Etude FRA discriminations minorités en Europe - dec 2009
Transcript of Etude FRA discriminations minorités en Europe - dec 2009
-
8/14/2019 Etude FRA discriminations minorits en Europe - dec 2009
1/276
-
8/14/2019 Etude FRA discriminations minorits en Europe - dec 2009
2/276
-
8/14/2019 Etude FRA discriminations minorits en Europe - dec 2009
3/276
EU-MIDIS
European Union Minoritiesand Discrimination Survey
Main Results Report
European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights
-
8/14/2019 Etude FRA discriminations minorits en Europe - dec 2009
4/276
EUMIDIS
TablE o ConTEnTS
oREwoRD 6
KEy InDIngS & RECoMMEnDaTIonS
RoM ThE SURvEy 8
1. Itrducti 19
1.1. bckrud Te aec d
its rk 19
1.1.1.EU-MIDISkeyobjectives 20
1.2. Metd 20
1.2.1.Surveybasics 20
1.2.2.EU-MIDISsampling 21
1.2.3.Delivery 28
1.2.4.Weighting 29
1.2.5.Qualitycontrol 29
1.3. Remrks r te reder 30
1.3.1.Pointstoconsider 30
1.3.2.Glossary 31
2. Mi resuts 34
2.1. Discrimiti experieces 34
2.1.1.Overallprevalencerates 35
2.1.2.Prevalenceospecic
discriminationexperiencesninedomains 38
2.1.3.Multi-domaindiscrimination
experience 47
2.1.4.Volumeodiscrimination 48
2.1.5.Non-reportingodiscrimination 50
2.2. Specic ictimisti experieces 57
2.2.1.Overallcrimeprevalencerates 58
2.2.2.Prevalenceospeciccrimes 59
2.2.3.Combinedprevalenceo
property-andin-personcrimes 64
2.2.4.Raciallymotivatedin-person
criminalvictimisation 65
2.2.5.In-personcrimesindetail 67
2.3. Pici 74
2.3.1.Trustinthepolice 75
2.3.2.Policestops 76
3. Resuts reted
immirt/etic rups 80
3.1. SuSr arics 81
3.1.1.Generalopinionsondiscrimination,
andrightsawareness 83
3.1.2.Experienceodiscrimination 88
3.1.3.Discriminationbyrespondentcharacteristics 95
3.1.4.Crimevictimisation 96
3.1.5.Crimevictimisationby
respondentcharacteristics 100
3.1.6.Corruption 101
3.1.7.Policeandbordercontrol 102
3.1.8.Policestopsbyrespondent
characteristics 105
3.1.9.Respondentbackground 108
3.2. Cetr d Est Eurpes 110
3.2.1.Generalopinionsondiscrimination,
andrightsawareness 112
3.2.2.Experienceodiscrimination 115
3.2.3.Discriminationbyrespondent
characteristics 121
3.2.4.Crimevictimisation 122
3.2.5.Crimevictimisationbyrespondent
characteristics 127
3.2.6.Corruption 128
3.2.7.Policeandbordercontrol 128
3.2.8.Policestopsbyrespondent
characteristics 131
3.2.9.Respondentbackground 133 3.3. nrt arics 134
3.3.1.Generalopinionson
discrimination,andrights
awareness 135
3.3.2.Experienceodiscrimination 138
3.3.3.Discriminationbyrespondent
characteristics 142
3.3.4.Crimevictimisation 143
3.3.5.Crimevictimisationbyrespondent
characteristics 147
3.3.6.Corruption 148
3.3.7.Policeandbordercontrol 148
3.3.8.Policestops 150
3.3.9.Respondentbackground 153
3.4. Te Rm 154
3.4.1.Generalopinionsondiscrimination,
andrightsawareness 155
3.4.2.Experienceodiscrimination 159
3.4.3.Discriminationbyrespondent
characteristics 165
3.4.4.Crimevictimisation 166
3.4.5.Crimevictimisationbyrespondent
characteristics 170
-
8/14/2019 Etude FRA discriminations minorits en Europe - dec 2009
5/276
Mi Resuts Reprt
3.4.6.Corruption 171 3.4.7.Policeandbordercontrol 171
3.4.8.Policestopsbyrespondent
characteristics 174
3.4.9.Respondentbackground 175
3.5. Russis 176
3.5.1.Generalopinionsondiscrimination,
andrightsawareness 177
3.5.2.Experienceodiscrimination
onthebasisoethnicity 180
3.5.3.Discriminationbyrespondent
characteristics 184
3.5.4.Crimevictimisation 185
3.5.5.Crimevictimisationbyrespondent
characteristics 189
3.5.6.Corruption 190
3.5.7.Policeandbordercontrol 190
3.5.8.Policestopsbyrespondent
characteristics 193
3.5.9.Respondentbackground 195
3.6. Turkis 196
3.6.1.Generalopinionsondiscrimination,
andrightsawareness 199
3.6.2.Experienceodiscrimination 201 3.6.3.Discriminationbyrespondent
characteristics 206
3.6.4.Crimevictimisation 207
3.6.5.Crimevictimisationbyrespondent
characteristics 212
3.6.6.Corruption 213
3.6.7.Policeandbordercontrol 213
3.6.8.Policestopsbyrespondent
characteristics 216
3.6.9.Respondentbackground 218
3.7. rmer yusis 220
3.7.1.Generalopinionsondiscrimination,
andrightsawareness 221
3.7.2.Experienceodiscrimination 224
3.7.3.Discriminationbyrespondent
characteristics 229
3.7.4.Crimevictimisation 230
3.7.5.Crimevictimisationbyrespondent
characteristics 234
3.7.6.Corruption 236
3.7.7.Policeandbordercontrol 236
3.7.8.Policestopsbyrespondent
characteristics 238
3.7.9.Respondentbackground 240
4. Cmpriss it te mjrit
pputi 242
4.1. EUMIDIS mjrit susmpe:
pici d rders 242
4.1.1.Trustinthepolice 242
4.1.2.Policestopsprevalence 244
4.1.3.Frequency 244
4.1.4.Typeostops 245
4.1.5.Policeactivityduringstops 248
4.1.6.Evaluationopoliceconduct 251
4.1.7.Immigration,customsor
bordercontrol 254
4.2. Eurrmeter cmpriss 255
4.2.1.Considerationswhen
comparingresults 255
4.2.2.SpecialEurobarometer
SurveyNo.296 257
4.2.3.SpecialEurobarometer
SurveyNo.263 260
4.3. Eurpe Crime d Set Sure
Cmpriss 263
4.3.1.Considerationswhencomparingresults 263
4.3.2.Thetopersonalproperty 263
4.3.3.Assaultsorthreats 265
5. Ccudi cmmets 268
-
8/14/2019 Etude FRA discriminations minorits en Europe - dec 2009
6/276
EUMIDIS
rerd
ThisreportpresentsthemainresultsromEU-
MIDIS,theFRAsEuropeanUnionMinoritiesand
DiscriminationSurvey.Thesurveyinterviewed
23,500peoplewithanethnicminorityorimmigrant
backgroundacrosstheEUs27MemberStates,andis
thelargestEU-widesurveyoitskindonminorities
experiencesodiscrimination,racistvictimisation,and
policing.Thedataprovidesevidencethatisessential
inthedevelopmentopoliciesandactiontoaddress
undamentalrightsabusesintheseelds.
Thenumberointervieweesinthesurveyandthe
surveysEU-widescopemeansthattheresultscannot
beoverlookedastheexperiencesoaselectew.
Atthesametime,thesurveysrigoroussamplingapproachensuresthattheresultsarerepresentative
otheminoritygroupssurveyedinlocations
throughouttheEUinotherwords,interviewees
werechosenatrandomandwerenotselectedroma
sampleothemostdiscriminatedagainstorthemost
victimised.
Thesurveysndingsservetohighlightbeyondany
doubtthatdiscriminationonthebasisoethnicity
isamajorproblemormanyminoritiesintheEU.
Othenineareasoeverydaylielookedatinthe
survey,employmentemergesasthemaindomain
whereminoritiesexperiencethegreatestlevelso
whatisperceivedasdiscriminatorytreatment,both
whenlookingorworkandatwork.Inparticular,
thedataalsoindicatesthattheRoma,Sub-Saharan
AricansandNorthAricansaceveryhighlevelso
discriminationintheireverydaylivesincomparison
withsomeotheotherlargegroupscoveredinthe
survey,withproblemsodiscriminationandracist
victimisationbeingacuteincertainMemberStates.
Aswellasmappingtheextentodiscrimination,the
surveysresultsalsoprovideimportantevidence
ominoritieslowlevelsorightsawarenessin
theareasodiscrimination,includingtheirlacko
knowledgeaboutorganisationswheretheycan
reportdiscrimination.Coupledwiththisisthe
surveysndingthatthevastmajorityopeople
neverreportexperiencesodiscriminationeitherat
theplacewherethediscriminationoccursortoan
organisationthatcanreceivecomplaints;anding
thatunderscorestheneedorimprovedknowledgeotheirrightsandaccesstojusticeorthesemost
vulnerableogroups.
Aurthersignicantndingromthesurvey,which
servestocounteractsimplisticconstructionso
minoritiesascriminalthreatstosociety,isthat
manyminoritygroupsarevictimsocrimeandare
particularlyvulnerabletoraciallymotivatedcrime.
And,aswithunder-reportingodiscrimination,the
surveyrevealsthatratesoreportingtothepoliceare
verylowamongsomegroups.Thisndingiscoupled
withresultsindicatinglowlevelsoaithinthepolices
abilitytoeectivelyrespondtocrime,aswellasan
absenceotrustinthepoliceamongcertaingroups.
Withaviewtoexaminingexperiencesolaw
enorcementandbordercontrolthroughthelens
onon-discrimination,thesurveywasableto
-
8/14/2019 Etude FRA discriminations minorits en Europe - dec 2009
7/276
Mi Resuts Reprt
devotesomeoitsresourcestointerviewing5,000
peopleromthemajoritypopulationtoallowora
comparisonomajorityandminorityexperiences
opolicestopsandbordercontrol.Whattheresults
revealisahighlevelointensivepolicingactivityor
certainminoritiesincertainlocations,whichoten
surpassesthatothemajoritypopulation.These
resultsareparticularlyimportantwhenlookedat
alongsidethesurveysndingsonnon-reportingto
thepoliceandlackotrustinthepoliceasaservice
provider.
Insum,thisreportcanbereadastherstbaseline
comparativeEUdataonselectedethnicminorities
andimmigrantsexperiencesodiscrimination,criminalvictimisationandpolicing;including
importantdataonrightsawarenessintheeldo
non-discrimination.Theresultsprovideanessential
reerencesourceorthosewhoaredeveloping
policiesandtakingactiontoaddressdiscrimination
andracistvictimisation,astheyhighlightthoseareas
whereminoritiesexperiencemostdiscrimination
andracistvictimisation.Importantly,theresults
conclusivelyshowwhichgroups,amongst
thosesurveyed,experiencethehighestlevelso
discriminationandvictimisationintheEU.Theresults
alsopresentastartingpointthatallowsMember
Statestocriticallyexaminetheirownsituation
relativetoothercountrieswherethesamegroup
wassurveyedorexample,betweenthoseseven
MemberStateswheretheRomaweresurveyedand
withrespecttoexistingpoliciesandinterventionsto
addressdiscriminationandvictimisation.
Thecollectionoempiricaldataorthedevelopment
opoliciesandactionintheeldoundamental
rightsliesattheheartotheFRAsmandate.This
bottomupapproachtodatacollectiononthe
situationoundamentalrights,whichdirectly
engagesthosewhoarevulnerabletoundamental
rightsabuses,servestoshednewlightonthe
experiencesoethnicminoritiesandimmigrants
intheEU.Theresultsromthesurvey,whichare
alsobeingpublishedasaseriesoDatainFocus
reports,andthesurveyinstrumentsthemselves(the
questionnaireandthetechnicalreport),provide
toolstochallengeacceptedwisdomaboutthe
extentandnatureo,andappropriateresponsesto,
discriminationandvictimisationagainstminoritiesintheEU.
Itishopedthattheresultsinthisreport,together
withurtherreportingromEU-MIDIS,willprovide
thoseseekingtoaddressundamentalrightswiththe
necessaryevidenceandtoolsneededtodoso.
MortenKjrum
Director
-
8/14/2019 Etude FRA discriminations minorits en Europe - dec 2009
8/276
EUMIDIS
EUMIDISKe dis & recmmedtis rm te sure
EXPERIEnCES oDISCRIMInaTIon
oer experieces discrimiti crss ieres eerd ie
Dierences between ethnic groups
On average, across nine areas o everyday lie,ithe
Roma were discriminated against because o their
ethnic background more than other groups that were
surveyed in EU-MIDIS; or example, in comparison
with Sub-Saharan Aricans or North Aricans.
Every second Roma respondent said that they were
discriminated against on the basis o their ethnicity at
least once in the previous 12 months.
The average Roma interviewee ran the risk o being
discriminated against 4.6 times over a 12 monthperiod. Looking at the results only or those who had
been discriminated against, this average increased to
11 incidents over a 12 month period.
EU-MIDISidentiedthesecondhighestrateo
overalldiscriminationasbeingagainstSub-
SaharanAricans41%werediscriminated
againstbecauseotheirimmigrantorethnic
minoritybackgroundatleastonceinthelast
12months.Thiswasollowedbydiscrimination
againstNorthAricans36%.Injointourthplace
wereTurkishandCentralandEastEuropean
respondents;aquarterwerediscriminated
againstinthelast12months23%.
RespondentswithaRussianbackgroundand
thoseromtheormerYugoslaviaexperienced
thelowestlevelsodiscriminationoallgroups
surveyedinEU-MIDIS;respectively,14%and
12%othosesurveyedindicatedtheyhad
experienceddiscriminatorytreatmentbecauseo
theirminoritybackgroundatleastonceinthelast
12months.
EUMIDIS: Te Eurpe Ui Mirities d
Discrimiti Sure
23,500peopleromvariousethnicminorityand
immigrantgroupsweresurveyedacrosstheEUs
27MemberStatesin2008.
EU-MIDISistherstEU-widesurveyto
specicallyinterviewapredominantlyrandom
sampleoimmigrantandethnicminority
groupsusingastandardisedquestionnaire.
Thesurveysmainpartaskedrespondents
abouttheirexperiencesodiscriminationon
thebasisotheirimmigrantorethnicminority
background,theirexperiencesocriminal
victimisation(includingraciallymotivated
crime),andexperiencesopolicing:theresults
owhicharesummarisedhere.
Thesurveyalsoaskedrespondentsabouttheirawarenessotheirrightsandtheextent
towhichtheyreportedexperienceso
discriminationandvictimisation,including
reasonsornon-reporting.
Thesurveyalsointerviewed5,000peoplerom
themajoritypopulationin10MemberStates
inordertocomparethesurveysndingson
experiencesopolicestopsandbordercontrol.
Section4inthemainresultsreportoutlinesthe
ndings.
Inthissectiontheresultsarediscussedorthe
mostpartatthelevelogeneral(aggregate)
groupsorexample,showingresultsorall
RomaorallSub-SaharanAricaninterviewees,
withsomespecicMemberStateexamples.
-
8/14/2019 Etude FRA discriminations minorits en Europe - dec 2009
9/276
Mi Resuts Reprt
9
Dierences between Member States
Lookingatabreakdownotheresultsaccording
tospecicgroupsinMemberStates,thetopten
experiencingthehighestlevelsodiscrimination
overa12monthperiodwere,indescendingorder:RomaintheCzechRepublic(64%),Aricans
inMalta(63%),RomainHungary(62%),Roma
inPoland(59%),RomainGreece(55%),Sub-
SaharanAricansinIreland(54%),NorthAricans
inItaly(52%),SomalisinFinland(47%),Somalisin
Denmark(46%),andBraziliansinPortugal(44%).
Asanaverage,eachRomapersonexperienced
moreincidentsodiscriminationovera12month
periodthanotheraggregategroupssurveyed
suchasSub-SaharanAricansorTurkish
respondents.However,lookingatabreakdown
oresultsorspecicgroupsinMemberStates,
thehighestaveragenumberodiscrimination
incidentsovera12monthperiodwas
experiencedbyNorthAricansinItaly:anaverage
o9.29incidentsoreveryNorthAricanperson
interviewedinItaly.Thenexthighestnumberwas
6.81incidentsoreachRomapersoninPoland
and6.69oreachRomainHungary.
Usi tese resuts
The results rom EU-MIDIS could be employed
at the Community, national and regional
level particularly in those cities where
the survey was conducted (see Table 1.2 in
the introduction to the main results report)
as evidence to inorm policy and action
addressing discrimination against some o the
most vulnerable groups in society.
At the level o Community legislation in
the eld o non-discrimination, the results
support the need or a critical assessment
o implementation o the Racial Equality
Directive (2000/43/EC) on the ground.
Such impact assessments should be
embedded in uture initiatives targeting
discrimination against minorities to measure
their short, medium and long-term outcomes
with regard to the sustained reduction o
discrimination in relation to the allocation o
resources over a period o time.
Surveys are ideal tools or impact assessments
as they allow those particularly targeted by
legislation to provide valuable eedback with
regard to its eectiveness.
For example, the very high levels o
discrimination indicated by the Roma in the
survey pose some critical questions about the
success to date, the cultural appropriateness,
and the local implementation o EU and
Member State policies and unding aimed atreducing discrimination against the Roma and
integrating them ully into society. Initiatives,
such as the Decade o Roma Inclusion: 2005-
2015, could incorporate a critical reading
o progress to date in reducing the social
exclusion o and discrimination against the
Roma based on evidence provided by EU-
MIDIS and other available sources.
Discrimiti i empmet
Discrimination in employment when looking or
work and at work emerged as the most signicant
area or discriminatory treatment on the basis
o respondents immigrant or ethnic minority
background.
Onaverage,only43%oRomasaidthattheyhad
somekindopaidemploymentinthelastve
years;incomparison,asanillustration,90%o
CentralandEastEuropeanrespondentssaidtheywereinpaidemploymentinthelastveyears.
Lookingattheoccupationalstatuso
respondentsatthetimeothesurveyinterview:
onaverage,23%oRomaintervieweessaid
theywereunemployedandonly28%saidthey
hadsomekindopaidemployment,while
almosthalwereeconomicallyinactivethatis,
homemakers,retiredpersons,thedisabledor
thosetooyoung(stillineducation).
Lookingatabreakdownotheresultsaccording
tospecicgroupsinMemberStates:Aricans
inMaltaemergeashavingthehighestrate
ounemploymentatthetimeothesurvey
interviewwith54%unemployed.Thenext
highestrateounemploymentatthetimeo
theinterviewwasorRomainSlovakia(36%),
ollowedbyRomainBulgaria(33%).
Onaverage,38%oRomajobseekersindicated
thattheywerediscriminatedagainstbecauseo
theirethnicityatleastonceinthelast12monthswhenlookingorwork.Forothergeneralgroups
therateodiscriminationwhenlookingorwork
was:22%orSub-SaharanAricans,20%orNorth
Aricans,12%orTurkishrespondents,11%or
-
8/14/2019 Etude FRA discriminations minorits en Europe - dec 2009
10/276
EUMIDIS
0
CentralandEastEuropeans,and8%orRussians
andalsoorormerYugoslavians.
Lookingatabreakdownotheresultsaccording
tospecicgroupsinMemberStates,sixothe
toptenexperiencingthehighestlevelsodiscriminationwhenlookingorworkwere
Roma;withthehighestratebeingorRomain
Hungary(47%).
Onaverage,19%oRomasaidtheyhadbeen
discriminatedagainstatworkbecauseotheir
ethnicityatleastonceinthelast12months.
Forothergroups,ratesodiscriminationat
workwere:17%orSub-SaharanAricans,16%
orNorthAricans,13%orCentralandEast
Europeans,10%orTurkishrespondents,and4%
orbothormerYugoslaviansandRussians.
TheresultsorspecicgroupsinMemberStates
showthatthetoptenexperiencingthehighest
levelsodiscriminationatworkwere:North
AricansinItaly(30%),RomainGreece(29%),
RomaintheCzechRepublic(27%),Aricansin
Malta(27%),Sub-SaharanAricansinIreland
(26%),RomainHungary(25%),Braziliansin
Portugal(24%),TurkishinDenmark(22%),Roma
inPoland(22%),andRomaniansinItaly(20%).
Respondents were asked whether they knew about
anti-discrimination legislation in employment:
On average, 39% o respondents thought that no
legislation exists orbidding discrimination against
people on the basis o their ethnicity when applying
or a job. A urther 23% either didnt know or reused
to answer the question, while 39%iisaid they were
aware o the existence o such legislation.
Usi tese resuts
EU-MIDIS presents stark data on the extent
o discrimination experienced by dierent
minorities in the eld o employment
particularly when looking or work. This
evidence can be used or kick-starting
targeted responses to address discrimination
in access to employment, particularly as paid
employment is a key means or enhancing
social integration.
Government bodies, public and privateemployers, and trade unions all have a role to
play in recognising, identiying and addressing
discrimination in employment. Given the low
numbers in the survey who were aware o
anti-discrimination legislation in the area o
employment, it is clear that eorts to increase
awareness amongst vulnerable minorities
need to be strengthened.
Action to address discrimination in
employment should be targeted to the
particular situation and needs o dierent
minority groups, including recognition o
intra-group barriers to employment based on
gender, age and educational level.iii
Any initiatives addressing discrimination in
employment also need to be undertaken
with a view to looking at discrimination
in educational and vocational training
opportunities or minorities.
Greater emphasis needs to be placed on
the benets o a diverse workorce, and
this message needs to be communicated
to employers and employees through the
provision o evidence and the promotion
o diversity policies. Herein, lessons can be
learned rom existing good and bad practices
that have addressed equality in employment.
Discrimiti i usi
O the nine areas o discrimination that were
surveyed, discrimination in housing when looking
or somewhere to rent or buy emerged as one o the
least problematic.
Thehighestdiscriminationrateamongallgeneral
groupssurveyedwasrecordedamongNorth
AricansandRoma:Onaverage,11%oboth
NorthAricansandRomawerediscriminated
againstwhenlookingorahouseorapartmentto
rentorbuy.
Lookingatabreakdownotheresultsaccording
tospecicgroupsinMemberStates,North
AricansinItalyexperiencedthehighestrateo
discriminationintheareaohousing.
Housing was one o the three areas where
respondents were asked whether they knew about
anti-discrimination legislation:
On average, 44% o respondents thought that no
legislation exists orbidding discrimination against
people on the basis o their ethnicity when renting
-
8/14/2019 Etude FRA discriminations minorits en Europe - dec 2009
11/276
Mi Resuts Reprt
or buying a at. A urther 25% either didnt know or
reused to answer the question, while 31% said they
were aware o the existence o such legislation.
Usi tese resuts
Given the existence o EU-wide legislation
in the eld o non-discrimination that
addresses housing, and given the low level o
awareness o their rights in this area among
minorities, attention should be ocused on
improving rights awareness in this eld so
that discrimination can be more eectively
tackled where it exists.
Policy makers and practitioners should be
encouraged to look at what works in the area
o housing to see i lessons can be learned
and adapted between Member States,
and or use in other service areas where
discrimination is more prevalent.
Attention should be paid to monitoring
discrimination in relation to dierent types
o housing markets public or private rented
housing, as well as access to the home buyer
market.iv
Discrimiti etcred sci serices
Discrimination by healthcare personnel emerged as
a particular problem or the Roma: 17% indicated
they had experienced discrimination in this area in
the last 12 months. In comparison, discrimination by
healthcare personnel was identied as a problem by
less than 10% o the other groups surveyed.
Lookingatabreakdownotheresultsaccording
tospecicgroupsinMemberStates,sixothe
toptenexperiencingthehighestlevelso
discriminationinrelationtohealthcarewere
Roma.However,NorthAricansinItalyindicated
thehighestlevelodiscriminationoallindividual
groupssurveyedwith24%discriminated
againstinthelast12months.
Discrimination by social service personnel showed
a similar pattern to discrimination by healthcare
personnel: 14% o the Roma indicated they hadexperienced discrimination in this area in the last 12
months, but less than 10% amongst the other general
groups surveyed identied this as a problem.
Breakingdowntheresultsaccordingtospecic
groupsinMemberStates,sixothetopten
experiencingthehighestlevelsodiscrimination
bysocialserviceswereRoma;but,onceagain,
NorthAricansinItalyindicatedthehighestlevelo
discriminationoallspecicgroupssurveyed:with22%discriminatedagainstinthelast12months.
Usi tese resuts
In Member States and particular localities
with large minority populations, healthcare
and social service authorities (and practi-
tioners) need to pay particular attention
to discrimination (both direct and indirect)
aecting patients or users o services rom
a minority background. Herein a number o
avenues could be explored; such as a review
o potential barriers to access to services, and
an analysis o the specic needs o dierent
minority communities, and vulnerable groups
within communities (such as children, women
and the elderly).v
Particular attention should be paid to the
needs o and provision or the Roma in the
area o healthcare and social services.
Discrimiti scsd ter eductiestismets
Discrimination by school personnel and other
educational establishments was experienced by 10%
or less o all the general respondent groups surveyed:
10% o the Roma indicated they had experienced
discrimination in this area in the last 12 months,
ollowed by 8% o North Aricans and 6% o Sub-
Saharan Aricans surveyed.
ThesurveysresultsshowthatNorthAricansin
Italyarethemostdiscriminatedagainstgroup
intheareaoeducation,with21%having
experienceddiscriminationinthelast12months.
Thesecondhighestrateodiscriminationwas
indicatedbyRomainPoland20%.
Usi tese resuts
Discrimination in education is particularlydamaging as it can serve to hinder progress
through the education system, and can have
a negative impact on young peoples oppor-
-
8/14/2019 Etude FRA discriminations minorits en Europe - dec 2009
12/276
EUMIDIS
2
tunities in the labour market. To this end, EU
policies could address discrimination in educa-
tion and vocational training as a core issue. The
existing legal and policy ramework concern-
ing the rights o the child can be used to sup-
port any policy initiatives in this direction.
Discrimination experiences at a young age
can undermine young immigrant and eth-
nic minorities sense o sel esteem, and can
reinorce negative stereotypes. In recognition
o this, addressing the problem o discrimina-
tion in schooling, by school personnel and
other students, should be a priority or educa-
tional establishments, government ministries,
and teachers unions.vi
Independent mechanisms or recording
complaints in relation to discrimination on
the basis o ethnicity/immigrant background
should be established or all schools and
other educational institutions. The collection
o this data should be undertaken to ensure
redress and access to justice or individual
complainants, and to promote a system or
the collection o robust statistical data on dis-
crimination (based on anonymous aggregate
data) that can be used as evidence to identiy
and respond to problems where they occur.
The same principles o data collection as
outlined above can be applied to other
areas covered in the survey, such as employ-
ment and housing.
Discrimiti t c,resturt, r r itcu,
d spsDiscrimination experiences in relation to leisure and
retail services were a signicant problem or a number
o groups surveyed or example when in or when
trying to enter a ca, restaurant, bar or nightclub.
Onaverage,20%oRoma,14%oSub-Saharan
Aricans,and13%oNorthAricanshad
experienceddiscriminationwheninortryingto
enteraca,restaurant,barornightclub.
LookingatabreakdownotheresultsaccordingtospecicgroupsinMemberStates:Aricans
inMaltaemergeasthemostdiscriminated
againstgroupinthisarea,with35%experiencing
discriminationinthelast12months.Thesecond
highestrateodiscriminationwasjointlyindicated
byRomaintheCzechRepublicandNorthAricans
inItaly(30%).
Discrimination in or when trying to enter a shop was asignicant problem or the Roma.
Onaverage,20%oRomaidentied
discriminationwheninortryingtoenterashop.
Incomparison,both11%oNorthAricansand
Sub-SaharanAricansidentieddiscrimination
inthisarea.Incomparison,lessthan5%oother
groupsidentiedthisareaasaproblem.
Exploringtheresultsaccordingtospecicgroups
inMemberStates,theRomainPolandemergeas
themostdiscriminatedagainstgroupinrelation
toshops,with44%experiencingdiscrimination
inthelast12months.Thesecondhighestrate
odiscriminationwasexperiencedbyRomain
Hungary(31%),ollowedbyNorthAricans
inItaly(27%).
The third area o anti-discrimination legislation that
people were asked about in the survey encompassed
goods and services that is, discriminatory treatment
on the basis o ethnicity in relation to shops,
restaurants, bars or clubs:
On average, 46% o respondents thought that no
legislation exists orbidding discrimination against
people on the basis o their ethnicity in relation to
these services. A urther 24% either didnt know or
reused to answer the question, while 30% said they
were aware o the existence o such legislation.
Usi tese resuts
People encounter services, such as shops,
on a regular basis, and clearly need to be
better inormed about their rights to non-
discriminatory treatment in these areas.
Leisure and retail services pose problems o
discriminatory treatment or a number o
minorities, and thereore emerge as areas
where urther research and closer regulation
is required building on examples o good
practice developed in other sectors that have
attempted to address discrimination.
Non-discrimination programmes in relation
to the area o employment should be
extended to encompass customers or clients
-
8/14/2019 Etude FRA discriminations minorits en Europe - dec 2009
13/276
Mi Resuts Reprt
3
o services as part o a joined-up approach to
non-discrimination or employers, employees,
their clients and customers.
Discrimiti e trit pe k ccut rti
Discrimination when trying to open a bank account
or get a loan rom a bank emerged as the least
problematic o the nine areas surveyed in EU-MIDIS
however, one explanation or this could be that
those minorities who come into contact with banks
are probably the least disadvantaged within their
communities.
Onaverage,7%oRoma,6%oNorthAricans,
andlessthan5%oothergeneralgroupsthat
weresurveyedidentieddiscriminationin
relationtoopeningabankaccountortryingto
obtainaloan.However,lookingatabreakdown
otheresultsaccordingtospecicgroupsin
MemberStates,NorthAricansinItalyindicate
veryhighlevelsodiscrimination(23%)inthis
areawhencomparedwithotherspecicgroups.
Usi tese resuts
Banks could identiy good practices in relation
to how they respond to potential or existing
clients rom immigrant or ethnic minority
backgrounds, and could look to see how
services or these groups can be enhanced
urther.
nreprti discrimiti
On average across all groups surveyed in
EU-MIDIS 82% o those who were discriminated
against in the past 12 months did not report their
most recent experience o discrimination either at the
place where it occurred or to a competent authority.
Non-reporting ranged rom 79% amongst the Roma
to 88% amongst Central and East Europeans.
Asanillustration:InPortugalnon-reporting
odiscriminationisthenormas100%oSub-
SaharanAricansand98%oBrazilianswhowere
discriminatedagainstdidnotreporttheirlatestexperienceodiscrimination.InFrancereporting
levelswerehigherthaninmostMemberStates,
butwerestillrelativelylow:29%oNorthAricans
and37%oSub-SaharanAricansreportedtheir
latestincidentodiscrimination.
Themostcommonreasongivenbyall
respondentsornotreportingdiscrimination
incidentswasthebeliethatnothingwouldhappenasaresultoreporting,whilethethird
mostcommonreasonornotreportingwaslack
oknowledgeabouthowtogoaboutreporting.
The survey asked people whether they knew o any
organisation that can support people who have been
discriminated against (or whatever reason) only
16% o respondents indicated that they did.
When presented with the name or names o Equality
Bodies in their country o residence 63% o
respondents said that they had not heard o any o
them: a nding that helps to explain very low rates o
reporting discrimination.
Usi tese resuts
In line with the requirements o the Racial
Equality Directive, those who have been
discriminated against on the basis o their
race or ethnic origin should be encouraged
to report their experiences to a competent
authority or ofce such as an Equality Body.
A review o the resources available to Equality
Bodies, and other complaints authorities or
ofces, should be undertaken to examine how
best to target available resources to encourage
reporting and to be able to eectively respond
to complaints.
Victims o discrimination need to be
made aware o how to go about reporting
discrimination, and they need assurance that
reporting is an eective means to gain redress.
Vulnerable minorities need to be made aware
o their rights and should have the means to
access them. The existing situation needs to
be assessed by all parties that have a duty to
receive and process complaints.
Possibilities or alternatives to traditional
justice mechanisms should be explored
where it is apparent that existing complaints
mechanisms are ailing or unable to respond tothe situation on the ground as it is experienced
by minorities.
-
8/14/2019 Etude FRA discriminations minorits en Europe - dec 2009
14/276
EUMIDIS
EXPERIEnCES ovICTIMISaTIon
oer experieces
crimi ictimisti crsse crime tpes
The average rate o criminal victimisation or all
groups surveyed in EU-MIDIS was 24%.viiIn other
words every ourth person rom a minority group
was a victim o crime at least once in the 12 months
preceding the survey.
On average, across the ve crime types tested in the
survey, the highest levels o overall victimisation in the
12 months preceding the survey were experienced by
Sub-Saharan Aricans (33%), closely ollowed by the
Roma (32%).
Chapter 4 in the main EU-MIDIS results report allows
or a tentative comparison o victimisation rates
between the majority population surveyed in the
European Crime and Saety Survey and minorities
surveyed in EU-MIDIS with respect to (i) thet o
personal property and (ii) assault or threat:the results
indicate that, on average, minorities are victims o
personal thet, and assault or threat more oten than
the majority population.
Lookingatabreakdownotheresultsaccording
tospecicgroupsinMemberStates,thosewhere
morethan40%orespondentswerevictimso
crimeinthelast12monthsincluded:Romain
Greece(54%),SomalisinDenmark(49%),Somalis
inFinland(47%),RomaintheCzechRepublic
(46%),andSub-SaharanAricansinIreland(41%).
Usi tese resuts
Oten immigrant and ethnic minority groups
are stereotyped as criminals, or at least as
potential criminals; yet the surveys results
illustrate clearly that signicant numbers
o people rom minority backgrounds are
also victims o crime in need o assistance,
protection and support. Thereore, victim
support services should be reviewed in the
light o these ndings to see whether they are
meeting the needs o minority groups.
High levels o criminal victimisation, togetherwith experiences o discrimination, should
be recognised or their negative impact on
minority populations with respect to social
marginalisation and vulnerability.
Prpert crime
On average, Roma respondents had the highest
burglary victimisation rate o all general groups
surveyed with 10% indicating they had been burgled
at least once in the last 12 months. For all othergeneral groups surveyed, ewer than 5% had been
victims o burglary in the last 12 months.
ThehighburglaryvictimisationrateortheRoma
asagroupwasinuencedbytheextremelyhigh
rateoburglaryrecordedorRomainGreece
where29%orespondentswerevictimisedat
leastonceinthelast12months.Incomparison,
thenexthighestburglaryratewasorRomain
theCzechRepublic,where11%indicatedthey
hadbeenavictim.
On average, 10% o Central and East Europeans and
North Aricans, and 8% o Roma and Sub-Saharan
Aricans were victims o thet o personal property at
least once in the last 12 months. For all other groups
the average rate was 4% or less.
Lookingatabreakdownotheresultsaccording
tospecicgroupsinMemberStates:Romain
Greece(21%)andNorthAricansinItaly(19%)
reportedthehighestlevelsothetopersonal
property.
On average, Sub-Saharan Aricans had the highest
levels o vehicle-related criminal victimisation o all
aggregate groups surveyed with 15% indicating
they had been a victim at least once in the previous
12 months.
Lookingatabreakdownotheresultsaccording
tospecicgroupsinMemberStates:Roma
inGreece(23%)andSomalisinFinland(21%)
reportedthehighestlevelsovictimisationwith
respecttovehicle-relatedcrime.
Usi tese resuts
The results show that certain minority groups
in Member States experience very high levels
o specic property related crime such as
Roma victims o burglary in Greece. This
indicates that crime prevention eorts need
to be targeted at particular groups in relation
to their specic victimisation characteristics.
The most socio-economically marginalised
minorities are particularly disadvantaged in
the atermath o property crime since they
nd it difcult to replace what was stolen
-
8/14/2019 Etude FRA discriminations minorits en Europe - dec 2009
15/276
Mi Resuts Reprt
and they lack insurance. Thereore existing
channels o support and compensation
should be reviewed to see i they are meeting
these victims needs.
Ipers crime experieces ssut r tret,d serius rssmet
On average, looking only at assault or threat
(excluding serious harassment), the Roma (10%), Sub-
Saharan Aricans (9%) and North Aricans (9%) were
most likely to have been assaulted or threatened with
violence at least once in the previous 12 months.
Lookingatabreakdownotheresultsaccording
tospecicgroupsinMemberStates,thetop
tenexperiencingthehighestlevelsoassault
orthreatareallrepresentedbypeoplecoming
romthesethreeaggregategroups:Roma,Sub-
SaharanAricansandNorthAricans.
Thehighestincidenceratesorassaultorthreat
wasoundorSomalirespondentsinFinland
where74incidentsoassaultorthreatorevery
100intervieweeswererecorded.Thisveryhigh
ratereectstheactthatmanySomalisinFinlandwerevictimsoassaultorthreatonseveral
occasionswithina12monthperiod.Otherhigh
incidenceratesorvictimsoassaultandthreat
were:44orevery100NorthAricaninterviewees
inItaly,42orevery100Romainterviewees
intheCzechRepublic,40orevery100Roma
intervieweesinPoland,40orevery100Somali
intervieweesinDenmark,33orevery100Roma
intervieweesinGreece,and29orevery100
RomaintervieweesinHungary.
On average, nearly every th person rom the Roma
and Sub-Saharan Arican groups that were surveyed
said they had been a victim o serious harassment at
least once in the last 12 months (18%).
Lookingatabreakdownotheresultsaccording
tospecicgroupsinMemberStates,atleast1in
4respondentsromtheollowinggroupswere
victimsoseriousharassmentaminimumoonce
inthelast12months:RomaintheCzechRepublic
(31%),RomainGreece(28%),SomalisinDenmark
(27%),Sub-SaharanAricansinIreland(26%)andAricansinMalta(26%).
Thehighestincidencerateorseriousharassment
wasoundorRomarespondentsinGreece
where174incidentswererecordedorevery
100interviewees.Thenexthighestrateswere
118orevery100Romaintervieweesinthe
CzechRepublic,112orevery100Somali
intervieweesinDenmark,106orevery100
SomaliintervieweesinFinland,and94orevery100Sub-SaharanAricanintervieweesinIreland.
Usi tese resuts
Incidents o assault and threat are experienced
by large numbers o minorities, and
experiences o serious harassment are very
common among many groups surveyed. For
those 18 Member States where results rom
EU-MIDIS could be compared with other victim
survey research ndings on the majority
population, the evidence shows that minorities
experience assaults and threats, on average,
more requently than the majority population
(see Chapter 4 in the EU-MIDIS main results
report).
The extremely high victimisation rates among
specic groups that were surveyed or
example, Somali interviewees in Finland in
relation to assault or threat require a detailed
ollow-up at Member State level to assess the
vulnerabilities o specic groups and to targetcrime prevention measures accordingly.
Maniestations o serious harassment
are oten considered to be outside the
mandate o policing and criminal justice
responses to crime, particularly where there
is no specic legislation addressing such
incidents. However, the surveys results on
the pervasiveness o serious harassment or
many minority groups, which oten includes
a perceived racist motivation, indicates
that greater attention should be paid to
these everyday incidents as they impact on
vulnerable minority groups.
Ipers crime experieces rcimtited ssut r tret,d serius rssmet
On average, looking at all in-person crimes oassault, threat or serious harassment, and among
all respondents surveyed, 18% o Roma respondents
and 18% o Sub-Saharan Arican respondents
indicated that they had experienced at least one
-
8/14/2019 Etude FRA discriminations minorits en Europe - dec 2009
16/276
EUMIDIS
racially motivated incident in the last 12 months. In
comparison, less than 10% o other general groups
surveyed indicated that they were victims o racially
motivated in-person crime in the last 12 months.
Morethan1in4respondentsromtheollowinggroupsconsideredthattheywereavictimo
raciallymotivatedin-personcrimeinthelast
12months:RomaintheCzechRepublic(32%),
SomalisinFinland(32%),SomalisinDenmark
(31%),AricansinMalta(29%),and(equally)26%
oRomainGreece,RomainPolandandSub-
SaharanAricansinIreland.
Looking only at results or those who said they
were victims o assault or threat in the last 12
months a striking 73% o Roma victims and 70%
o Sub-Saharan Arican victims considered that the
perpetrators o the last incident they experienced
targeted them because o their immigrant or ethnic
minority background.
Mostincidentsoassaultorthreatwerenot
committedbymembersoright-wingextremist
groups.Thehighestrateswherevictimscould
identiyperpetratorsasbeingmembersoright-
wingextremistgroupswere:13%oassaultsor
threatscommittedagainstvictimswithaTurkish
background,12%oassaultsorthreatwherethevictimwasRoma,and8%inthecaseovictims
withaSub-SaharanAricanbackground.
Usi tese resuts
Racially motivated crime is a problem or
specic groups that were surveyed; in
particular, Sub-Saharan Aricans and Roma.
The results indicate that targeted responses
need to be directed at these groups as victims
and potential victims o racially motivated
crime.viii
At the same time as addressing the needs
o victims, eorts need to be directed at
perpetrators or potential perpetrators
o these crimes. To this end, EU-MIDIS
presents valuable data about perpetrators
characteristics in relation to incidents o
assault, threat and serious harassment. In
the absence o systematic detailed police
data that could be used to develop evidence-
based responses to these types o crime, EU-MIDIS is a starting point or the collection and
analysis o this type o inormation.
The results present a wealth o inormation
about the nature o racist victimisation,
and include the important nding that
the majority o racist incidents are not
perpetrated by members o right-wing-
extremist groups. This result may necessitatea reocusing on everyday incidents o
racial victimisation that are committed
oten by people who are known to victims,
as indicated in the survey, rather than the
stranger danger that is oten presumed to be
in the guise o right-wing extremism.
The implementation o Council Framework
Decision 2008/913/JHA on combating racism
and xenophobia, which established the
approximation o law addressing certain
orms o racist and xenophobic crime in the
EU, can benet rom the surveys results that
reveal how minorities experience racist crime,
and which also show the signicant number
who do not report victimisation to the police
and their reasons or non-reporting (as
outlined below).
nreprti
ipers crimeFor the diferent aggregate groups surveyed, between
57% and 74% o incidents o assault or threat were
not reported to the police. At the same time, between
60% and 75% o these incidents were regarded by
diferent aggregate respondent groups as serious.
For example, 70% o Turkish respondents who were
victims o assault or threat considered these incidents
to be serious, but only 26% reported them to the
police.
For the various groups surveyed, on average between
75% and 90% o incidents o harassment were not
reported to the police. However, between 50% and
61% o these incidents were regarded as serious by
victims.
Themainreasongivenbyvariousrespondent
groupsornotreportingin-personvictimisation
(assaultandthreat,andseriousharassment)
wasbecausetheywerenotcondentthepolice
wouldbeabletodoanything.
Othosewhodidreporttheirvictimisationtothe
police,highratesodissatisactionwithhowthe
policedealtwiththeircomplaintwererecorded
ortheRoma,whereonaverage54%were
-
8/14/2019 Etude FRA discriminations minorits en Europe - dec 2009
17/276
Mi Resuts Reprt
dissatisedinrelationtocasesoassaultorthreat,
and55%weredissatisedinrelationtoreported
casesoseriousharassment.
Usi tese resuts
The results are evidence that signicant
numbers o incidents o criminal victimisation
and, in particular, racist victimisation never
come to the attention o the police. To this
end, police and criminal justice statistics on
recorded incidents (or cases) only represent
the tip o the iceberg with respect to the true
extent o the problem, and thereore can be
more useully read as indicators o the quality
o existing mechanisms or data collection on
(racist) crime against minorities.
Lack o data on the extent and nature
o criminal (racist) victimisation against
minorities serves to hinder eorts to
eectively address the problem.
High levels o non-reporting to the police,
which are coupled with high levels o lack o
condence in policing, calls or an overview o
incentives to encourage reporting by victims
and an improvement in the service oered by
the police to victims.
Working initiatives between the police, local
authorities and civil society organisations
should be developed in an eort to
encourage reporting o crime and to provide
assistance to victims.
PolICIng
Experieces pice stps,perceptis etic pri,d trust i te pice
The survey ound very high levels o police stops
among many minority groups that were interviewed.
On average, the proportion o those who were
stopped by the police at least once in the 12 months
prior to the survey interview was: 33% o all North
Aricans; 30% o Roma; 27% o Sub-Saharan
Aricans; 22% o both Central and East Europeanand ormer Yugoslavian respondents; 21% o Turkish
respondents; 20% o Russian respondents.
Lookingatabreakdownotheresultsaccording
tospecicgroupsinMemberStates:veryhigh
rateswererecordedorSub-SaharanAricansin
Ireland(59%)andRomainGreece(56%).
TheRomainGreecewerebyarthemostheavilypolicedgroupinthesurvey,with323policestops
recordedorevery100Romaintervieweesor
justover3stopsoreveryintervieweeovera12
monthperiod.Thisratewastwiceashighasthe
raterecordedamongNorthAricansinSpain
andSub-SaharanAricansinIreland,whojointly
hadthesecondhigheststoprateo160per100
intervieweesorjustover1stopsorevery
interviewee.
In ten Member States respondents rom the majority
population were also interviewed to look at diferences
in rates o police stops between the majority and
minority population. In some countries minority
respondents were stopped by the police signicantly
more oten than the majority population in a 12 month
period (see Chapter 4 in the main results report).
Forexample:InHungary,15%omajority
respondentswerestoppedinthelast12months
incomparisonwith41%oRomarespondents;
inGreece,23%omajorityand56%oRoma
respondentswerestoppedinthelast12months;inSpain,12%omajorityand42%oNorth
Aricanrespondentswerestoppedinthelast12
months;inFrance,22%omajorityand42%o
NorthAricanrespondentswerestoppedinthe
last12months.
Among all respondents, the ollowing percentage
considered that they were stopped specically
because o their immigrant or ethnic minority
background: 19% o North Aricans, 15% o Roma,
9% o Sub-Saharan Aricans and Central and East
Europeans, 5% o Turkish respondents, 1% o Ex-
Yugoslavian respondents and 0% o respondents with
a Russian background.
Lookingatabreakdownotheresultsaccording
tospecicgroupsinMemberStates:veryhigh
ratesopresumedethnicproling(over20%)
wererecordedortheRomainGreece(39%),
NorthAricansinSpain(31%),Sub-Saharan
AricansinFrance(24%),RomainHungary(24%),
andNorthAricansinItaly(21%).
When asked whether the police treated them
respectully during a stop, 33% o Roma respondents
and 32% o North Arican respondents indicated that
the polices behaviour towards them, during their last
-
8/14/2019 Etude FRA discriminations minorits en Europe - dec 2009
18/276
EUMIDIS
stop, was airly or very disrespectul. In comparison,
20% o Sub-Saharan Aricans and 18% o Turkish
respondents considered the police to be airly or very
disrespectul, while the rates or other groups were
12% or lower.
Lookingatabreakdownotheresultsaccording
tospecicgroupsinMemberStates:highrates
30%oroveroairlyorverydisrespectul
policetreatmentwereindicatedbytheRoma
inGreece(51%),RomainPoland(45%),North
AricansinItaly(41%),Sub-SaharanAricansin
France(36%),NorthAricansinBelgiumandSub-
SaharanAricansinPortugal(both35%),North
AricansintheNetherlands(34%),NorthAricans
inFrance(32%),andRomainHungary(30%).
Usi tese resuts
There is very little data on police stops across
the EU with the exception o the United
Kingdom. EU-MIDIS data presents a valuable
insight into this area that should be o use to
police orces, non-governmental organisations
and community groups that seek to identiy
and address potential discriminatory police
treatment where it exists. ix
Even where perceptions o proling cannot
be proven, the act that signicant numbers
o minorities believe that they are victims
o proling is evidence that work needs to
be done to improve police relations and
interaction with minority communities.
Low levels o trust in the police can be viewed
as an indicator o overall levels o trust in
the State. I minority communities are to eel
ully integrated and respected members o
European societies, which should particularly
be the case or those who are EU citizens,
their trust in the police needs to be shaped by
respectul and non-discriminatory treatment.
Endnotesi EU-MIDISaskedrespondentsaboutdiscriminationtheyhadexperienced,onthebasisotheirethnicity/immigrantbackground,
across9areasoeverydaylie:(1)whenlookingorwork;(2)atwork;(3)whenlookingorahouseoranapartmenttorentorbuy;(4)byhealthcarepersonnel;(5)bysocialservicepersonnel;(6)byschoolandothereducationpersonnel;(7)ataca,restaurant,barornightclub;(8)whenenteringorinashop;(9)whentryingtoopenabankaccountorgetaloanromabank.
ii Addsupto101%duetorounding.
iii The AgencysAnnualReport onthesituationo undamentalrightsinthe European Unioncontainsa chapteronRacismanddiscriminationintheemploymentsectorwithrespecttothesituationoethnicminorityandimmigrantgroupsintheEU:http://ra.europa.eu/raWebsite/attachments/FRA-AnnualReport09_en.pd.
ivThe AgencysAnnualReport onthesituationo undamentalrightsinthe European Unioncontainsa chapteronRacismanddiscriminationinthe area ohousing withrespectto thesituationoethnicminority andimmigrantgroupsin theEU:http://ra.europa.eu/raWebsite/attachments/FRA-AnnualReport09_en.pd.I n addition,the Agency published two reports in October2009 onHousing conditions o Roma andTravellers in the EU: http://ra.europa.eu/raWebsite/attachments/ROMA-Housing-Comparative-Report_en.pd,andHousingdiscriminationagainstRomainselectedEUMemberStates:ananalysisoEU-MIDISdata:http://ra.europa.eu/raWebsite/attachments/Roma-Housing-Analysis-EU-MIDIS_en.pd.
v The AgencysAnnualReport onthesituationo undamentalrightsinthe European Unioncontainsa chapteronRacismanddiscriminationinhealthcarewithrespecttothesituationoethnicminorityandimmigrantgroupsintheEU:http://ra.europa.eu/raWebsite/attachments/FRA-AnnualReport09_en.pd.
viThe AgencysAnnualReport onthesituationo undamentalrightsinthe European Unioncontainsa chapteronRacismanddiscriminationintheeducationsectorwithrespecttothesituationoethnicminorityandimmigrantgroupsintheEU:http://ra.europa.eu/raWebsite/attachments/FRA-AnnualReport09_en.pd.
viiEU-MIDISaskedrespondentsabouttheirexperiencesovictimisationacross5crimetypes:(1)thetoorromavehicle;(2)burglaryorattemptedburglary;(3)thetopersonalpropertynotinvolvingorceorthreat;(4)assaultorthreat;(5)seriousharassment.
viiiTheAgencysAnnualReportonthesituationoundamentalrightsintheEuropeanUnioncontainsachapteronRacistviolenceandcrime withrespect to thesituation oethnicminorityand immigrant groups inthe EU:http://ra.europa.eu/raWebsite/attachments/FRA-AnnualReport09_en.pd.
ixTheFRAsorthcomingGuideonethnicproling,togetherwithanEU-MIDISDatainFocusreportonlawenorcement,whichincorporatesdataonpolicestops,willbereleasedin2010.
Foraulleroverviewothekeyresults,pleasereer
toChapter2intheEU-MIDISMainResultsReport,
alongwithChapter3inthereportthatprovides
abreakdownothedatabygeneralgroups,and
Chapter4whichpresentsacomparisonoresults
betweenmajorityandminoritypopulationsin
MemberStates.
-
8/14/2019 Etude FRA discriminations minorits en Europe - dec 2009
19/276
Mi Resuts Reprt
9
1. ItrductiThis section introduces the survey, its objectives, and the methodology and sampling used.
The last part explains the extent to which data rom the survey can be compared, andprovides some important clarications regarding the results.
1.1. bckrud Te aec d its rk
On1stMarch2007CouncilRegulation(EC)No
168/2007cameintoeectestablishingtheEuropean
UnionAgencyorFundamentalRights(FRA).Withthis,
theFRAbecamethelegalsuccessortotheEuropean
MonitoringCentreonRacismandXenophobia
(EUMC).
