Measuring Equality Outcomes Future developments : Using human rights indicators in the work of FRA and the EHRC Joanna

1. Measuring Equality Outcomes Future developments: Using human rights indicators in the work of FRA and the EHRC Joanna Goodey Head 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 2

3. Introducing the FRA and its work 3

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 survey Opinions: Opinion on the draft Stockholm Programme Opinion on the use of PNR Report Drafting Range of socio-legal reports in different thematic areas 4

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 5

6. Secondary Sources FRA’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) 6

7. Primary Data Collection In 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) 7

8. The essential role of indicators in human rights: Challenges & Opportunities 8

9. Indicator development Range of international actors: UN OHCHR; Unicef; UNDP; Transparency Int; MIPEX Focus on countries in development Comparison – 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 9

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 agencies Expert assessment – MIPEX; TI corrupt index Opinion-based; independence? Ad-hoc NGO reports; media Often not repeated; unscientific 10

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. 11

12. UN OHCHR Sets framework for HR indicators – legal basis Outlines 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 12

13. Absent & inadequate data Challenges – no data; inadequate data; non-comparability Significant problem at international level – UN Treaty Monitoring Bodies – outcome data absent Significant problem re most vulnerable groups – ethnic minorities and Roma; LGBT FRA response in key areas – primary data collection through surveys 13

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.) 14

15. FRA Roma Survey 11 Member States In the field May 2011 15

16. Background 16 • 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 17 • 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 18 • 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? 19

20. EHRC – what to consider? 20 • 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? 21 • 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? 22 • Costs of large-scale and regular data collection • Duplication 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 issues • Lack of understanding of indicators for policy Accountability of duty bearers & indicators

23. 23 Thank you Jo Goodey Head of Department ’Freedoms and Justice’ jo.goodey@fra.europa.eu