Ethnic Data on Children Current data collection and disaggregation practices in Europe and Central Asia Cornelia Rauchberger, October 2017

Contents Background Legal frameworks Data collection practices Terms and proxies Common statistical sources Identification methods Accuracy Possible disaggregation of TransMONEE indicators Conclusions

Background

Rationale Recent policy developments (SDGs): Countries commit to reduce inequalities and to increase the availability of high-quality of reliable and disaggregated data, including by ethnicity. Recent study by UNICEF CEE/CIS: children from certain ethnic and linguistic minorities in Europe and Central Asia are at higher risk of exclusion and denial of their rights.

What is “ethnicity”? Definitions of “ethnicity” differ according to diverse national and regional traditions, realities and political contexts. Ambiguity of the terms “ethnicity”, “race” and “nationality” in a world-wide comparison. Common connotation of ancestry with a proof or manifestation of shared roots for belonging to a group; matter of beliefs directly about oneself. Most widely accepted manifestation of ethnicity: cultural practices or beliefs.

Legal frameworks

Child protection, Child rights Legal frameworks that influence the possibility of collecting ethnic data on children Data protection Anti-discrimination Child protection, Child rights Levels: International Regional National

National legislations Data protection laws in all 21 countries and territories do not explicitly prohibit ethnic data collection in general (e.g. prohibitions with exceptions) Anti-discrimination legislation encourages collection of disaggregated data or, if prohibited, provides for exceptions that allow the ethnic collection for the purpose of fighting discrimination Child rights: 1/3 of countries and territories allow or even encourage the collection of data on vulnerable children which could allow for the collection of data on children from potentially vulnerable ethnic or linguistic minorities

Data collection practices

Popularity of terms and proxies used to collect ethnic data

Similarity of definitions for the terms “ethnicity” and “nationality” Country Term Definition Latvia Ethnicity Ethnicity is based on a shared understanding of the history and territorial origins (regional, national) of an ethnic group or community as well as on particular cultural characteristics: language and/or religion and/or specific customs and ways of life. Czech Republic Nationality Nationality is affiliation to a particular nation, where a nation is understood as a community of people, the creation of which is influenced primarily by common history, common culture and common territory and the members of which share a sense of belonging to this community.

Geographical distribution of the common use of “nationality” and “ethnicity” for ethnic enumeration

Popular statistical sources for ethnic data collection (1) The census is the most common form of collecting ethnic data on the overall population, including children. For educational statistics, ethnic data on students is regularly collected through administrative data in 52% of countries and territories. Also census and surveys; 19% collect ethnic data on their enrolled or attending pupils through more than one statistical source. Administrative data: 1/3 of countries collect data on ethnicity from children in residential care or those receiving monthly family allowances. Only two countries use vital statistics to compile population statistics that could disaggregate data by ethnicity.

Popular statistical sources for ethnic data collection (2) In Romania, the 2011 census revealed that 20% of Roma have no schooling, compared to a national average of 3.5% In 2002 these figures were 34% and 5% respectively. The 2014 MICS survey on Roma Settlements in Serbia revealed that the infant mortality rate among children in Roma settlements is estimated at 13 per thousand live births, which is twice as high as the national average. In Albania, administrative data allows for the calculation of the share of Roma and Egyptian children that live in residential care (14% in 2014).

Common identification methods, question and answer formats Predominant: self-identification, parents identify ethnicity of their child (below 15-16 years), third- party for children in residential care Recommendations: option to indicate more than one ethnic affiliation or a combination of ethnic affiliations; 76% provide this opportunity Subjective question formats in censuses Moldova What nationality / ethnicity do you think you belong to? Hungary Which nationality do you feel belonging to? Do you think you belong to another nationality in addition to what you marked above?

Accuracy of ethnic data on children Risk mitigation: Over-reporting: cooperate with minority NGOs or national councils promoting minority rights Under-reporting: targeted census awareness-raising

Possible disaggregation of TransMONEE indicators

Existing TransMonEE data on children that does or would allow for disaggregation by ethnicity

Conclusions

Conclusions: Actual availability Most available ethnic data on children is currently not used to analyse and monitor equitable realisation of child rights. A vast amount of data on children that could be disaggregated by ethnicity is actually available but is not being analysed for this purpose (esp. census).

Conclusions: Potential availability Legislative frameworks provide the necessary preconditions for collecting ethnic data on children. NSOs in the region are not always fully aware of the legal framework that supports the collection of ethnic data on children. Available ethnic data on children is not analysed or combined to its full potential. The use of terms and proxies used to collect ethnic data on children is often not uniform among the different statistical sources.

Draft recommendations (1) TransMonEE to include data disaggregated by ethnicity wherever available (e.g. alternative care) NSOs should make sure that they are fully informed about the legal provisions regarding ethnic collection Need for clear and standardized definitions, and methodologies, to produce data disaggregated by ethnicity UN incl. UNICEF should support NSOs to review safeguards in place

Draft recommendations (2) EU surveys should include questions on ethnicity (esp. Roma & immigrant population) Document good practices identified by research Analyse the potential to improve the interoperability of national data collection systems

Thank you for your attention!