TheFRAtookovertheworkotheEUMCwithawider
mandatetocoverundamentalrightswithinthe
meaningoArticle6(2)otheTreatyonEuropean
Union,includingtheEuropeanConventiononHuman
RightsandFundamentalFreedoms,andasreected,
inparticular,intheCharteroFundamentalRightso
theEU.Inparagraph10othepreambleestablishing
theAgencyitisstatedthatthe work o the Agency
should continue to cover the phenomena o racism,
xenophobia and anti-Semitism, the protection o rights
o persons belonging to minorities, as well as genderequality, as essential elements or the protection o
undamental rights.
AttheheartotheAgencysworkliesthetaskto
collectobjective,reliableandcomparableinormation
anddataonthesituationoundamentalrightsinthe
EU,whichcanbeusedbytherelevantinstitutions,
bodies,ocesandagenciesotheCommunityand
itsMemberStates,aswellasawiderangeoother
stakeholdersworkingintheeldoundamental
rights.TheAgencyistaskedwithdoingthisby
developingmethodsandstandardstoimprovethe
comparability,objectivityandreliabilityodataatEU
level,includingsurveyresearch.
TheFRAsannualreportsandotherresearch
publications,andthoseoitspredecessortheEUMC,
haveconsistentlyhighlightedthreeconcerns:
First,thecontinuedexistenceodiscriminatory
practicesandracistcrimesagainstethnic
minoritiesandimmigrantsintheEU,as
indicatedbyavailableevidencecollectedromgovernmentalandnon-governmentalsources;
Second,thelackocomprehensiveand
comparableEU-widedataonethnicminoritiesand
immigrantsexperiencesounequaltreatmentand
racistvictimisation;
Third,theneedordatacollectiononminorities
experiencesodiscriminationandvictimisation
thatcanbeusedtoinormevidence-basedpolicies
andactiontoaddresstheseundamentalrights
abuses.
Tothisend,thisreportpresentsthemainndings
romtheAgencysEU-MIDISsurvey,whichisthe
rstoitskindintheEUtoproduceEU-widedataon
experiencesodiscrimination,racistvictimisation,
andpolicing,orover23,500immigrantandethnic
minorityrespondents.
Theresultspresentvaluablendingsthathighlight
problemareaswithregardtothediscrimination
andvictimisationexperiencesominoritiesboth
withinandbetweenMemberStates.Thendings
canbeusedtokick-startdiscussionsandpolicyactionatMemberStateandEU-levelaboutwhere
interventionstoaddressdiscriminationand
victimisationineverydaylieneedtobetargeted
mosturgently.Theyalsooerevidenceor
critiquingtheapparentlimitationsopastandon-
goinginterventionstoaddressdiscriminationand
victimisationagainstminorities,andprovidethe
contextagainstwhichECandnationallegislation,
suchastheECRaceDirective,canbejudged
withrespecttotherealitiesodiscriminationand
victimisationontheground.
Esseti, EUMIDIS prides:
Therstbaselinecomparativedataonselected
ethnicminoritiesandimmigrantsexperienceso
discrimination,criminalvictimisationandpolicing
intheEU;includingdataontheirawarenesso
theirrightsintheeldonon-discrimination.
Aprimaryreerencesourceorthosedeveloping
policiesandtakingactiontoaddressracist
discriminationandcriminalvictimisation.
Thetoolsorurtherresearchatnationaland
locallevel;namely,thesurveyquestionnaireand
technicalreport.
-
8/14/2019 Etude FRA discriminations minorits en Europe - dec 2009
20/276
EUMIDIS
20
1.1.1. EUMIDIS ke jecties
WithintheEU,experiencesodiscriminationand
victimisationagainstvulnerablegroups(namely,
disadvantagedethnicminoritiesand/orimmigrants)
havenotyetbeencapturedinsucientdetail.Inresponsetothis,theFRAlaunchedacomprehensive
survey,EU-MIDIS,tocollectanddocumentthe
experienceovulnerablecommunitiesacrossall
MemberStatesotheEuropeanUnion.Thesurvey
aimedtolookatraciallyorethnicallymotivated
discriminationaswellasexperiencesocriminal
victimisationonthesamegrounds.
EU-MIDIShadtheollowingprimaryobjectives:
TocollectsurveydatainEUMemberStateson
discriminationandcriminalvictimisationas
experiencedbyselectedimmigrantandother
minoritygroups(suchasestablishednationalor
ethnicminoritygroups),whichcaninormthe
developmentoevidence-basedpoliciesatnati-
onalandEUleveltoaddressdierencesinthese
discriminationandvictimisationratesasrevealed
throughthesurvey.
Tocollectdatausingastandardisedquantitative
surveyinstrumentthatallowsorcomparisono
results:a)betweendierentminoritygroupswithin
MemberStateswheretwoormoregroups
wereinterviewed.
b)betweenMemberStatesthathavesimilar
minoritypopulations.
c)accordingtoarangeorespondent
characteristicssuchasgenderandage.
d)betweentheresultsgeneratedromthis
surveyandthosegeneratedrommatched
questionsinothersurveysonMemberState
majoritypopulations.
Tocollectdataonselectedgroupsusing
priit rdm smpi metdsthat
allowsorthegeneralisationoresultstothe
groupsbeingresearchedintheareaswherethey
weresurveyed.
Whatthemainresultsreportdoesanddoesnotdo:
Thesurveyresultsarepresentedhereas
descriptivestatisticsthatoutlinethesituationon
thegroundasreportedbysurveyinterviewees.
Thesurveysresultsarerepresentativeonlyothe
groupsthatweresurveyedinthelocationswhere
theyweresurveyed.
Thereportdoesnotoerprescriptivesuggestions
orpolicyresponsesandactioninthelightothe
surveysndings,butinsteadoerssomegeneral
remarksinthisregardinthekeyndings,main
results,andinthenalsectionothereport.
TheDatainFocusreportsthatstemromthe
surveyoermoredetailedresultsonspecic
themesorgroupssurveyed,aswellastargeted
recommendationsinconsiderationopolicy.
Thesurveydid nothaveasanobjectivethe
collectionodatathatcouldexplainthecauseso
discriminatorytreatmentandracistvictimisation,
asitsaimwastodocumentminoritiesexperiences
odiscriminationandvictimisation.
1.2. Metd
EUMIDIS is te rst sstemtic resce
ttempt t ddress uere immirt d
etic mirit rups usi stdrdised
sure istrumet i Memer Sttes te EU .
Assuch,thesurveyacedanumberomethodological
challenges,including:lackorecentandreliable
statisticalinormationaboutthesizeandcomposition
otargetpopulations;dicultaccesstocommunities;languageproblems(tonamejustaewexamples).
a pit sure wascarriedoutinsixMemberStatesin
2007,whichidentiedandtackledanumberothese
issuesinpreparationortheullsurvey.Inormation
aboutthemethodologicalandsamplingapproach
otheullsurveyisdocumentedinacomprehensive
technicalreport,wheredetailabouteveryaspecto
thesurveyisavailable,romquestionnairetranslations
toeldworkexecution.Themethodologicalsummary
inthisreportaddressesonlythekeypointspresented
intheulltechnicalreport.
gup Eurpeundertooktheeldworkor
EU-MIDISunderthesupervisionoFRAstawho
tookpartininterviewertrainingsessionsand
observedeldworkinselectedMemberStates.
1.2.1. Sure sics
EU-MIDISwasastandardisedsurvey-baseddata
collectionexercisewithselectedimmigrants,nationalminoritiesand/orethnicminorities.Theeldwork
wasmostlyundertakeninEuropeanurbancentresor
othergeographicareaswithhighconcentrationso
minoritypopulations.
-
8/14/2019 Etude FRA discriminations minorits en Europe - dec 2009
21/276
Mi Resuts Reprt
2
ThedesignotheEU-MIDISsurveycouldonlybe
denedinrelativelybroadtermsinthetechnical
specicationotheCallorTenderorthesurvey.The
operationaldesignothesurveytookitsnalshape
inthelightothepilotsurveysresults,whichtested
thequestionnaireanddierentsamplingapproachesinsixMemberStates,andaterdetaileddiscussions
withrepresentativesoGallupEuropeandapanelo
experts.
PreparatoryactivitiesorthestudystartedinJanuary
2008,andtheeldworkwaslaunchedinmost
MemberStatesduringMay2008.Duetovarious
challenges,thesurveyeldworkstretcheduntilthe
endoOctober/beginningoNovemberinsome
MemberStates(withasummerbreakbetween22ndo
Julyand25thoAugustwheneldworkactivitieswere
eectivelysuspended).Table1.1detailstheactual
eldworkdurationineachMemberState.
Te 1.1 EUMIDIS iedrk dtes
(allin2008) Strt Ed
austri 6-May 17-Jul
beium 28-Apr 29-Aug
buri 12-May 17-Jun
Czec Rep. 20-May 6-Jul
Cprus 10-May 22-JunDemrk 19-May 27-Oct
Esti 12-May 4-Sep
id 18-Apr 25-Aug
rce 5-May 15-Sep
germ 10-May 30-Jun
greece 19-May 10-Jul
hur 11-May 20-Jun
Ired 15-Aug 3-Oct
It 14-May 22-Jul
lti 16-May 21-Jul
litui 17-May 14-Jul
luxemur 28-Apr 6-Sep
Mt 16-May 21-Jul
neterds 1-May 5-Nov
Pd 11-May 20-Jun
Prtu 15-May 21-Jul
Rmi 17-May 25-Jun
Ski 3-May 30-Jun
Sei 16-May 30-Sep
Spi 1-May 22-Jul
Sede 3-May 24-Sep
UK 7-May 13-Sep
1.2.2. EUMIDIS smpi
1.2.2.1. Geographical coverage
Fromtheoutset,EU-MIDISwasplannedwithaocus
ongroupsinurban/semi-urbanareas,inparticularwithincapitalcitiesandoneortwokeyurbancentres
withhighconcentrationsoimmigrant/ethnic
minoritygroups.However,thismodelcouldnot
beappliedwiththepredominantlyruralnational
minoritiesthatwereinterviewedorthesurveyin
someMemberStatesnamelytheRoma.Thereore,
EU-MIDISadoptedadualstrategy;rst,tocovermajor
cities,includingcapitals,wherevulnerablegroups
thatwereselectedorinterviewingweremostly
immigrants,and,second,toadoptanatlocation
approachorMemberStateswheretherelevant
minoritiesorsurveyingwereprimarilynon-urban,or
wheretherewerenorealdistincturbancentres(e.g.
inthesmallestMemberStates).Thesitesselected
orthesurveyweredesignatedbytheFRAatthe
inceptionstageoplanning.Table1.2speciesthe
EU-MIDIScoverageareaineachMemberState.
