In this page:
The Atlas of Roma communities was first drawn up in 2004 (again in 2013, updated in 2019) in response to the fact that censuses did not provide accurate data on the number of persons living in Roma communities or on Roma citizens in general. The practice aims to map and monitor the situations of Roma communities and inequalities between them and the majority population. Before the Atlas of Roma communities was created, there were no accurate and comprehensive data, which made it hard to tackle the inequality and discrimination that Roma communities face. The EU SILC_MRK provides a follow-up and more in-depth data on the issues raised.
In order to obtain more reliable data, the Plenipotentiary for Roma Communities, in cooperation with the Statistical Office of the Slovak Republic, conducted two separate surveys in 2018 and in 2020. The aim of the survey was to acquire and analyse data about the income and standard of living in marginalised Roma communities. The data concerned not only income, standard of living and financial situation in the household as a whole but also individual members older than 16 years and their basic demographic characteristics (e.g. education, health, employment, subjective evaluation of poverty and standard of living). In October 2020, the Statistical Office also concluded an agreement with FRA. The task of the Statistical Office was to include additional questions in the questionnaire and in the relevant materials needed for the EU SILC_MRK in order to meet the key indicators proposed for the EU framework for Roma inclusion after 2020.
The background for data gathering was the Atlas of Roma communities (updated in 2019), which provided information on the locations of marginalised communities and data on access to, for example, a public water supply, electricity, a grocery, a bus stop or a healthcare provider.
EU SILC was carried out in various Member States and the questionnaires were adapted based on the needs and realities within the countries.
There might be a challenge in comparing these data with the data gathered in the 2021 Census, which might lead to different outcomes. The 2021 Census took place online, and the collection of data by in-person interviewers was postponed because of the COVID-19 pandemic. These factors may have jeopardised the accuracy of the 2021 Census data.
The data gathered through the 2021 Census show that discrepancies between the Atlas of Roma communities and Census data still exist, even though the 2021 Census allowed multiple answers for the first time in respect of ethnicity/belonging to a national minority.
Implementation of the survey divided into five phases:
As part of the second phase of the survey (data collection), it was necessary to prepare a technical project, on the basis of which the aim was to create a data-recording program. Data collection and preparation of the program for later recording of the collected data were carried out in parallel within this phase of survey.
The technical project contained a description of all variables, which were subsequently recorded in the program (transferred from paper to electronic forms). The type of each variable surveyed (number, text), its range (scope) and acceptable values, or minimums and maximums, were defined and, based on this data-recording program, syntactic checks on data were defined.
The data-recording program also contained logical controls, in which logical links and relationships between relevant variables were checked.
The data collection itself was carried out by trained external interviewers, most of whom had practical experience with fieldwork in Roma communities. Throughout the survey, the interviewers were assisted by supervisors, who were in regular contact with them. They helped them mainly in solving any problems that occurred in the fieldwork. The supervisors also performed regular checks on the questionnaires collected and subsequently ensured the recording of data in the data-recording program.
The survey was time-consuming. The respondents were not always willing to answer all the questions. For providing data, household members received gift items (disinfectants, children's crayons and exercise books), which greatly helped to improve communication with the household members.
Detailed work on monitoring took place at national level during the entire data collection. This monitoring was done once a week (there were a total of nine rounds). The ongoing status of the examination was monitored (how many households were visited and how many households were successfully examined), and any problems in the fieldwork were also monitored on an ongoing basis.
Email:
