thosewho should have completed it). Thesecond dataset shows the people whocompleted grade 5 as a share of allaged 12 and above. The differencebetween the two data sets indicatesthe incidence of repeaters (pupilsrepeating a school year).

The graph shows those who areliterate as a share of the populationaged 15 and above. The values arebased on the share of those who canread and write, broken into four agegroups: 15–24, 25–34, 35–44, 45 andabove. The survey question was “Canthe household member read andwrite”?

Page 71: Faces of poverty, faces of hope

55 | Romania

Romania: Ratios of girls to boys by education level

0,00

0,50

1,00

1,50

primary (7–15) secondary (16–19) tertiary (20>)

1,000,94 0,92

0,72

1,06

0,72

Majority population in close proximity to Roma Roma

Romania: Ratios of literate females to males by age groups

0,00

0,50

1,00

1,50

15–24 25–34 35–44 ≥45age

0,94 0,97 1,000,960,96

0,91 0,94

0,75

Majority population in close proximity to Roma Roma

The graph outlines the “yes” answersto the question “Can the householdmember read and write?” brokendown by sex and major age group.

Gender equality

and empowerment of women

The graph shows the distribution of“yes” answers to the question“Does the household member stillattend school or training?” brokendown by sex and age for the three“school-age groups”: primary (7–15years old), secondary (16–19) andtertiary (above 20).

Page 72: Faces of poverty, faces of hope

56 | Romania

Housing and living conditions

The two graphs show how muchliving space Roma and non-Romahousehold members use. The firstgraph is based on data derived fromthe question “How many rooms doesyour household have in the dwellingyou currently occupy?” The secondone is based on “How many squaremeters is your current dwelling?” Dataper capita in both are calculated usingthe total number of householdmembers.

Romania: Rooms per household member

1,61,20,2 0,6 1,0 1,40,80,40,0

0,68

1,36

Majority population in close proximity to Roma Roma

Romania: Square meters per household member

35305 15 2520100

14

32

Majority population in close proximity to Roma Roma

Romania the: Shares of population not having access to:

90800 50 70602010 4030

Essential drugs

Secure housing

Improvedsanitation

Improvedwater source

%

77

29

88

68

42

4

53

33

Majority population in close proximity to Roma Roma

The “Essential drugs” section of the graphshows the share of households respond-ing “Yes” to the question “Were thereany periods in the past 12 monthswhen your household could not affordto purchase medicines prescribed to/needed by a member of your house-hold?” “Secure housing” shows theshare of those living in “ruined houses”or “slums”. “Improved sanitation” showsthe share of households not having atoilet or bathroom inside the house.“Improved water source” shows theshare of the population living in house-holds not having piped water insidethe dwelling or in the garden/yard.

Page 73: Faces of poverty, faces of hope

57 | Romania

Romania: aymentsas a share of monthly household expenditures

Outstanding p

200160 180120 1401000 40 806020

water

electricity

housing

%

170

60

34

38

32

61

Majority population in close proximity to Roma Roma

200160 180120 1401000 40 806020

water

electricity

housing

Romania:income

aymentsas a share of monthly household

Outstanding p

%

164

55

33

37

35

55

Majority population in close proximity to Roma Roma

The graph shows the outstandingmonthly payments for water,electricity and housing as a share ofmonthly household income.

The graph shows the outstandingmonthly payments for water,electricity and housing as a share ofmonthly household expenditures.

Page 74: Faces of poverty, faces of hope

58 | Romania

Romania: Access to modern communication

0

20

40

60

80

100

Personal computers in HH Internet access in HHTelephone lines orcellular subscribers in HH

%

66

20

1 0,24

16

Majority population in close proximity to Roma Roma

The first dataset in the graph showstelephone lines or cellular subscribersper 100 people. The values are basedon the number of “yes” answers to thequestion “Do you have in yourhousehold a telephone or a mobilephone in functioning order?” andrecalculated for a sample of 100people. Households having both atelephone and a mobile phone werecounted once. The second and thirdparts of the graph show the numberof personal computers in use per 100population and internet users per 100people. The values are based on thenumber of “yes” answers to thequestion “Do you have here in yourhousehold a computer/internetconnection in functioning order?” andrecalculated for a sample of 100people.

