Vulnerability analysis: Methodologies, Purpose, and Policy Application

1
Vulnerability analysisMethodologies, Purpose,
and Policy Application

• Susanne Milcher
• Specialist, Poverty and Economic Development
• UNDP Regional Centre
• Bratislava
• (14 June 2006)

2
Outline

• The need of analysis and data for policy/project
  design and monitoring
• Qualitative versus quantitative approach
• Examples of both approaches
• Semi-structured interviews/focus groups on people
  living with HIV/Aids
• Household survey on Roma and the displaced

3
Need of vulnerability analysis

• How can vulnerable groups, their causes of
  exclusion and particular needs be identified
  without disaggregated quantitative data
  (multidimensional aspects, double
  marginalisation)?
• How can national-level policies that aim ensuring
  the sustainable inclusion of vulnerable groups be
  designed and resources be allocated without
  estimates of their size, problems and causes of
  problems?
• How can priorities and sector capacity
  deficiencies be identified without complementary
  in-depth qualitative research?
• How can policies be monitored and evaluated on
  their impact on vulnerable groups without data?

4
The need of analysis

• What kind of analysis?
• Socioeconomic status
• Human rights aspects
• Legal aspects (frameworks)
• Who elaborates it?
• The issue of trust and credibility
• Participation
• Who is its target?
• Public en large
• National governments
• International organizations/partners

5
The role of data/indicators

• Relevant profiles of vulnerability in the region
  are necessary for adequate programmatic and
  policy responses
• Those most in need remain hidden behind the
  national averages
• Without a clear picture of the status and
  determinants of exclusion and/or discrimination,
  actions are rather intuitive
• Can any analyses, resource allocation and policy
  be serious if not backed by data?
• Setting targets, baselines
• Monitoring the progress
• Measuring the outcomes
• Assessing the impact

6
Quantitative versus qualitative approach

• Quantitative approach
• Theory, hypotheses (i.e. women are more
  vulnerable to poverty because they face higher
  unemployment, lower education, discrimination,
  etc.)
• Indicators needed (employment rate, unemployment
  rate, poverty rate, educational attainments)
• Data collection (labour force survey) questions
  on employment activity, income in the last month,
  job search, educational attainments and enrolment
  individual level data to be able to account for
  sex, age, ethnicity, etc.)
• Goal gt Status registration, correlations and
  causal links

7
Quantitative versus qualitative approach (cont.)

• Qualitative approach
• Social reality, social constructs
• The meaning and reasons of human actions and
  decision-making result from interaction and
  therefore can only be observed through
  understanding the social structures determining
  these actions
• Information/data collection (interviews,
  observation, focus groups) e.g. information on
  the extent and types of discrimination, quality
  of social services, satisfaction of beneficiaries
• Theory, hypotheses development
• Goal gt Perceptions and attitudes registration,
  priority identification

8
Characteristics of quantitative research

• Representative and comparable
• Causal analysis, identification of inequalities
• Researcher pre-determines the communication
  (close)
• Limited participation
• Hypotheses, questionnaires, (random) sampling,
  fieldwork
• Objective and distanced analysis
• Conclusions based on a statistical logical
  analysis (deductive)

9
Characteristics of qualitative research

• Interactive and communicative
• Hypotheses developing
• Interpretative, understanding linkages
• Dynamic and flexible process
• Subjective
• Theoretical sampling
• Explanatory data analysis
• Conclusions based on repeated experiences
  (inductive)

10
Criticism to both approaches

• Qualitative
• - sample too small (1-5 people or single case
  study)
• - analysis not representative, subjective
• - cannot make generalizations
• Quantitative
• - distance to reality
• - reductive
• - limited participation or dynamic interaction

11
Which approach to choose?

• Choose the approach that better fits to the type
  of information you want to get (status or
  perceptions) and the need for this information
  (resource allocation, priority setting, causal
  analysis)
• Combining both approaches for proper
  vulnerability analysis possible but time and
  cost-extensive
• Better use existing data and research, proxies
• Both approaches have to be adapted to objective
  of research and social reality (i.e. MDG
  indicators, questions to address gender or
  issues, sampling and fieldwork focus group
  design, types of questions asked, moderation)

12
Example People living with HIV/Aids

• Type of information collected
• Perceptions of people living with HIV/Aids and
  relevant stakeholders on the type of challenges
  for this group and the institutions in terms of
  access, quality and availability to health care,
  education, employment
• Process
• Identification of participants, close cooperation
  with NGOs working with target community
• Develop focus groups/interviews sensitive and
  responsive to different sub-groups (IDUs, men
  having sex with men, sex workers and parental
  infected children)
• Questions and moderation
• Transcript processing and analysis

13
Example Roma and displaced household survey
(cont.)

• Type of information collected
• Status of Roma, displaced (IDPs/refugees) and
  majority living in close proximity and
  determinants of vulnerability
• Process
• Two separate questionnaires (status of the
  household and of each individual member)
• Sampling households in areas with compact Roma
  population (municipalities or neighborhoods with
  share of Roma population at and above the
  national average), majorities living in close
  proximity to Roma and IDPs/refugees where
  relevant
• Fieldwork (interviewer training, Roma assistant
  interviewers)
• Data clean up, processing and analysis

14
Example Roma and displaced household survey
(cont.)

• MDG indicators poverty rate, enrolment rate,
  maternal and infant mortality rate, access to
  water and sanitation
• Social exclusion indicators (long-term)
  unemployment rate, ethnic and gender ratio of
  unemployment, items in household, political
  participation, access to health and credit
  services, land
• Vulnerability profiles of all members of the
  household (special needs of elderly, women,
  children, low educated, unemployed, poor)
• Comparability across countries
• Comparability to national HBS and LFS could give
  an idea of the distance from national averages
• Data on the status of non-Roma living in close
  proximity could give an idea of the non-group
  related determinants of vulnerability

15
The issue of Schools for disabled - SEE
16
The issue of Schools for disabled a broader
picture
17
The issue of Schools for disabled
18
Thank you!

• Bratislava Regional Center
• 35 Grosslingova
• 81109 Bratislava, Slovak Republic
• 421 2 59337 111
• www.undp.org/europeandcis
• http//roma.undp.sk
• http//vulnerability.undp.sk

19
Education gender gap, Macedonia
20
Correlation between occupation and skill level
21
Unemployment by skill level
22
Unemployment by age
23
Unemployment by sex
24
Vicious circle of outstanding payments