Solutions There are six major options for producing disaggregated data. All of the approaches are mutually reinforcing and complement each other and may be seen as integral pillars of comprehensive system of ethnically sensitive data collection and monitoring. However, in some cases, additional legislation may need to be enacted to ensure full respect for the right to privacy and individual data integrity. 1. Disaggregating hard statistics using personal identification numbers as ethnic markers 2. Disaggregating hard statistics using territorial tags as ethnic markers 3. Extending the samples of regular sample surveys with Roma boosters 4. Custom “on the spot” surveys among recipients of social services 5. Community-based collection of data conducted by data collectors from the communities monitored 6. Census improvement 1. Personal Identification Number (PIN) based tagging PIN-tagging is based on the fact that in many countries the census records ethnic affiliation (e.g. mother tongue) and the individual respondents’ unique personal identification number (PIN). Matching the census identity with PIN registration in administrative data bases makes possible identification of the representatives from the respective ethnic group out of the total universe of the respective data base. This approach is applicable for extracting national-level ethnically disaggregated data on administrative (including population) statistics, registered unemployment, health treatment (both hospitalization and personal doctors visits), social insurance coverage (including labour contracts). Indicators such as registered unemployment rates, morbidity rates, mortality rates social assistance coverage, formal/informal employment rates may be computed with high level of accuracy.50 However, for such purpose, explicit procedures for data anonymization and relevant administrative structure need to be in place. 2. Territorial markers tagging This approach is based on the fact that minority groups are also excluded territorially, in separate (often segregated) communities. Thus territorial mapping of those communities is possible. Once a detailed map of minority-dominated communities is available, ethnic tags based on an individual’s address can be applied with the assumption that an individual living in an area identified as “predominantly one ethnic group” is from this ethnic group. These tags can be used, for instance, in line ministry registries (particularly Ministry of Education) and personal doctor databases. Territorial marker tagging is thus complementary to PIN-tagging. But it has some benefits that the latter does not have. To certain extent it can be more reliable because solves the problem with understating ethnic identity during censuses. It is also less susceptible to fluctuations due to changes in the political environment, revealing that ethnic identity is heavily influenced by the political climate, and the rise and influence of extremist parties. However, those benefits come at a cost – it grasps the marginalised, visually excluded segment of the ethnic population whilst the probability is high that the share of ethnic population integrated will fall out of the scope of the data collection exercise. The fact that census data underestimates the number of Roma population is not a problem because the similar degree of underreporting will appear both in the nominator and the denominator. In addition indicators computed on the basis of PIN-tagging can be correlated with other data to improve their robustness. 50 132 M A R G I N A L I S E D M I N O R I T I E S I N D E V E LO P M E N T P R O G R A M M I N g