Page 75: Faces of poverty, faces of hope

59 | Serbia and Montenegro

Serbia and MontenegroIn Serbia and Montenegro, many good researchers on Roma issues aretrying to identify and classify the Roma’s most pressing problems. Anumber of human rights and humanitarian organizations exist, and theyare attempting to exert influence on government policies and to at leastpartially assist the Roma in their survival and education. A specialized statestructure was established in Serbia and Montenegro called the Secretariatfor Roma National Strategy within the Union Ministry for Human and Mi-nority Rights established with the support of the United Nations HighCommissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and the Organization for Securityand Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). In 2002, it developed a strategy forRoma integration, a strategy for the education of the Roma in the Repub-lic of Serbia, and a strategy for combating Roma poverty in Serbia andMontenegro. For the Decade of Roma Inclusion two separate NationalAction Plans were elaborated—for Serbia and for Montenegro.

In Serbia and Montenegro, the Roma face a double burden. On theone hand, they are a marginalized group. On the other hand, many areinternally displaced persons and refugees. The situation is particularly dif-ficult for Roma women, who have very few rights and considerable familyobligations, many which start at a young age. According to NGOs, up to90 percent of Roma women get married before reaching the age of 16,and up to 80 percent of marriages are arranged through intermediaries.

In the case of Serbia and Montenegro, the current survey was ex-panded to include three representative samples (for Serbia, Montenegroand Kosovo), producing three different data sets. This was done in an ef-fort to reflect more adequately the development challenges without mak-ing a statement on the political status of the different entities. In the pub-lication the three data sets are presented separately.

Page 76: Faces of poverty, faces of hope

60 | Serbia

Serbia

Counting the Roma population in Serbia and Montenegro has turned intoa most complicated task due to the internal displacement and migrationof thousands of Roma after the disintegration of Yugoslavia and the warsthat followed. According to the 1991 census, the number of Roma in Ser-bia and Montenegro was 143,519 people. According to the census under-taken in Serbia excluding Kosovo in March 2002, the number of Roma liv-ing in Serbia (excluding Kosovo) was 108,193 (or 1.44% of the total popu-lation). Scholars claim that the Roma who associate themselves with otherethnic groups for the purposes of national censuses could amount to about300,000 people in Serbia. One must add to this figure about 100,000 to120,000 Roma, mostly internally displaced from Kosovo, and a negligiblenumber of refugees from Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia. The latestresearch shows that 46,238 officially registered, internally displaced Roma,have settled in areas already inhabited by local Roma. Specialists thinkthat at least 70,000 more internally displaced Roma have settled after 1999in these areas without registration.

Another issue related to post-conflict population movement is re-settling Roma returnees from Western Europe. These are people who es-caped armed conflict and are now expected to return (mostly to Serbia)even though they face problems with housing and access to basic socialservices. It is a concern regularly highlighted by some of the representa-tives of the international community in Serbia (i.e. UNHCR, OSCE etc). Theexact number of returnees is not available, but the issue is putting increas-ing pressure on the relevant institutions—in part because of the unclearmagnitude of the problem and the lack of data (including identity regis-tration).

Statistics are unable to determine the average life expectancy inthese ghettoes, nor can they define the infant mortality coefficient as com-pared to the country average. Illiteracy exceeds 35 percent, and the un-employed are all over the country. Serbian social scientists have introduceda new term in order to situate (find the right social place for) the Romacommunity. They call them an ethno-class, thus concluding that there isno other ethnic group in Europe that, in mass numbers, has been deprivedof economic, political and cultural rights, their chances of survival reducedto the minimum.

Their excluded condition makes it difficult for the government tocarry out integration policies and requires huge financial resources to ad-dress their needs. Some 60 percent percent of the Roma are living at orbelow the absolute poverty level defined as $4.30 PPP, although statisticsmay not always capture the whole picture—particularly the high pres-ence of Roma in the informal sector (such as selling at market places) andwithin seasonal and occasional occupations. The accumulations of localand internally displaced Roma in towns and outlying ghettoes are facingthe threat of rapidly spreading epidemics.

