measuring equality outcomes future developments: using human rights indicators in the work of fra...
TRANSCRIPT
Measuring Equality Outcomes
Future developments: Using human rights indicators in the
work of FRA and the EHRC
Joanna GoodeyHead of ‘Freedoms and Justice’ Research Dpt.
European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights
2
Points to address
Introducing the FRA and its work
The essential role of indicators in HR: challenges and opportunities
Future developments? Reflecting on the work of FRA and the EHRC
3
Introducing the FRA
and its work
4
Main Tasks for the FRA
Collect, record, analyse and disseminate relevant, objective, reliable and comparable information and data on FR – across 27 Member States
Develop methods and standards to improve data comparability:Indicators on the rights of the Child EU - MIDIS surveyOpinions:Opinion on the draft Stockholm ProgrammeOpinion on the use of PNR Report Drafting Range of socio-legal reports in different thematic areas
5
Research Methodology
International/EU legal definitions and standards Policy relevant research
Interdisciplinary ‘socio – legal’ approach
Production of comparable data – esp survey research in areas where there is no comparable data
6
Secondary SourcesFRA’s new research network (FRANET) to
collect data and information across 27 countries;Information also collected separately for specific
research projects
– The status of FR re key areas of EU law: Equality Directives, Trafficking Directive etc. monitor implementation
– Available secondary sources: governmental and non-governmental sources: administrative data, surveys (official and research based), NGO reporting, media (rare)
7
Primary Data CollectionIn the absence of data on FR issues in many EU Member States, EU-wide comparable data collection is essential
– Quantitative surveys: random sampling of target groups using robust methodologies; face-to-face interviews to capture respondents’ experiences and attitudes concerning key FR issues (EU27)
– Qualitative research: group-based and one-to-one interviews with individuals; includes cognitive question testing prior to survey launches (EU27)
8
The essential role of indicators in human rights:
Challenges & Opportunities
9
Indicator development
Range of international actors: UN OHCHR; Unicef; UNDP; Transparency Int; MIPEX
Focus on countries in developmentComparison – key concept and
challenge/challenged
National actors: at country level diverse traditions of empiricism – impacts particularly on quantitative data collection
Data collection often not HR framed – impacts on whether data is collected & how it is used
10
Types of data
Census; population register regular; nationwide; quantitative; costly Surveys – government & non-government sometimes regular; quantitative (qual. elements)Administrative statistics collection not joined-up between agenciesExpert assessment – MIPEX; TI corrupt index Opinion-based; independence?Ad-hoc NGO reports; media Often not repeated; unscientific
11
Key elements
International HR law sets out duty bearer’s commitments re human rights compliance = basis for HR indicators
Specific series of clearly defined questions or lines of enquiry into which information and quantifiable data are fed;
Using common methodological approaches, and robust criteria;
Trends tracked over time;Data comparability;Benchmarks established.
12
UN OHCHR
Sets framework for HR indicators – legal basisOutlines indicators in key areas/groups: e.g. right to life; violence against women etc. Structure – Process – Outcome framework for measuring human rights compliance
•Structure – legal basis•Process – policy instruments•Outcome – results on the ground
13
Absent & inadequate data
Challenges – no data; inadequate data; non-comparabilitySignificant problem at international level – UN Treaty Monitoring Bodies – outcome data absentSignificant problem re most vulnerable groups – ethnic minorities and Roma; LGBT
FRA response in key areas – primary data collection through surveys
14
FRA Surveys – Primary Data
EU-MIDIS: European Union Minorities and Discrimination Survey: EU-wide
Violence against Women Survey (VAW): EU-wide
LGBT survey: EU-wide
Roma survey: 11 MSs
Survey on the Jewish population: 5-6 MSs
Muslim and non-Muslim youth: 3 MSs (Eng + Scot.)
15
FRA Roma Survey
11 Member States
In the field May 2011
16
Background
Quantitative survey – 11 Member States: ES, FR, IT, PT, CZ, EL, HU, PL, RO, SK, BG
Respondents sampled using probability random sampling
1,000 Roma + 500 majority per MS – for direct comparison
Qualitative interviews with 25-30 Local Authorities per MS
17
Roma HR indicators
Household profile Map profile of all household members Neighbourhood/housing characteristics Economic situation of the household
Individual interviewees – random per HH Employment, education, health, housing Integration, discrimination, rights aware Mobility and migration Rights of the child
18
Developing EU policy framework
EC’s Roma Task Force – est. Summer 2010 Looking at situation of Roma in EU
EC Communication 2011 – established framework and basic benchmarks for measuring Roma inclusion
FRA mandated to collect data on Roma on regular basis - ??
FRA’s current Roma survey considered a pilot
19
Future Developments in the HR indicator field?
20
EHRC – what to consider?
Structural Indicators on HR International law as starting point
Comparison with other EU MSs France and Germany more so than some other
MSs Draw on existing data – Eurostat; UNECE etc.
FRA’s data collection vulnerable groups: LGBT; Roma; Jewish EU comparison re key indicators – VAW survey
21
FRA – what to consider?
Lessons learned from UK’s data collection Importance of Outcome indicators Possibilities for data collection – e.g. ethnic data
Whether the monitoring framework of the UK can be developed for use in other MSs?
Look at transferability
Intersectionality – different grounds Growing field of research in UK
22
HR developments & challenges?
Costs of large-scale and regular data collectionDuplication of data collection between surveys
Use to which data collection is put Lack of dialogue between users and producers Independence and trust in State institutions
Simplification of complex issuesLack of understanding of indicators for policy
Accountability of duty bearers & indicators
23
Thank you
Jo GoodeyHead of Department ’Freedoms and Justice’