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

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

3. Background

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. Legal frameworks

7. 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

8. 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

9. Data collection practices

10. Popularity of terms and proxies used to collect ethnic data

11. 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.

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

13. 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.

14. 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).

15. Common identification methods, question and answer formats
Predominant: self-identification, parents identify ethnicity of their child (below 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?

16. 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

17. Possible disaggregation of TransMONEE indicators

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

19. Conclusions

20. 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).

21. 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.

22. 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

23. 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

24. Thank you for your attention!