The National Action Plan for Serbia developed in 2004 covers fourareas: education, health, housing and employment. Additional action plansfor Serbia covering other areas (i.e. media, internally displaced persons,gender, discrimination, culture, social protection etc.) are being developedand should be finalized by March 2005. The next step is to implement thesepolicies.

Page 77: Faces of poverty, faces of hope

61 | Serbia

Serbia: Share of populationtheliving on less than $4.30 (PPP) per day

0

20

50

30

10

40

60

70

Income-based poverty rates Expenditure-based poverty rates

%

10

61

13

63

Majority population in close proximity to Roma2

Roma

Serbia: Poverty gap

0

10

35

25

15

5

20

30

40

Income-based poverty line Expenditure-based poverty line

5

33

8

36

%

Majority population in close proximity to Roma Roma

The graph shows the depth ofpoverty: how poor are those belowthe poverty line? A lower poverty gapmeans that more people are closer tothe poverty line (with greater chancesof rising above it). A higher povertygap means that more people arecloser to the bottom with fewerchances to improve their condition(see the Glossary for more details).

Poverty

and unemployment

The graph outlines the share of thepopulation living below $4.30 (PPP)1

per day. ($4.30 is the poverty lineaccepted by the World Bank andUNDP for international comparisonsin developed economies). Per capitaincome is calculated using an OECDequivalence scale, which means thatper capita income and expendituresare not simply “totals divided by thenumber of household members”, butdivided by “an equalized number ofhousehold members” (for more detailssee the Glossary).

1 For an explanation of PPP (purchasing power

parity) please see the Glossary.2 Majority does NOT refer to the majority

population representative for the whole

country but rather it is a sample of the

majority living in close proximity to Roma (see

sections “General principles of the sample

design” and “Majority boosters” in the

“Introduction” chapter)

Page 78: Faces of poverty, faces of hope

62 | Serbia

0

10

20

30

40

50

80

60

70

15 24– 25 54– 55>

36

68

57

36

13 13

Serbia: ratemen and women

Unemploymentby major age groups ( )

%

Majority population in close proximity to Roma Roma

Serbia: rate womenUnemployment by major age groups ( )

0

10

20

30

40

50

100

70

80

90

60

15 24– 25 54– 55>

45

82

72

63

18

6

%

Majority population in close proximity to Roma Roma

Unemployment

The graphs in this section illustratethe unemployed as a share of thelabour force. Following the definitionapplied in Labour Force Surveys“Labour force” is defined as theworking-age population (aged 15 andabove) excluding people who areretired, in school and/or involved withhousekeeping.

Serbia: rate menUnemployment by major age groups ( )

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

15 24– 25 54– 55>

31

56

51

21

8

17

%

Majority population in close proximity to Roma Roma

Page 79: Faces of poverty, faces of hope

63 | Serbia

Education

The graph shows children by age whoattend school as a share of those whoshould attend based on their age.The values are determined from theshare of “yes” answers to the question“Does the household member stillattend school or training?” when theperson concerned is of primary schoolage (7–15).

Serbia: Enrollment in primary education

0

20

40

60

80

100

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15age

%

89

69

88

65

888286

68

76

34

100

86

93

77

92 92

Majority population in close proximity to Roma Roma

Serbia: Share of pupils starting Grade 1 who reach Grade 5

0

20

40

60

80

100

Share of people aged 12 or above with at leastincomplete secondary education

Share of people aged 12 and abovewho spent more than 4 years in school

%

80

19

93

64

Majority population in close proximity to Roma Roma

Serbia: Literacy rates by age groups

0

20

40

60

80

100

%

15–24 25–34 35–44 ≥45age

9095

87

77

9799 98 98

Majority population in close proximity to Roma Roma

The first dataset in the graph showsthe people who completed grade 5 asa share of those aged 12 (i.e. of thosewho should have completed it). Thesecond dataset shows the people whocompleted grade 5 as a share of allaged 12 and above. The differencebetween the two data sets indicatesthe incidence of repeaters (pupilsrepeating a school year).

The graph shows those who areliterate as a share of the populationaged 15 and above. The values arebased on the share of those who canread and write, broken into four agegroups: 15–24, 25–34, 35–44, 45 andabove. The survey question was “Canthe household member read andwrite”?

Page 80: Faces of poverty, faces of hope

64 | Serbia

Serbia: Ratios of girls to boys by education level

0,00

0,50

1,00

2 0, 0

1,50

primary (7–15) secondary (16–19) tertiary (20>)

1,040,99

1,75

0,62

0,94

1,22

Majority population in close proximity to Roma Roma

0,00

0,50

1,00

2 0, 0

1,50

Serbia: Ratios of literate females to males by age groups

15–24 25–34 35–44 ≥45age

0,99 0,99 0,99 0,990,97 0,930,84

0,79

Majority population in close proximity to Roma Roma

The graph outlines the “yes” answersto the question “Can the householdmember read and write?” brokendown by sex and major age group.

Gender equality

and empowerment of women

The graph shows the distribution of“yes” answers to the question“Does the household member stillattend school or training?” brokendown by sex and age for the three“school-age groups”: primary (7–15years old), secondary (16–19) andtertiary (above 20).

Page 81: Faces of poverty, faces of hope

65 | Serbia

Housing and living conditions

The two graphs show how muchliving space Roma and non-Romahousehold members use. The firstgraph is based on data derived fromthe question “How many rooms doesyour household have in the dwellingyou currently occupy?” The secondone is based on “How many squaremeters is your current dwelling?” Dataper capita in both are calculated usingthe total number of householdmembers.

Serbia: Rooms per household member

1,20,2 0,6 1,00,80,40,0

0,77

1,09

Majority population in close proximity to Roma Roma

Serbia: Square meters per household member

355 15 302520100

15

26

Majority population in close proximity to Roma Roma

Serbia the: Shares of population not having access to:

90800 50 70602010 4030

Essential drugs

Secure housing

Improvedsanitation

Improvedwater source

%

60

50

50

8

22

5

6

1

Majority population in close proximity to Roma Roma

The “Essential drugs” section of the graphshows the share of households respond-ing “Yes” to the question “Were thereany periods in the past 12 monthswhen your household could not affordto purchase medicines prescribed to/needed by a member of your house-hold?” “Secure housing” shows theshare of those living in “ruined houses”or “slums”. “Improved sanitation” showsthe share of households not having atoilet or bathroom inside the house.“Improved water source” shows theshare of the population living in house-holds not having piped water insidethe dwelling or in the garden/yard.

Page 82: Faces of poverty, faces of hope

66 | Serbia

Serbia: Outstanding paymentsas a share of monthly household expenditures

6005000 200 400300100

water

electricity

housing

%

113

20

84

24

478

98

Majority population in close proximity to Roma Roma

Serbia: aymentsas a share of monthly household expenditures

Outstanding p

6005000 200 400300100

water

electricity

housing

%

171

40

126

31

524

131

Majority population in close proximity to Roma Roma

The graph shows the outstandingmonthly payments for water,electricity and housing as a share ofmonthly household income.

The graph shows the outstandingmonthly payments for water,electricity and housing as a share ofmonthly household expenditures.

Page 83: Faces of poverty, faces of hope

67 | Serbia

53

62

29

38

Serbia: Access to modern communication

0

20

40

60

80

100

Personal computers in HH Internet access in HHTelephone lines orcellular subscribers in HH

%

97

Majority population in close proximity to Roma Roma

The first dataset in the graph showstelephone lines or cellular subscribersper 100 people. The values are basedon the number of “yes” answers to thequestion “Do you have in yourhousehold a telephone or a mobilephone in functioning order?” andrecalculated for a sample of 100people. Households having both atelephone and a mobile phone werecounted once. The second and thirdparts of the graph show the numberof personal computers in use per 100population and internet users per 100people. The values are based on thenumber of “yes” answers to thequestion “Do you have here in yourhousehold a computer/internetconnection in functioning order?” andrecalculated for a sample of 100people.

