Etude FRA discriminations minorités en Europe - dec 2009

8/14/2019 Etude FRA discriminations minorits en Europe - dec 2009

1/276


2/276


3/276

EU-MIDIS

European Union Minoritiesand Discrimination Survey

Main Results Report

European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights


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




3.2.3.Discriminationbyrespondent

characteristics 121


3.2.5.Crimevictimisationbyrespondent

characteristics 127




characteristics 131

3.2.9.Respondentbackground 133 3.3. nrt arics 134

3.3.1.Generalopinionson

discrimination,andrights

awareness 135



characteristics 142



characteristics 147



3.3.8.Policestops 150


3.4. Te Rm 154





characteristics 165



characteristics 170


5/276

Mi Resuts Reprt

3.4.6.Corruption 171 3.4.7.Policeandbordercontrol 171


characteristics 174


3.5. Russis 176



3.5.2.Experienceodiscrimination

onthebasisoethnicity 180


characteristics 184



characteristics 189




characteristics 193


3.6. Turkis 196



3.6.2.Experienceodiscrimination 201 3.6.3.Discriminationbyrespondent

characteristics 206



characteristics 212




characteristics 216


3.7. rmer yusis 220





characteristics 229



characteristics 234




characteristics 238


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


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


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


8/276

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.


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).


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


10/276

EUMIDIS

0

CentralandEastEuropeans,and8%orRussians

andalsoorormerYugoslavians.


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.


tospecicgroupsinMemberStates,North

AricansinItalyexperiencedthehighestrateo

discriminationintheareaohousing.

Housing was one o the three areas where

respondents were asked whether they knew about

anti-discrimination legislation:



people on the basis o their ethnicity when renting


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.


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-


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:



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


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.


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.


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.


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.


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


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.


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%).


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


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


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.


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.


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


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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


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


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


27/276


28/276

EUMIDIS

2

When,uponcompletionotheEU-MIDISminority

segment,thecorrespondingmajoritysub-sampledid

notreachthedesired500cases,additionaltelephone

interviewswereconductedtoc

Etude FRA discriminations minorités en Europe - dec 2009

Documents

Transcript of Etude FRA discriminations minorités en Europe - dec 2009