POVERTY AND SOCIAL EXCLUSION OF IDPs IN SERBIA

POVERTY AND SOCIAL EXCLUSION OF IDPs IN SERBIA Slobodan Cvejic Marija Babovic Belgrade University

CONTENTS n n n n n Definition of IDPs Data sources Access to basic documentation Labor market position Education Health care Housing Poverty and material deprivation Conclusions

DEFINITION n UNHCR: IDPs - persons who were forced to change place of residence, moving to another settlement in the same country n n n In Serbia, waste majority of the group are persons who moved from Kosovo after NATO invasion in 1999 – arround 205. 000 Serbs make 78. 5% of the group, Roma make 15. 8%, and the rest are Montenegrians, Bosniaks, Goranians and others (LSMS). the proportion of IDPs living in urban areas increased from 70. 6% before the displacement, to 83% today majority of IDPs are located in Belgrade and bigger cities near Kosovo (Kraljevo, Niš, Leskovac, Kruševac) In northern province of Vojvodina mostly Roma IDPs 4, 580 IDPs accommodated in 56 collective centers (Jan. 2009)

DATA SOURCES n n a number of researches aiming to analyze the socioeconomic position and problems of IDP population in the past few years (LSMS, UNDP, DRC, KIRS) This descriptive analysis based on LSMS 2007 sample of 1, 962 IDP households and 8, 441 individuals, including 259 Roma households and 1, 331 Roma individuals Some remarks based on Survey on Social Inclusion, conducted by UNDP for Regional Human Development Report, where national sample of 2, 400 was boosted with 300 IDPs.

ACCESS TO BASIC DOCUMENTATION n n n the number of IDPs who faced this problem decreased. In 2007 10. 6% of LSMS respondents said they lacked some personal documents, 8. 1% of non-Roma and 26. 6% of Roma lacked basic documents (birth certificate, citizenship certificate, personal ID, health care card) Non-Roma lacked less important documents (employment service document, passport) 42, 1% of Roma IDPs who lacked documentation did not even try to collect missing documents – they need assistance in approaching relevant institutions

LABOR MARKET POSITION GENERAL Serbia general population gender Total M W Non-Roma IDPs gender Total M W Activity rate 63. 4 71. 9 54. 9 53. 7 66. 7 40. 1 42. 5 64. 5 20. 0 Employment Rate 51. 5 60. 0 43. 0 34. 4 47. 4 20. 8 30. 3 50. 1 10. 0 Unemployment Rate 18. 8 16. 5 21. 7 36. 0 28. 9 48. 3 28. 7 22. 3 50. 0 Source for general population of Serbia: RSO, LFS, 2007 Source for IDPs: LSMS, 2007

LABOR MARKET POSITION – EMPLOYMENT 1 Non-Roma Legal status Formal contract, licence Informal Self. Salaried employed worker Roma Total IDPs Self. Salaried employed worker Serbia Self. Salaried employed worker 10. 5 71. 7 0. 6 29. 8 6. 1 70. 4 17. 7 82. 9 89. 5 28. 3 99. 4 70. 2 93. 9 29. 6 82. 3 17. 1 Source: LSMS, 2007 Employed non-Roma IDP women work under formal labor contracts more often than non-Roma men (78% and 69%, respectively)

LABOR MARKET POSITION – EMPLOYMENT 2 n n n A significant number of employed IDP fail to exercise their welfare rights in the work place. Among the non-Roma, 91% of self-employed and 31% of employed do not have either retirement or health insurance. The majority of employed among non-Roma IDPs, and all Roma IDPs worked for the monthly salary that is below the average salary for Serbia in 2007 – 350, 250 and 150 EURO respectively

LABOR MARKET POSITION – UNEMPLOYMENT n n n Long-term unemployment (looking for job longer than one year): 75% at national level, 91% among IDPs. Only 15% of unemployed non-Roma and less than 3% of unemployed Roma from the sample are beneficiaries of unemployment compensation IDP allowance discouraging labor market entrance

EDUCATION - PRESCHOOL n n Attendance rate of preschool daily care in national sample is 25. 3%, among non-Roma IDPs 16% and among Roma IDPs 2%. Only 2/3 of internaly displaced children attend an obligatory pre-school programme. There is no difference between non-Roma IDPs and domicile children (82% and 83. 3%, respectively), but Roma only 28. 8%

EDUCATION – PRIMARY AND SECONDARY, UNIVERSITY Attendance Not attending Primary school 1 -3 years vocational school 4 years vocational school General high school Special school for mentally handicapped Non-Roma 6. 2 65 6. 4 18. 7 3. 3 Roma 49. 5 46. 3. 8. 5. 3 Total 15 61. 2 5. 3 15. 1 2. 7 Serbia 8 59. 2 5. 9 18. 6 6. 8 . 2 2. 6 . 7 . 5 University education (enroled at age 19 -25): 61% in national sample, 44, 8% non-Roma IDPs, 0 Roma IDPs in the sample.

HEALTH CARE n n n Persons without health insurance (2007): 6% in national sample, 1, 6% among non-Roma IDPs, 16, 1% among Roma IDPs Getting worse: 2009 estimate on national level – 12% Non-Roma IDP women do not visit gynaecologists more often than Roma women Contrary to trend in domicile population where non-Roma women visit gynaecologists more frequently than Roma Both groups visit gynaecologists rarely (less than 2%). The rate of domicile adult women in Serbia who visited gynaecologist during last month was 2. 3%.

HOUSING n n n Ownership over housing unit: 77% among IDPs, 90 % at national level 10. 2% of IDP households live in objects that are not intended for housing (32% as compared to 6. 9% non-Roma IDPs), only 0. 5% among domicile population average size of living space per household member 18. 43 m 2 among non-Roma IDPs, 8. 14 m 2 among Roma IDPs and 30 m 2 at national level Roma IDP families live in poorly equipped housing objects and critically lack basic hygienic conditions Roma households have debts for paying bills more frequently and for longer period than non-Roma households

POVERTY (absolute, LSMS) 2010 UNDP HDR: at-risk-of-poverty rate (60% of consumption mediane) was estimated at 18% for general population in Serbia, 57. 6% for IDPs and 82. 8% for Roma

MATERIAL DEPRIVATION (similar to SILC) n Composite index made of 3 components: n n n 1. capacity of meeting basic needs (food, clothing, payment of utilities, etc. ); 2. possession of durable goods; 3. housing (household furnishing and quality of the space)

CONCLUSIONS n n n IDPs are poorer and less included part of Serbian society Inclination towards urban areas: jobs in public institutions, better quality of services, lower education costs Vulnerable economic position: low income, higher unemployment, lost property, higher housing costs for some Roma IDPs in much worse position than non-Roma in any respect IDP women have much worse position in labor market than IDP men Need for more thoughtfull institutional approach and differentiated policy incentives

THANKS FOR YOUR ATTENTION