Te 1.2 EUMIDIS Cere are
austri Vienna
beium Brussels Antwerp
buri [nationwide1]
Czec Rep. [nationwide]
Cprus [nationwide]
Demrk Copenhagen
Odense
germ Berlin
Frankurt
Munich
greece Athens
Thessaloniki
Esti Tallinn
id Helsinki
metroarea
rce Paris
metroarea
Marseille
Lyon
hur Budapest
Miskolc
Ired Dublin
metroarea
It RomeMilan
Bari
lti Riga
Daugavpilslitui Vilnius
Visaginas
luxemur [nationwide]
Mt [nationwide]
neterds Amsterdam
Rotterdam
TheHague
Utrecht
Pd [nationwide]
Prtu Lisbon
metroarea
Setubal
Rmi [nationwide]
Ski [nationwide]
Sei Ljubljana
Jesenice
Spi Madrid
Barcelona
Sede Stockholm
Malm
UK London
1Correspondingtothelocationorelevanttargetgroups.
-
8/14/2019 Etude FRA discriminations minorits en Europe - dec 2009
22/276
EUMIDIS
22
1.2.2.2. Target groups
EU-MIDISaimedtoproducedataontheextentand
natureodiscriminationandcriminalvictimisationas
experiencedbygroupsthatareconsideredvulnerable
totheseactsonthebasisotheirimmigrantorethnic
minoritybackground.Inthisregard,thegroups
orsamplingwerebroadlyclassedasimmigrants,
nationalminoritiesandethnicminoritiestoreect
theparticularsituationinMemberStateswithrespect
tohistoriesopastandrecentimmigration,and
settlement,andthedegreetowhichcertaingroups
areconsideredtobevulnerabletovictimisationand
discrimination.
TheFRAsselectionogroupsorsamplingwas
inormedbythenationalannualreportsonthe
situationoracismandxenophobiaineachMember
State,whichhavebeensubmittedsince2000tothe
Agencyanditspredecessor,theEUMC,byitsRaXEn
etrkonationalocalpoints(owhichthereis
oneineachMemberState).Theresultsothisdata
collectionexercisearepublishedbytheAgencyinits
annualreportthatlooksatthesituationoracismand
xenophobiaintheMemberStatesotheEU.
Giventhatanupperlimitothreegroupshadto
besetorsamplinginanyMemberStatewitha
minimumsamplesizeo500respondentsoreach
groupdicultchoiceshadtobemadeinthose
countrieswithsignicantanddiverseimmigrantand
ethnicminoritypopulationsconcerningwhichgroups
toselect.InthisregardtheAgencybenetedrom
theinormationsuppliedbyandtheexpertiseoits
RAXENnetwork.
Insum,theFRAsselectionogroupstotakepartintheresearchwasbasedontheollowingspecic
considerations(seeTable1.3orlistingoallgroups
surveyed).
Groups which are vulnerabletooratrisko
discriminatorytreatmentonthebasisotheir
ethnicityorimmigrantbackground,aswellas
criminalvictimisation,includingspecically
raciallymotivatedcrime.Inthisregard,the
researchdidnotocusongroupsthatcanbeconsideredasnotparticularlyvulnerableoratrisk;
orexample,BritishimmigrantsinSpainorthe
SwedishminorityinFinland.
Aminimum overall size o the communitysucient
orrandomsamplingpurposes,ininteraction
withidentiableareaswherethegroupsresideat
aminimumsucientdensity(e.g.5%).
Whenidentiyinggroups,stresswasplacedon
somecommonshared characteristics;namely
theirsocially,economicallyand/orpolitically
marginalisedstatuswhencomparedwiththe
majoritypopulation.
Withtheaimtobeabletocompareresults
betweenMemberStates,everyeortwasmade
toavoidselectingagroupthatwasonlyrepre-
sentedinoneMemberState.
Inadditiontothegroupsthatwereselectedor
interviewingineachMemberState,whichcould
beuptothree,interviewerswerealsoallowedtointerviewpeopleoSub-SaharanAricanorigin
whotheyidentiedduringthesurveysnormal
randomroutesamplingwheretheywerenot already
included in any o the specically targeted groups or
surveying in a Member State.Inotherwords,where
Sub-SaharanAricanswerenotoneothegroupsor
surveyinginaMemberState,butwhensomeone
withaSub-SaharanAricanoriginwasidentied
throughrandomsamplinginthatcountry,theywere
askeditheycouldbeinterviewed.Thedecision
wastakentodothisasitwaseltthatSub-Saharan
Aricansareparticularlypronetodiscriminationand
racistvictimisationinmanyMemberStates,based
onreportsromtheAgencysRAXENnetwork,and
thereoretheirexperiencesshouldbecaptured
ipossible.However,usingthesurveysrandom
samplingapproach,veryewadditionalSub-Saharan
Aricanrespondentswereidentiedinthisway.
GiventhesmallsizeotheotherSub-Saharan
Aricansgroupanditscomposition(disproportionate
representationosomeMemberStates)these
observationswereexcludedromtheanalysisinthis
report.However,theulldatasetcontainsinormationonthisotherSub-SaharanAricangroup,whichcan
beanalysedoncethedatasetismadepublic.
Note:ResultsorCyprusandMalta,orSouth
AmericansinSpain,andBraziliansinPortugalare
onlyreportedinthemainresultssection.Further
resultsromtheulldatasetwillbereleasedin
2010,whichwillalloworananalysisondings
concerningtheseMemberStatesand/orspecicgroups.
Note:GroupsarereerredtosimplyasRussiansor
Sub-SaharanAricans,orexample,todenotetheir
originbutnottheircitizenship,whichwasrecorded
separately.
-
8/14/2019 Etude FRA discriminations minorits en Europe - dec 2009
23/276
Mi Resuts Reprt
23
Te 1.3 summrises te rups smped dsureed i ec Memer Stte.
austri Turkish
ormerYugoslavs2
beium NorthAricans3
Turkish
buri Roma
Turkish
Czec Rep. Roma
Cprus Asians4
Demrk Turkish
Somalis
germ Turkish
ormerYugoslavs
greece Albanians
Roma
Esti Russians
id Russians
Somalis
rce NorthAricans
Sub-SaharanAricans5
hur Roma
Ired CentralandEastEuropeans6
Sub-SaharanAricans
It Albanians
NorthAricans
Romanians
lti Russianslitui Russians
luxemur ormerYugoslavs
Mt ImmigrantsromArica
neterds NorthAricans
Turkish
Surinamese
Pd Roma
Prtu Brazilians
Sub-SaharanAricans
Rmi Roma
Ski Roma
Sei Serbians
Bosnians
Spi NorthAricans
SouthAmericans
Romanians
Sede Iraqis
Somalis
UK CentralandEastEuropeans
1.2.2.3. Target persons
Thesurveysampledindividuals(maleandemale)
aged16yearsandolderwho:
Identiedthemselvesasbelongingtooneotheimmigrant,nationalminorityorethnicminority
groupsselectedorsamplingineachMember
State.
Areusuallyresident7inoneothesampledcities
orareasotheMemberStatebeingsurveyed.
HavebeenresidentintheMemberStatesorat
least12months.
Havesucientcommando(oneothe)the
nationallanguage(s)otheMemberStatebeing
surveyedtoleadasimpleconversationwiththe
interviewer.8
Ineachhouseholdthatcontainedindividualsrom
thedesignatedtargetgroups,uptothreeeligible
personswereinvitedtotakepartinthesurvey.
Individualswithinhouseholdsweresampled
randomlytotakepartinthesurveyusingaKishgrid
(seeonlinesurveytechnicalreportorulldetailso
thescreeningapproach).
1.2.2.4. Sampling approach
Thecomplextargetpopulationandcoveragearea
denitionwasreectedinasimilarlycomplexsample
design,utilisingourdierentapproaches(seeTable
1.4,whichshowsthespecictypeadoptedineach
MemberState).
ThegeneralEU-MIDISsamplingapproachwasbased
onacombinationotwospecicmethods;random-
route samplingandocused enumeration.
Asadeaultsamplingapproach,astdrd
rdmrute(RR)procedurewasusedtosample
households.Thismethodisoneothemostlikelyto
capturethewholeuniverseineachcityorrelevant
areasampled.Thesurveyspilotstudyshowedthat
random-routesamplingproducesthebestresponse
rates,andprovidesaneasierone-stepaccessto
membersothesampledminoritiesincomparison
2ThoseromanyothesuccessorstatesotheormerYugoslavia.
3Algeria,Egypt,Libya,Morocco,Sudan,Tunisia,WesternSahara.
4VariousAsiancountries,mostrequentlyromSriLanka,thePhilippines,India,Bangladesh,Pakistan.Pleasenotethatthissamplewasoverwhelminglyemale(asmostothoseinterviewedweredomesticworkers).
5AllotherAricancountries,notlistedasNorthArican.
6Anyothe12newMemberStatesotheEU,apartromCyprusandMalta,abbreviatedasCEE(CentralandEasternEurope).
7Thedenitionoresidencewasmerelypractical,nolegalregistrationwaschecked.
8Theexceptionwerethecountrieswheretheinterviewerswereabletoconducttheinterviewsintheminoritylanguageseesection1.2.3.2.
-
8/14/2019 Etude FRA discriminations minorits en Europe - dec 2009
24/276
EUMIDIS
2
withotherapproaches,suchasCATI-screening,
whichweretestedaspartothepilot.Allinterviews
orthesurveywerecarriedoutace-to-ace,witha
proessionalintervieweraskingthequestionsand
codingtheresponses.Inthelightothepilot,itwas
consideredthatthepersonalpresenceointerviewersacilitatedamoreaccurateexecutionotheocused
enumerationprocedure(seebelow),andalsoallowed
ortheuseoalternativelanguagequestionnaires.
Fortherandomroutesamplesineachotheselected
primarysamplingunits(PSUsconcentratedin
thehigh-densityandmedium-densityareaswhere
targetedminoritiesmostlylive),onestartingaddress
wasdrawnatrandom.Thatstartaddressservedasthe
rstaddressoacluster.Theremainderothecluster
wasthenselectedasevery5thaddressbystandard
random-routeprocedureromtheinitialaddress.
Clustersizeswerenotdenedoranysamplingpoint
(however,thenumberodesiredinterviewsoreach
samplingpointwasprovided);usuallyclustersizes
inmedium-densityareaswerelargerthanthosein
high-densityareas.Stoppingruleswereinplaceto
preventineectiverandom-routesamplingwhere
thersttenattemptscouldnotidentiyanyeligible
minorityhousehold(inthemainsampleandvia
ocusedenumerationcombined).Inthosecaseswhere
theoriginallydesignatedstartingpointprovedtobe
ineective,twosubstitutestartingaddressesweremadeavailable;therstinthesamesamplingarea
(whichmighthavebeenamediumorahigh-density
area)andthesecondinahigh-densityarea.
