Joost de Laat (Phd)Human Development Europe

and Central AsiaThe World Bank

EURoma MeetingBudapest, HungaryStructural Funds: Investing in Roma11 November 2011

Step 1: Identify vulnerable (Roma) communities

Step 2: Identify critical gaps in human development outcomes

Step 3: Institutionalize evaluation to learn which type of interventions are likely to have the highest impacts on specific outcomes

Step 4: Ensure that inclusion programs clearly define the specific outcomes they hope to impact

What are poverty maps? Going from high level NUTS to small LAU areas

Combining 2011 census information with EU-SILC survey information as a (potential) way to poverty mapping

Bulgaria poverty mapping case study

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/nuts_nomenclature/principles_characteristics

Example: Nuts 3 in Bulgaria represent 28 districts

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/nuts_nomenclature/local_administrative_units

LAU 1 level (‘nuts 4’) – 262 municipalities (2005)

Source: “EU legislation on the 2011 Population and Housing Censuses” (Eurostat 2011, ISSN 1977-0375)

In summary: Household survey like EU-SILC have breadth

of indicators, but sample sizes too small to be representative for local area units

Population censuses do allow small areas calculations but frequently lack breadth of indicators necessary to calculate main poverty indicators

Common Household Background CharacteristicsEU-SILC or other detailed

survey

Common Household Background Characteristics

National Population Census

Background characteristics unique to EU-

SILC

Household Welfare Indicator(s) such as at-risk-of-poverty in

EU-SILC

Step 0

Step 1

Household Welfare Indicator(s) such as at-risk-of-poverty

not in census

Step 2

POVERTY MAP(S)

Highly disaggregated databases of:◦ Poverty◦ Inequality◦ Average income/consumption◦ Calorie intake◦ Under-nutrition◦ Other indicators (health, employment etc)

Disaggregation may, but need not, be spatial; e.g. poverty of “statistically invisible” groups

GoalsGoals◦ Identify poor municipalities◦ Serve a basis for targeting for poverty reductiontargeting for poverty reduction

Implementation: Joint team Implementation: Joint team (Data Users’ Group)◦ Leadership of the Ministry of Labor and Social Policy

(MLSP)◦ Technical expertise of the National Statistical Institute

(NSI)◦ Active involvement of leading Bulgarian academics◦ World Bank financing and technical assistance trough a

Capacity Building Institutional Development Fund (IDF) grant

OutcomesOutcomes◦ 2003 and 2005 poverty incidence maps

MethodologyMethodology◦ Data sources: 2001 Census and 2001 and 2003

Bulgaria Integrated Household Surveys (BIHS), and district level indicators

◦ BIHS: 2,500-3,023 households, representative at NUTS 1 (Sofia, urban, rural level)

◦ 30 common indicators between Census and BIHS◦ Standard “small-area estimation” procedure

Municipal level indicators estimatedMunicipal level indicators estimated◦ Poverty rate, poverty depth, severity of poverty, and

Gini coefficients

Main FindingsMain Findings Considerable variation in poverty levels across

municipalities: 3%-40% of individuals

Considerable variation in poverty levels across municipalities within the same district

Poorest areas characterized by relatively higher shares of ethnic minorities (Roma and Turkish households)

Poorest areas characterized by lacking in:o human capital endowment (prevalence of people with low

education attainment, or elderly pensioners), ando infrastructure

Policy usePolicy use◦ Strategic poverty documents, e.g.

The National Plan for Poverty Reduction 2005-2006 Strategy for Reduction of Poverty and Social Exclusion

2006-08 District Development Strategies 2005-2015

◦ Targeting of antipoverty interventions Program for Poverty Reduction in the (13) Poorest

Municipalities Targeting of Social Investment Fund (SIF) projects included in a multi-dimensional continuous scoring formula

applied for ranking of municipal proposals, along with other indicators

Social Investment and Employment Promotion Project (WB)

Appropriate for targeting Poverty maps can be very useful tool to target poorest areas

Implemented around the world.

Window of opportunity: 2011 Censuses and annual EU-SILC survey data

Involve community of Roma stakeholders to identify Roma communities on poverty map and build ownership

Reports Forthcoming 2011

Step 1: Identify vulnerable (Roma) communities

Step 2: Identify critical gaps in human development outcomes

Step 3: Institutionalize evaluation to learn which type of interventions are likely to have the highest impacts on specific outcomes

Step 4: Ensure that inclusion programs clearly define the specific outcomes they hope to impact

Carry out qualitative case study work

Analyze household survey data on vulnerable Roma communities and national surveys

Implement pilot projects that include a rigorous counterfactual impact evaluation.

21

Survey Partnership: ◦ DG Regional Policy◦ United Nations Development Program ◦ World Bank

Close coordination with survey by:◦ Fundament Rights Agency

Report Forthcoming 2011

International evidence: high return investment

Survey: vast majority Roma parents desire at

least secondary education completion for children

Report objectives:

◦ Provide overview of Roma preschool participation, and

pre-school environment, in kindergartens and at home

◦ Identify key barriers to improving pre-school access

23

Enrollment among Roma children: very large gap

24

OVERVIEW OF PRE-SCHOOL ENVIRONMENT

Enrollment low, only slowly improving

over time (except Hungary)25

OVERVIEW OF PRE-SCHOOL ENVIRONMENT

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.

0P

erce

nt o

f chi

ldre

n en

rolle

d cu

rren

tly

0 2 4 6Age (years)

Bulgaria Czech Republic Slovakia Hungary Romania

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.

0P

erce

nt o

f ind

ivid

uals

enr

olle

d in

the

past

20 40 60 80Age (years)

Bulgaria Czech Republic Slovakia Hungary Romania

Most parents with children in preschool feel they are welcome

Most parents with children in preschool are satisfied with the preschool

services 26

020

4060

8010

0D

o R

oma

child

ren

feel

wel

com

e at

pre

scho

ol?

Bulgaria Czech Republic Slovakia Hungary Romania

Don't agree AgreeCompletely agree

020

4060

8010

0%

of p

aren

ts s

atis

fied

with

pre

scho

olBulgaria Czech Republic Slovakia Hungary Romania

Very dissatisfied Somewhat dissatisfiedSomewhat satisfied Very satisfied

27

Boost in:-Cognitive learning outcomes (except Romania) - parenting techniques also!

-Avoiding special school in CZ, SL (table below)-Secondary school completion-Avoiding social assistance

Bulgaria(N=1,441)

Czech Republic(N=1,461)

Hungary(N=1,887)

Romania(N=1,785)

Slovakia(N=1,195)

(1) (3) (4) (6) (10) (12) (13) (15) (7) (9)

Attended preschool as a child?

0.00432(0.00440)

0.00207(0.00514)

-0.0676***(0.0244)

-0.0568**(0.0246)

0.000262(0.0138)

-0.0135(0.0163)

0.0168*(0.00904)

0.0145(0.00960)

-0.0489*(0.0281)

-0.0735**(0.0307)

Background households and individual level characteristics

No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes

R2 0.158 0.173 0.308 0.335 0.281 0.287 0.132 0.148 0.295 0.324

28

Comparing neighbors with similar socio-economic

chars, pre-school increases with:

Parents’ attendance of pre-school

Household hunger

Roma – non-Roma gap (between neighbors)

largely explained by socio-economic background

29

30

Many Roma parents would consider pre-school at

lower costs

Some parents of un-enrolled Roma children would

reconsider with a Roma teacher / mediator in place

31

RESOLVING BARRIERS

1. Informing Roma parents on the returns to pre-

school

(Community) health workers could play this role

2. Lowering the costs (e.g. fees, clothes, food)◦ Providing information about government schemes that

parents may be entitled to

◦ Providing material needs

3. Creating a bridge: community mediators

supporting Roma parents access pres-school for

their children

32

Carry out qualitative case study work

Analyze household survey data on vulnerable Roma communities and national surveys◦ Identifies gaps in human development outcomes◦ Points to specific policies◦ Can be used for other policy questions◦ Can be institutionalized: e.g. Statistical Offices

carry out EU-SILC booster samples in vulnerable communities

Implement pilot projects that include a rigorous counterfactual impact evaluation.