Page 84: Faces of poverty, faces of hope

85 | Glossary

Glossary

Equivalised Household Income (OECD equivalence scale)

This refers to the adjustment coefficient used to equate households of different size and composition, so that percapita income and expenditure comparisons are relevant. This adjustment is based on the assumption that certainhousehold expenditures are independent of the number of household members. OECD equivalence scales assignthe coefficient 1 to the first household member, 0.5 to the second household member, and 0.3 to a child when calcu-lating per capita household income. Thus, applying equivalence scales to poverty analysis, a three-member house-hold with one child earning a total of €1200 would be treated as having per capita household income = 1200/(1+0.5+0.3)= €666.7 (and not €400 as would be derived from an unweighted average).

Human Development Index (HDI)

The HDI is a composite index designed to complement the narrow income-based measure of poverty. The indexconsists of three components (health, education and income) that aim to capture a broader field of human develop-ment. The three components cover three essential choices: to live a long and healthy life, to acquire knowledge andto have access to resources ensuring a decent standard of living.

Refugees and Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs)

Refugees are people who have left their country of origin because of the threat of persecution for religious, political,racial or other reasons. Internally displaced persons are those who have lost their home and have moved to anotherpart of their country because of persecution or armed conflict.

Labour Force/Working Age Population

The labour force is defined as those of working-age who are seeking employment or are already employed. Theworking-age population is defined as the population aged 15 and above and includes people who are disabled,retired, in school or involved in housekeeping. Since these groups are not seeking employment, they are excludedfrom the labour force but remain part of the working-age population.

Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)

The UN Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) originate from the Millennium Declaration signed by 189 countries,including 147 Heads of State, and adopted at the Millennium Summit at UN Headquarters, New York in September2000. The eight UN Millennium Development Goals are intended to help governments take action to improve thecondition of poor and marginalized groups in the areas of poverty, education, gender, health and the environment.

Page 85: Faces of poverty, faces of hope

86 | Glossary

Non-Governmental Organisation (NGO)

The term NGO refers to any non-profit organization that is independent of the government. NGOs are typically or-ganizations that depend, fully or in part, on charitable donations and voluntary service. The World Bank defines NGOsas, ‘private organizations that relieve suffering, promote the interests of the poor, protect the environment, providebasic social services or undertake community development’ (Operational Directive 14.70). Although the NGO sectorhas become increasingly professionalized over the last two decades, principles of altruism and voluntarism remainkey objectives.

Poverty Gap

A measure to show the average distance of persons or households below a poverty line. It is defined as the averagedistance of individuals (or households) in poverty from the poverty line (however defined), as a percentage of thepoverty line. The poverty line is derived from the income or expenditures of households.

Poverty Rate

The percentage of the population with daily incomes or expenditures below an established threshold.

Purchasing Power Parity Expressed in US Dollars (PPP$)

PPP$ is a way of expressing the value of GDP or income from different countries (usually with different price struc-tures) through the use of a common denominator allowing international comparisons. The need for such a commondenominator comes from the fact that the price proportions of different goods in a consumer basket differ fromcountry to country, hence converting the national currency values to US dollars using a standard exchange rate is notsufficient to reflect different real costs of living across countries. The GDP value expressed in PPP$ reflects what thereal income of the population would be if the price structure in the country were similar to those in the United States.

The income and expenditures data obtained during the survey were converted in PPP$ using the followingrates:

The value of 4.3$ PPP in national currencies

Bulgaria 2.5542Croatia 17.6816Kosovo 149.4508Hungary 576.7848Macedonia 81.2012Romania 55733.074Serbia and Montenegro 149.4508

Source: International Monetary Fund, World Economic Outlook Database, September 2004

For the Czech Republic the value 180 CZK was used, corresponding to 11 US$ per day poverty line from 2001 (HumanDevelopment Report 2004). Montenegro and Kosovo were transformed into Dinars in order to apply the indicatedthreshold.