ToassistrandomsamplinginType(a)samples(see
below),oreachPSUaGoogle-map based satellite and
outline map segments were provided to interviewers
wherethedesignatedstartingaddress(designatedby
arandomalgorithm)wasmarked,andinterviewers
wererequiredtodocumenttheirsamplingactivity
onthemapaswellasbycompletingmatchingroute
administrationsheets.Inthiswaythegeographical
sampleselectionorType(a)sampleswasully
centralisedandcontrolledbyGallupEurope.
cused eumerti(FE)wasappliedinorderto
boosttheecacyotherandom-routeapproach.
FEreliesoninterviewersscreeningaddresses
adjacenttothecoreissuedaddress,e.g.theone
thatisidentiedviatheRRprocedure.DuringFE,
anycontactpersonattheRRaddressisaskedto
maptheimmediateneighbourstondadditional
householdswheretargetminoritypersonsmightlive.Thisisamethodthatkeepsarandomruleor
respondentselection,butthroughproxyinormation
itprovidesbetteraccesstorarepopulations.Focused
enumerationmaycoveranyotheollowingdwelling
units:anyats/housesoneandtwodoorstotheright
andoneandtwodoorstotheletothesourceRR
address,andiinamulti-storeybuildingthosedirectly
aboveanddirectlybelowtheat/householdwherean
interviewerisaskingsomeonetomapinormation
abouttheirneighbours.
TheaimoFEwasthatinterviewerscouldelicit
proxyinormationromasingleaddresstoscreen
outaddressescontainingpeopleromthemajority
population,andalsotoscreenoutaddresses
containingpeopleromminorityhouseholds/persons
thatdidnotbelongtothegrouporgroupsselected
orinterviewinginaMemberState.
Becausetheocusedenumerationboostersample
wasdrawnromallsamplePSUsandbecauseaxed
numberoaddressesissampledaroundeachcore
sampleaddressthesampleoaddressesissuedor
screeningbyocusedenumerationaimedtobeas
representativeothecoverageareaasthestandard
randomrouteprocedure.
Asageneralrule,allsamplingactivitieswereace
toace,andeachidentiedaddresswasvisited
twiceatertheinitialattempttoestablishcontact;
thustree ttempts ere mde i tt ere
drppi ddress,withtheapplicationostrict
rulesconcerningrepeatcontactsinordertoensurethatahouseholdwasapproachedatdierenttimes
whentheywerelikelytobehome.
1.2.2.5 Sampling methods applied in thevarious Member States
AterreviewingthepossibilitiesineachMember
State,EU-MIDISadoptedur distict smpi
pprces,withtwoothemcapitalisingon
randomrouteandocusedenumeration,andthe
othertwoutilisingalternativestothismethod.
SamplingapproacheswereuniormwithinMember
Statesthatis,onlyoneapproachwasusedineach
country.Theourtypeswere:
TyPE a) CITy/URban:randomroutesampling(RR)
withocusedenumeration(FE:):thestandard
samplingmethod,wheretherandomroute
PSUsareallocatedintheselectedcities/urban
areas,disproportionallydistributedacrosssec-
tionsandstratiedbydensity(incaseswhere
reliabledensityinormationoreachstratacouldbeobtained).
TheFRAandGallupworkedtogethertoobtain
detailedstatisticsconcerningtheconcentration
-
8/14/2019 Etude FRA discriminations minorits en Europe - dec 2009
25/276
Mi Resuts Reprt
2
oeligibleminoritygroupsbycity/urbansection
(e.g.ward,parish,censusunit,orequivalent).
Wherestatisticalinormationwasavailable,
sampleswereallocatedinawaythat80%o
theissuedPSUswerelocatedinsectionswithatleast15%combineddensityoeligibleminori-
ties,and20%insectionswithacombinedden-
sitybetween8.0%and14.99%.Inthestandard
design,sectionswithadensityo7.99%orless
werenotsampled.
Inseverallocationsobtainingsection-level
densityinormationprovedtobeimpossible,
ortheobtainedguresweredeemedinoper-
able(e.g.outdatedorinsucientlydetailed,
whichwasthecaseinEstonia,Greece,Italyand
Slovenia).InthesecitiesPSUsweredesignated
byexpertchoice(e.g.aterconsultingwiththe
FRAsRAXENnetwork,minorityorganisations,
academicexperts,andmunicipaloces),witha
viewtodeningandconrmingtheallocation
oPSUsinhighandmediumdensityareas.
TyPE b) REgISTRybaSED addresssamples:In
mostMemberStatesitisnotlegallypossibleto
obtainsamplescontainingsensitiveinormation
suchasethnicbackgroundthatcanidentiyan
individualorhousehold.Howeverinaewcasesthiswaspossible,andEU-MIDISutilisedthis
approachasanidealmethodorsamplinglow-
incidenceordispersedethnicminoritieswith
theassurancethatnoindividualsresultscould
beoundthroughtheresultingdataanalysis.In
thesecountries,arandomsamplewasdrawn
romasucientlyaccuratepopulationlist(na-
tionalregistriesorequivalent)andtheselected
individuals(andtheirhouseholdmembers)were
contacteddirectlybyinterviewers.
TyPE C) naTIonwIDEsampling:themethodused
tocoverethnicminoritiesthataresituatedin
ruralandsemi-ruralareas,aswellaslargeurban
centres,wheretherandom-routePSUsareal-
locatedinterritoriesthroughoutthecountry
wherethereisaknownhighdensityothetar-
getpopulation(asestablishedeitherbynational
statisticsorlarge-scalespecicstudies).
TyPE D) InTERvIEwERgEnERaTED & nETwoRK
sampling(IG/NS):adoptedasacontingency
methodortheabovethreetrulyrandomsamplingapproaches.Inthisscenario,starting
romaninitialnumberocontacts,thenetwork
otheidentiedeligiblepersonswastobe
sampled.Inmanyinstancesthismethodproved
tobeunsuitableorthesurvey,astheindividu-
alsrecruitedortheinterviewwereextremely
reluctanttoprovidetheirpersonalnetworksor
subsequentsampling.Thisapproachthereore
becamepredominantlyaninterviewer-generat-edsampleorelevantminoritiesattypicalplaces
ogathering,withverylimitedopportunityto
ollowuprespondentspersonalnetworks.How-
ever,theapproachstillusedthesamescreener
astheotherthreesamplingapproachesto
identiyappropriaterespondents.Thissampling
methodwasadoptedromtheoutsetinMalta,
whereinterviewstookplaceamongthepopula-
tionosocalledsemi-opendetentioncentres.
AsindicatedinTable1.4,i e Memer Sttes
te rii seected rdmrute smpimetd d t e repced it te ck
etrk smpi suti due t te extreme
r ecc te rii seected
metd.IntheUK,IrelandandSwedentherandom-
routeapproachdidnotineectprovideanyaccess
tothetargetgroups,whileduetothelowecacy
otherandom-routeapproachintheNetherlands
andSloveniaacertainnumberointerviewswere
conductedwiththeall-backmethod(proportionso
interviewsbysamplingmethodareshowninTable1.4).
Regardlessothesamplingmethod,theollowing
requirementsweresetoutorEU-MIDIS:
Replacementoenumerateddwellingunits/
householdswaspossible,providedthattwo
urthervisitsatertheinitialcontactwerecarried
out,ortheunitexplicitlyreusedparticipation.
Ineachenumeratedeligiblehousehold(withat
leastonememberulllingtheeligibilitycriteria)
uptothreepersonscouldbeinterviewed,chosen
randomlyromhouseholdmembersshouldthere
bemorethanthreeeligiblepersons(usingaKish
gridselection).
Theprimarymodeocontactwasacetoace.In
orderto(re)contactidentiedminorityhouse-
holds,otherapproacheswerealsoaccepted.
Interviewersmightusethetelephonenumber
obtainedbytheintervieweratarstvisitto
ollowupandschedule/rescheduleappoint-
mentsorasecond/thirdollow-up.Telephoning
asacontactmethodhadthebenetobeingaexibleapproach,andwasusedasarstcontact
methodinsomecasesinrelationtoocused
enumeration,wherethereerrercouldprovide
-
8/14/2019 Etude FRA discriminations minorits en Europe - dec 2009
26/276
EUMIDIS
2
atelephonenumberortheirneighbour(which
mayhavebeenrecordedalongwiththeaddress),
andwasalsoeectiveinnearlyallcasesonet-
worksampling.
1.2.2.6. Sample size
Thetargetsamplesizeperspecicminoritygroup
was500(withtheexceptionotheUKwherethe
samplesizeorasinglegroupwas1,000).Table1.5
showsthenetsamplesizeachievedinthevarious
groups.
9UNODC-UNECEManualoVictimizationSurveys(UnitedNationsEconomicCommissionorEurope,ECE/CES/2009/12/Add.1).
Te 1.4 Smpi pprces Memer Sttes, d distriuti te cieed smpeccrdi t smpi metd(RR=conductedatprimaryrandomrouteaddress,FE=conductedatandaddressidentiedwithocused
enumeration,AS=addresssample,IG/NS=interviewer-generatedandnetworksampling)
(TyPE a) Smpi pprc % RR % E % nS
austri RRwithFE 57 43
beium RRwithFE 73 27
greece RRwithFE 54 46
Esti RRwithFE 26 74
rce RRwithFE 96 4
hur RRwithFE 77 23
It RRwithFE 80 20
lti RRwithFE 68 32
litui RRwithFE 34 66
Prtu RRwithFE 39 61
Spi RRwithFE 78 22
Ired RRwithFE-->IG/NS 0 100
Sede RRwithFE-->IG/NS 4 96
UK RRwithFE-->IG/NS 6 94
neterds RRwithFE-->IG/NS 41 59
Sei RRwithFE-->NS 38 50 12
(TyPE b)
Demrk AS NA
germ AS NA
id AS NA
luxemur AS
(TyPE C)
Czec Rep. RRwithFE 73 27
buri RRwithFE 70 30
Pd RRwithFE 82 18
Rmi RRwithFE 90 10
Ski RRwithFE 37 63
Cprus RRwithFE 44 56
(TyPE D)
Mt IG/NS 100
TheFRAhascontributedtextonsamplingdicult
tosurveyorrarepopulationsortheUnited
NationsManualonVictimizationSurveys.9
-
8/14/2019 Etude FRA discriminations minorits en Europe - dec 2009
27/276
-
8/14/2019 Etude FRA discriminations minorits en Europe - dec 2009
28/276
EUMIDIS
2
When,uponcompletionotheEU-MIDISminority
segment,thecorrespondingmajoritysub-sampledid
notreachthedesired500cases,additionaltelephone
interviewswereconductedtoc